Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 88-01-A - CITY OF TUKWILA - RIVERTON ANNEXATION
88-01-a riverton heights epic-01-88 RIVERTON ANNEXATION FOSTER ANNEXATION THORNDYKE ANNEXATION June 7, 1989 Harry Sanders Department of Elections 553A.Administration Building RE: CITY OF TUKWILA - Annex - Riverton (election method) Ordinance No 1508 BRB File No 1537, K C Ordinance No 8818 All necessary documents and required reports are now a matter of record on the above subject, therefore the processing of this proposal is finalized. Accordingly, we are forwarding copies of the necessary documents to the various interested county departments and other agencies. Very truly yours, Gerald A. Peterson Council Administrator By: - Attachments CC: Department of Assessments Boundary Review Board Building and Land Development Division General Services Division METRO Planning Division + Planning & Graphics Department of Public Works Department of Public Safety Environmental Health Division Washington State Department of Ecology Kroll Maps Thomas Brothers Maps Chicago Title Insurance Company Commonwealth Land Title Insurance First American Title Company of WA Ticor Title Insurance Safeco Title Insurance Company Transamerica Title Insurance Company Washington Natural Gas Company K.C. 911 Program f y f Ice off FF11 nce. - i t y of Tu AUDREY GRUGER LOIS NORTH ofilit tal N District 1 • District 4 District 7 King County Council Ron Sims, Chair Gerald Peterson. Council Administrator Room 402. King County Courthouse Seattle. Washington 98104 (206) 296-1000 Don Robinson CYNTHIA SULLIVAN RON SIMS GREG NICKELS District 2 District 5 District 8 Printed on recycled paper BILL REAMS BRUCE LAING GARY GRANT District 3 District 6 • District 9 CITY OF TU WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. / AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA, ADOPTING ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR THE ANNEXED AREA, PROVIDING THAT SAID ANNEXED AREA SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME ANY SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. las n tirf 22 r 2' ; K\AtILAcoutkc" WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila received a petition certified as sufficient by the King County Prosecuting Attorney, calling for an election to vote upon annexation of certain unincorporated territory contiguous to the City, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila determined that the signa- tures on the petition were sufficient and filed the Certificate of Sufficiency with the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution 1080, passed July 18, 1988, approved the proposed Riverton annexation area election- method annexation, and WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official for the City issued a Declaration of Non - Significance, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1479, 1480 and 1481, providing for zoning and land use regulations for the area to become effective upon annexation, and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board approved the annexa- tion in File No. 1537, dated December 8, 1988, and WHEREAS, the City Council in Resolution 1095, passed December 12, 1988, approved the proposed Riverton annexation area election method and requested an election date, and WHEREAS. pursuant to King County Council Ordinance No. 8818, an election was held in the area proposed for annexation on March 14, 1989, with the results of said election being that the voters approved annexation together with the proposed zoning and land use regulations and rejected assumption of the City's outstanding indebtedness. and WHEREAS, the County Canvassing Board will submit the Statement of Canvass to the King County Council, and the King County Council will enter its finding with regard thereto, and a certified cony of the min,ates reflecting such pn try will be transmitted, along with the certified abstract of the vote, to the City Clerk, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to annex the area proposed for annexation without requiring it to assume any portion of the City's existing indebt- edness, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ffice of the City: A Filed with the City Clerk: .5 .41 F9 Passed by the City Council: S..21-r7 Published Valley Daily News: 3-3/ - p9 Effective Date: - F9 Ordinance Number /so 8 RIVERTON ANNEXATION ORDINANCE Page 2 Section 1. Annexation. The real property known as the. Riverton Annexation Area, more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and shown on Exhibit B. attached hereto, both of which are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, should be and hereby is annexed to and made a part of the City of Tukwila as of IS ; 1989, and shall thereafter be subject to the zoning and land use r ations as adopted in City of Tukwila Ordinance Nos. 1479, 1480 and 1481. Section 2. Assumption of Indebtedness. Pursuant to the results of the annexa- tion election, the property within the territory annexed hereby shall not be required to assume through assessment or taxes, any indebtedness, bonded or otherwise, contracted prior to or existing as of the effective date of the annexation. Said prop- erty shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City to pay for . any bonds issued or other debts contracted subsequent to the date of : annexation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after publication' of the attached Summary which is hereby approved. PROVED AS TO FO APPROVED: Clerk PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUI WILA; WASH - INGTON, at a special meeting thereof this 02 7 do day of 2e2gidgeL, 1989. Van Dusen; Mayor ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Anderson, Ci EXHIBIT A R.IVERTON` PROPOSED ANNEXATION 12 AUG 88 REV. Beginning at the Intersection of the east margin of East Marginal .Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim �:.No....37'.in the•,southwest 1/4 of Section'10,'T23N, 'thence southeasterly along said east•margin of East Marginal way, 442.31 feet. to.the.south Aine of Tract•22, Riverside ' Interurban Tracts as•recorded An Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats, .Records of King County, WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence "easterly along - said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the'Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the.west Ilne'.ot'said right -of -way, 850 feet more• to a point opposite •the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside.interurban Tracts ;. • 'thence Best along the easterly prolongation of the.south line of • said. Tract 33 to the•thread of the Duwamlsh'River; ; thence along said thread to the east margin' of' 42nd Avenue South; >; thence.southwesterly along'•said east margin and the southerly .e.xtension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; •. thence southwest • margin to an intersection with the southerly extensi.on.of •the.west••margin of 42nd Avenue • South; thence southerly along said west margin of. 42nd. Avenue South contiguous with. the Tukwila''City Limits'as set forth. .under King .:County Comm,issioner Resolution No. •23309 dated 10- 11 -61' (Tukwila Ordinance 276), .to the south margin of. South 131st Street; • thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line. of Tract 58 of said.. Riverside interurban T to•the east'margin of South 131st Place (East Marginal Way South); thence southeasterly• along s414 east margin and easterly along the north : margin of South 1,33rd Street,respectively, to the west margin of 42nd,.Avenue, South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west. margin to the. south margin•of.South 133rd Street'; • •thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of ' South •133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing In a southeasterly direction along the•. northerly ..margin of.. South 135th. Street to • the northwesterly line. of the.. southeasterly 1.86 acres of •Tract , 14, An Fostoria. Garden Tracts as recorded In Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, records of King County, MAI thence north 40 17 east along said north line 220.32 feet; thence south 49 east, 91.43 feet to the northwesterly line of the southeasterly 0.86 acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40'17 east, a distance of 132.89 feet; • thence south 49 east, 10 •feet; thence north 40 east, 119.11 testy C. rn • thence;:southiettfrUY 4 :tile. southwest margIn•• louth-. 134th - -'steset'150 feet MOre.or lets:to..tho southwesterly , extenslon.of. .the .•south•ast. margin •of:47th SOUth,AforMerly Adami :Avenue);. thence northeasterly -,aUong. : .•xtension and southeast margin, 'respectlyoly,' .to th* west, line of Primary State • Highway No. 1 condemned :under' Superior Court Cause 618283 • records of King County; • thence southerly 'along seld to an ..intersection with the easterly •xtension of the south line. of ,the' Cyrus.:. Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said. easterly extensfon'Aint.elong:sait south .1Ine, respectively, to thlo west margin of Macadam A044 South (46th • Avenue South); thence southerly along said west mergin'and:cOntinui,nsr.south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th .Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin .to the' West Aineof Lot 23 .of.8lock 3 In Rivorton•Macedem road Tracts, recorded,1170olumo 15, Page S3.of Plats, Records of King County, WA; . • - thence northerly alonci.said west - line to the easterly ,prolongation of•the 'north 'margin of South 139th Street; ... • 'thence westerly along said.easterly.prolongatIon'.and said north line.to the east margin .of •Pacillc"HIghlay South (Highway .99)1 • thence northerly :along 'said: east margin' to 'the thread of the 0u4aml4h:River; • thence easterly along'sald River to the west line of Section 10, T23N, • • thence • southerly along Wald. vest AlAe•tO.the south': line of the • . north 1168.66 feet oUsald-Siction.10; thence easterly along said south•lliwtothe west margin of East Marginal lay Southr:., • -•' • • thence. .southerly along WA west margIn•to. iPs Int•rsection with the line of .King County No.. 785018 as recOrded.under KIni“Ounty::.Recording:No. th•nc• - westerly along,said,nipeth Arno of - Lot 1 and its •xtension • to . the Northwest corner .of seld .Short Plat; • - • thence •southerlyHelong the west lins, thereof to the Southwest corner of :said Short Platy • • th•nc. • easterly alonirthesouth Fine of Lot .4 in said Short Plat to extended' eest'llne of Lot 16,• Slock'C'of Riverton Addition as :recorded In Vol. 13: .Of PlatS,. County, WA; theftell.:southerlyelong sald,Amxtenslon and east ,IIne and the east • 11nAvof".0t. Srto•tOcnolithmargIA of South 124th Street; .thenCe:, - easterly along said north margin 'and :alOng, the • •asterly : :ATolengation . thereoVtothe.east 'margin of East Marginal Way South; :• -southerly , along said east Margin , to' the. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. r.. • ! O. Nog CU WA MI SM • .s RIVERTON ZONING •/Y!A ••! 1.111 I I• 'M iet . R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 7200 R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 12,000 R -4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C -1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C -2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C -M INDUSTRIAL PARK P -O OFFICE M -1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M -2 HEAVY INDUSTRY RECEIVED `° MAY 22 Pm 7.'+5 ` K'li :! I rFCOUNCll• .4/ • \ \� r itt • • V • • ADOPTED BY ORD. 14801 PUBLISH: Valley Daily News DATE: March 31, 1989 SENT: March 29, 1989 (Dtr TO: FAX NUMBER - 854 -1006 FROM: CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 BY: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk 433 -1800 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1508 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA, ADOPTING ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR THE ANNEXED AREA, PROVIDING THAT SAID ANNEXED AREA SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME ANY SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. On March 27, 1989 , the City Council of the City of Tukwila, passed Ordinance No. 1508 .. , which provides as follows: Annexes to the City of Tukwila the area described therein, known as the Riverton Annexation area, effective April 15, 1989, provides zoning and.land use regulations for such . area, provides that said area shall not be subject to prior City indebtedness, and.establishes an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed without charge to anyone who submits a written request to the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila for a copy of the text. Approved by the City Council at its meeting of March 27, 1989. aAnder soy Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 January 4, 1989 HDM /1848C Introduced by: Ron Sims Proposed No.: 89 -30 ORDINANCE NO. 881 AN ORDINANCE establishing the date of an election on the question of annexation, zoning and assumption on indebtedness to the City of Tukwila of an unincorporated area known as Riverton. STATEMENT OF FACT: 1. The City of Tukwila, Washington, by Resolution No. 1080 has determined that it is in the public interest, health, safety and general welfare to provide for annexation of an area known as . Riverton in accordance with Chapter 35A.14 R.C.W. 2. Said resolution does satisfy the provisions of R.C.W. 35A.14.010 for qualification for annexation. 3. The City of Tukwila, by Resolution No. 1080 adopted July 18, 1988, concurs in the annexation of the area known as Riverton as provided by R.C.W. 35A.14.050. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.93.100, the Boundary Review Board (BRB) invoked jurisdiction and in accordance with RCW 36.39.160 on December 8, 1988, filed its written decision approving the proposed annexation as submitted. 5. Pursuant to Chapter 29.13 and RCW 35A.14, the council deems an emergency exists for purpose of calling a special election. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: SECTION 1. A special election shall be held on the 14th day of March, 1989, in accordance with R.C.W. 35A.14.050 to be held within the tgr,ritory of the proposed annexation, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters within said territory the questions of annexation, zoning and assumption of indebtedness. SECTION 2. The number of registered voters within the subject areas is estimated at 158 as nearly as may be determined from available records, and has been certified as such. SECTION 3. The ballot title, as directed by statute, should be substantially as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 JV 31 32 33 AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS HDM /1848C /Dec. 27, 1988 -2- f ( A. Shall the area as described in this ordinance of unincorporated King County commonly known as Riverton be annexed to and be a part of the City of Tukwila and the zoning and land use regulations for the area as found in City of Tukwila be adopted? FOR ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS AGAINST ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS B. Shall all property within the area, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as the property of the City of Tukwila is assessed and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City, including assessments for taxes in payment of any bonds issued or debts contracted prior to or existing as of the date of annexation? FOR ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS SECTION 4. The boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation are hereby described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the East margin of East Marginal Way South and the North line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Touwnship 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence Southeasterly along said East margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the South line of Tract 22, Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Easterly along said South line of Tract 22 and the Easterly prolongation thereof to the West line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; Thence Southerly along the West line of said right -of -way, 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the South line of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; Thence East along the Easterly prolongation of the South line u au; ,,, of the Duwamish River; 2 3 HDM /1848C /Dec. 27, 1988 -3- Thence along said Thread to the East margin of 42nd Avenue South; Thence Southwesterly along said East margin and the Southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the Southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; Thence Northwesterly along said Southwest margin to an intersection with the Southerly extension of the West margin of 42nd Avenue South; Thence Southerly along said West margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated October 11, 1961, Tukwila Ordinance No. 276, to the South margin of South 131st Street; Thence Westerly along said South margin and continuing Westerly along the North line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the East margin of South 131st Place (East Marginal Way South); Thence Southeasterly along said East margin and easterly along the North margin of South 133rd Street, respectively, to the West margin of 42nd Avenue South; Thence Southerly along the Southerly extension of said West margin to the South margin of South 133rd Street; Thence Easterly along the Easterly extension of said South margin of South 133rd Street to the East margin of 42nd Avenue South; Thence Southerly and continuing in a Southeasterly direction along the Northerly margin of South 135th Street to the Northwesterly line of the Southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, Records of King County, WA; Thence North 40 East along said North line 220.32 feet; Thence South 49 East, 91.43 feet to the northwesterly line of the Southeasterly 0.86 acres of said Tract 14; Thence North 40 East, a distance of 132.89 feet; Thence South 49 East, 10 feet; Thence North 40 East, 119.11 feet; Thence Southeasterly along the Southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or less to the Southwesterly extension of the Southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); Thence Northeasterly along said Southwesterly extension and Southeast margin, respectively, to the West line of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 Records of King County; 1 2 3 4 8818 Thence Southerly along said West line to an intersection with the Easterly extension of the South line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; Thence Westerly along said Easterly extension and along said South line, respectively, to the West margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); Thence Southerly along said West margin and continuing South along the West margin of 46th Avenue South to the North margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); Thence Westerly along said North margin to the West line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam Road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15, Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County, WA; Thence Northerly along said West line to the Easterly prolongation of the North margin of South 139th Street; Thence Westerly along said Easterly prolongation and said North line to the East margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); Thence Northerly along said East margin to the North line of the Duwamish River; Thence Easterly along said North line of the Duwamish River to the West lne of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Thence Southerly along said West line to the South line of the North 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; Thence Easterly along said South line to the West margin of East Marginal Way South; Thence Southerly along said West margin to its Intersection with the North line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; Thence Westerly along said North line of Lot 1 and its extension to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; Thence Southerly along the West line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; Thence Easterly along the South line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to the extended East line of Lot 16, ':lock 4 of Riverton Addition as recorded in Volume 13 of Plats, Page 36, records of King County, WA; Thence Southerly along said extension and East line, and the East line of Lot 9 to the North margin of South 124th Steeet; Thence Easterly along said North margin and along the Easterly prolongation thereof to the East margin of East Marginal Way South; Thence Southerly along said East margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. HDM /1848C /Dec. 27, 1988 -4- 1 3 4 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 SECTION 5. The notice of required by law. SECTION 6. As provided in RCW 29.36.120 and King County Motion 7393, the King County council requests the manager of records and election department to conduct the election by mail. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 2.74 day of Atweithe , 1988. PASSED this G f ` - day of , 1981. ATTEST: 1 of the Council HDM /1848C /Jan. 4, 1988 -5- 8 1 (t election shall be published as ING COUNT KI a TY COUNCIL ai APPROVED this )-74\ day of ���u�r 198Y. King ouunty Executive WASHINGTON ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TUKWILA ( Riverton) COUNCIL DISTRICT 5 KING COUNTY ORD. NO. CITY ORD. NO. or DIST. RES. NO 1508 effective 4-6-89 RIVERTON ZONING • R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 7200 R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 12,000 P: LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS [=:] C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK P-0 OFFICE ES3 M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY i I ADOPTED BY ORD. 1480 11111:\ WILts. • . . • . 11111Mk. 1. t ..e1171:c.__IMIZElb. 4 644,g . ,•... ',.'• 0 .14s.....:_." , • - ra .7: - ‘i 17,2:5WEIMilb. R....a.1-..=1 I .a_ZN..ariM.ffarth 1 11 "; / C .. ' ' // ‘ if ) 'V z t.I.:::.:■...,11...• . — – ..-......":e 6 Z.L.,:,... '."... ... ::-.r._:,;.-ii...i.: ..... 1 0 4, ,, , , .,.. . . ...-,—...--........--E::.1-....,...-,.....,....,...../....--...',.....- ..SV. -./ Ific "--" 2,.._ . , :L.77., Ntatila. 'SI,/ C 40 00 ;.1.- _ " L. _..... .......z. ,` WOW 'd r • , I re • • = • 'VESZ11 • • . ado,. 1 1 ,E.i„ -- , - „,• -• ""7" . r;• tr - 7" "i nrcr - - "7 • 7.1 1` "7! ; NE EM. NIL": 'Ut M3O tTT k. 1 • CM MI 11'7 J L. 7-1-2 . ,- CTLir; " "A I . _ . LI I • . • - ! 133 ... • • • ."‘ ; AZ i I . CI 4.. .7gr. – - VI • UU .;11.:-CrlaVr` 1 4.* —733 R 14.:..."11.1■11MM111, "sr 6 .1332. 7 133 (>8 47! IE Mt I 11 IIMINWIWrealWitilIMR111611PI1 aernmws eons 011111111 git sli orseWiiiiiiiir =11111111i cis= 8 I umeraiirVI Z 1 111111:6111& IIIIMMINIIIII1110. I MEIVEME11111111Nrcl Albs:III ikatin=11111111E■ MN AWN I MI: IMENN Mal witsaMMIIIIIMIAIII11111 11111V..., 111. 3 10'1 • - • IlprI1111.111111111111=21111113111 • ' 01111111111111 I HMI I MN , / MiNelimmINNMI • , 4111111111 Z1111111! =111111111=111 I MEI If I Mit ION, I IIIMIt 1111111, tall lk I I allet ■te....1711trr • 1 I NMI t '1 LI. . 7 f / IIIII MN 3.. • illaillia. \lila 1 .., 11111' lin MOM , .. 0 , 01 ,,/ •' / MIIIRWIll NAIIIIIIIMMIL \ \' / A ° /' IMIWAIMINIMIIM .',N., c4/.- 1111/AIVAIIIIIIIIMIIII.. Nk‘ i -, /, wristalmailmook . 5 / www.awromp..m.c.. 1 . / / FIZIAMMIlwrir - Nw e / oo t E11111111111117.1. isillat ' titer e'. ' . menrier ummay.h ,ffia.lwm.y.e.:-.... I , ' , s . 4 441 41 111 10 :41: 4/01. " - --f-FearureatA .„, " ' - '' ' . -5 7 •17 4 .7 4 .b. 771 7' --A:: f -7 ..",. * Tz_ .PE• 4") • - . - . r c.:14 7 ”..... ' - , ...,1 1 ..1. .,.. , . - ..- -"- ' ."- t • • _ Lf- raTh II P. » " / • I t iSel U . . - r. - - -- '4C - 1 i ' ' ..'' na akr -AI. :, v axian - -- ----.--...- e---. t Iter"•• riatti "7" ''' • ' 7 15 5588 1 3r 3% 4 7. A C OND MINIUM 61 UNITS S P. iO83O s I MINI I '17;7 F...;11/:/•; ti 111111 -4 4.. •- 1 I I r 3 L 11 , i■ 1 3 1 1 1 ZONING KEY KING COUNTY ZONING RS 7200RESIDENTIAL SINGLE - FAMILY CLASSIFICATION RD 3600TWO- FAMILY DWELLING CLASSIFICATION SR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION RM 900 MAXIMUM DENSITY MULTIPLE - DWELLING RESTRICTED SERVICE CLASSIFICATION BN' NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION MH HEAVY MANUFACTURING CLASSIFICATION • TUKWILA ZONING R -1 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES R -4 LOW APARTMENTS R -M -H MULTIPLE - RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C-1 ' COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS 'M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY C a \. Il b_ - E4.ik 10At I. I5 AG. • LP r m • CO so 0tt G. Net e78 30 /t. /4 II. /0/ 13. I /00 (2) nco li ��I LL69 3D 5 ' I45 ° S /,: ▪ • �4, 71.71�Sf.SO .fRSO l SOS ( Si 0 • A 2 3 I '2 'zC� 60 �4ilY I`II�g' 164.J � N . \k S6S0 56.50 I sc IS S I s L ° ()5 : ° I f 3 ° S7 � I I 0 I RIVER' •CE S 1.1GTII 5 140111 ST , .t.t.atsn 1- 2 tt .. ... .. • M-2 1 P44 -7 1 :1 2 - 1: 't I:4711 51' kvy T kT S 12s tit —•.•— M-2 [AN& Afi VR -1.7:2 L if r.s --". --■ — --A ., V.:: .: • : :: 717 Z . 0 ; -: 2 : 1 — .1,3 .21! L t I 1 5 13t ST . . .. • r R-3.•-• , . .... T1 1NG RO ,ii • R;.1-7.2=` \*! 1 ' . 11 .'.tqi 11.1 "/__ 1 1. !. 1.1... • .....„, ,. 7 . :.:: 7 " E.-• -., — .1F' 1 ,... ..:1.. 1 ....“. 'i.i': I. 1 r■I l 'i 'l .".::..i 1.1:71. 4....11F 41 -...r 1 1: 7 1`.; :::1-.'l 1 'I••••:•11\ Alil bllllL 111:11i I11th . T.111] Ell 1:11;11.11d111:11L . L1 s : : ii,,t ~",_:t • .:-,:',..,\ v. , .... KWILA-- 1 ' 4 ' 1 HORELINE ''.—. ‘,...., I t:t 144111ST I . 117 .4 .... fl 11 1; L Irk 1-1 L.. • tilt 1[ N / M-1 S. R-A -1 nT C FOSTER GOLF COL L t■tt r, , j E 14 16 " IS" O 2 179TH3Sr ANNEXATION AREA 0r1E .,4 : 414400.00toatrate. NSIVE PLAN C ..: HA OF. PRE ZONING A1.4.0W4, s r i .-. •., : ; 0 :. I .2 .., .2 • ■ •••• ...:: ... ........ ..1 ..•:• ••••• ..% • .....:. I ... —.a :::: . 2 ::: % ::::: ...... I i S. , Id s 2 r ND -:•:. ::;.: ‘.) ;4 ••.-: :::: t., :::•.: •:::: i t. : ::-: •;.... --:- :-::- :;!: *•-: ..... .-.% .•::: ...I. .-.• .-.• ...•„ :-::: '.'• ff 44 3 Ac ::•:- • - REZONE • 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • l'AUL dt,t1 I EN 1 L CHANGE / ILE RMAN SCI4OEU9CUL E Fl 42 Ac 4 %ft6 .33 T • 56 r.c C - • 3 ti \\ N . • :I.: ...1 DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE r H sr \ s • • • \:- SUBJECT AREA TUKWILA BOUNDARY Iii 11 I . -1 ------- fl . • !:-.4] • SEE -CRE,ST;r__'.1 • i T A • 1 " ) '2 A ! 9 ■ i 0 ' i • , 5 - , • ii H . : TUKWILA BOUNDARY s ' 1 - _ !I i › .-1 .11 --< 1 I i : I I 1 , 5T77- j ..i. i 1 i I / D I 1 1 ' • 1 .. .0 I • i ; o r S FEE - i NORM MALENO PKOSECUTINO ATTORNEY 14:20 i it': 1 1 6G CT) r F,'EC.E ELE.: T= TEL t iC x:.7.:06— �Ei_—:1� �_. 4E FA: February 3, 1989 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION 1989 FEB -3 PN, 3' 27 E 550 Kim: COUNTY COURTHOUSE 516 Thtetr AVINUZ SEATTLE, W:1SHINQr 96104 (206) 296•9015 Ms. Jane Hague, Manager Records and Elections Division 553 King County Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: Ballot Title and Explanatory Statement for Proposition No. 1 -- Pr ed Annexation of the City of Tukwila Riverton Dear Ms. Hague: Consistent with RCW 29.27.060, RCW 29.81A.040(3), RCW 35A.29.120 and King County Code Chapter 1.10, this office has prepared a ballot title and an explanatory statement for the above - referenced proposed annexation of the City of Tukwila. By this letter, I am transmitting both the ballot title and the explanatory statement to you. The text of the ballot title shall be as follows: "Shall the area of unincorporated King County contiguous to the City of Tukwila and known as Riverton, and legally described in Resolution No. 1080 of the City of Tukwila and King County Ordinance No. 8818, be annexed to the City of Tukwila and the zoning and land use regulations for the area as found in the City of Tukwila be adopted ?" The text of the explanatory statement shall be as follows: "The annexation will be approved if a majority of the votes cast are in favor of annexation and the adoption of the City of Tukwila's zoning and land use regulations. If approved, the area known as Riverton and located in unincorporated King County adjacent to the City of Tukwila would become a part of the City of Tukwila. NORM MJ%LENc PROSECUTING ATTORNEY February 3, 1989 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION 1989 FEB -3 PM 312 7 . f . E 550 KING Cc NT1 C:OL'ITHOLISE 516 THIRD Avu :uE SLAATL4, M AGHINOTCN 4@1C4 (206) 296.9015 Ms. Jane Hague, Manager Records and Elections Division 553 King County Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: Ballot Title and Explanatory Statement for Proposition No. 2 -- Assumption of Indebtedness '(Riverton) Dear Ms. Hague: Consistent with RCW 29.27.060, RCW 29.81A.040(3), RCW 35A.29.120 and King County Code Chapter 1.10, this office has prepared a ballot title and an explanatory statement for the above - referenced proposed annexation of the City of Tukwila. By this letter, I am transmitting both the ballot title and the explanatory statement to you. The text of the ballot title shall be as follows: "Shall all property within the area, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as the property located within the City of Tukwila is assessed and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City, which indebtedness has been approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or existing at, the date of annexation ?" The text of the explanatory statement shall be as follows: "The proposition for the assumption of indebtedness will be approved if a majority of at least 60 percent of the voters in the Riverton area voting on the proposition vote in favor, and if the number of persons voting constitutes no less than 40 percent of the total number of votes cast in the area at the last preceding general election. • FEB-07-'89 1 4 : i! i L : t 1;f3 = T i S_ _ ELE': T = TEL IKII:2n-ki6-01klic. If you have any questions about the foregoing, please do not hesitate to let me know. If approved, all property in the area would be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property currently located within the City of Tukwila and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City, which indebtedness has been approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or existing at, the date of annexation." Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG, King County Prosecuting Attorney: C KEVIN M. RAYMOND Deputy Prosecuting Attorney KMR:cr V U 1 L t: J L./iv r%I' 4 I L I o11 I .,l i r r U i i. RESPONSIVE/AC9ESSIBLE ELECTED PRESENTATION Mayor and City Council • members live within the community and are aware of issues important to local citizens. • OCAL :4T)tOL. Some functions and services now provided by King County will be controlled and administered by Tukwila, allowing a greater degree of • local citizen control and influence. King.County Council representatives we elect will manage regional issues•and concerns. • PARTICIPAT!N IN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Public hearings /meetings held evenings in the community, not downtown as with King County. - SIMPLIFIED GOVERNMENT. Building end utility permits administered locally and generally more quickly. STRONG LOCAL SCHO9L.SUPPORT, Tukwila sponsors DARE drug education program and "Learn Not To Burn" lire prevention program. Out small district needs continued strong support. • RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. Tukwila is committed, through pre•annexation zoning, to preserving our existing residential neighborhoods. - HIGHER STANDA FOR BUSIWE DEVELOPMENT, Tukwila requires business developments be built responsibly. 6Z 01 Wd 9 established police patrol district will serve our neighborhood 24 -hours a day, funded cruelly by Southeenter's tax base. • MORE SERVICES FROM YOUR PROPERTY TAXES, For the same tax dollar citizens will receive a higher level of service from Police, Fire/ Emergency, Public Works, Planning, etc. - NO CHANGE IN UTILITIES. (Water, Sewer, Electricity, Gas, Garbage) - NO INCREASE IN TAXES. SUPPORT YOUR COMMUNITY, VOTE= Allan Ekberg, Co -Chair 2416904 Kathryn Stetson, Treasurer 243.7504 Riverton Annexation Proposal Group SUPPORTED BY: SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL BOARD SOUTH CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL CASCADE VIEW PSO THORNDYKE PSO FOSTER BOOSTER CLUB RIVERTON COMMUNITY GROUP FRIENDS OF FOSTER LIBRARY 933 696! • 2 /3/89 ::TATENENT ,►GAINST 1:h TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA • Better police protection will result by staying with King County. Our community has big -city problems. We need a big police department having resources to handle our problems. The 570- officer King County Police Department has homicide, vice, drug enforcement, and other specialty detectives that Tukwila cannot afford. King County cost per officer equals :+59 per 1000 citizens. Cost for Tukwila equals $427. Tukwila's 30-officer police force is too small to prevent its having the highest serious -crime rate per capita in the state. King County police operate in adjacent areas with a much lower serious -crime rate. Better fire protection exists in King County. Both the Tukwila Fire Department and King County Fire District 11 have a rating of 4. Tukwila requires 456 points to get the higher rating of 3. King County Fire District 11 needs only 179 points. • King County allows newly placed mobile homes. Tukwila doesn't. Staying with King County offers this low -cost housing and provides an expanded tax base. • Lower taxes are no reason to join Tukwila. The difference is peanuts. If annexation occurs, Tukwila would disccver taxable capital improvements and inadequate police protection. Taxes would be made to rise, possibly including those on utilities. King County is not permitted to tax utilities. • The city council has a Lind of its own. It has down -zoned and rezoned capriciously without proper debates with those affected. Tukwila issued false declarations about its police department. Tukwila has lost much of its credibility. • Vote NO to annexation. Philip Hemenway Billie rc$enne D. William Poirier Ramona Crossen Riverton Conmitee Against Tukwila Annexation ZZ :1111V 9. 83A 6961 Washington State Boundary Review Board TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TUKWILA FROM: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive IN RE: RESOLUTION AND HEARING FILE NO, 1537, 1538, 1544 For King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 December 12, 1988 Secretary The Resolution and Hearing Decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board in and for King County on the above- referenced file is enclosed for filing as prescribed by RCW 36.93.160(4). In order for the proposed action to be finalized, it is now necessary that you complete the other statutory requirements or procedures specified in your Notice of Intention. Where required, you must file with King County a certified copy of your final ordinance or resolution accomplishing this action, together with a copy of this letter, with The Office of the Clerk of the Council, 402 King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington 98104, ATTN: Ms. Helene Mociulski. If we have denied this proposal, you need do nothing further. GBM /pr !)LL 1 1988 DECISION - CITY OF TUKWILA: Annexations (Riverton, Thorndvke, Foster): XC: CLERK OF THE COUNCIL, ATTN: Helene Mociulski COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN CZ RESOURCES COM. ATTN: Holly Kean K.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, ATTN: Rex Knight K.C. DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, ATTN: Diane Murdock BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, ATTN: Mr. James C. Tracy, Manager K.C. DEPARTMENT OF RECORDS AND ELECTIONS E 911 PROGRAM THE HONORABLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, K.C.F.P.D. #11 THE HONORABLE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS, VAL VUE, RAINIER VISTA S.D.s THE HONORABLE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS, K.C.W.D. #125 SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT THE HONORABLE KING COUNTY COUNCIL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY IN RE: CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed ) FILE NO. 1537, 1538, 1544 Annexations (Riverton, Thorndyke, and Foster), ) ALL IN KING COUNTY, RESOLUTION AND HEARING WASHINGTON ) DECISION The Notices of Intention filed in Boundary Review Board Files No. 1537, 1538 and 1544 proposed the annexation of certain territory by the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. After notice duly given, a hearing was held November 15, 1988, before a quorum of the Boundary Review Board at the Sea -Tac Red Lion Motor Inn, located in the Sea -Tac community. The hearing was continued on November 17th and November 22nd at that location, and on November 29th and December 8th in Bellevue, Washington at the offices of the Board. The annexation hearings were conducted simultaneously with the hearing on File No. 1523, the proposed incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac. The annexation and incorporation proposals include overlapping territory. The Board determined to consider the annexation proposals in accordance with RCW 36.93.115. Consequently there is one exhibit file which is common to all four cases. On the basis of the testimony, evidence, and exhibits presented at said Hearing, and the matters on file in said File No. 1537, 1538, 1544 and 1523, it is the decision of said Board that the action proposed in said Notices of Intention for annexation be, and the same are, hereby approved. FILE NO. 1537 (Riverton) is approved as submitted. FILE NO. 1538 (Thorndyke) is approved as submitted. FILE NO. 1544 (Foster) is approved as submitted. Maps and legal descriptions are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. They are entitled as follows: Page Eleven - Map of Riverton - Exhibit A Page Twelve - Legal Description - Riverton - Exhibit A.1 Page Thirteen - Legal Description - Riverton - Exhibit A.2 Page Fourteen - Map of Thorndyke - Exhibit B Page Fifteen - Legal Description - Thorndyke - Exhibit B.1 Page Sixteen - Map of Foster - Exhibit C Page Seventeen - Legal Description - Foster - Exhibit C.1 Page Eighteen - Legal Description - Foster - Exhibit C.2 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPOSAL In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the many factors prescribed in RCW 36.93.170. The following have been selected for particular attention. PAGE ONE - TUKWILA: Riverton, Poster, Thorndyke (Apv.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Land Area The three annexations are contiguous to Tukwila on their east sides and are arranged in a north to south tier in the order of Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke. Although this order does not conform to the numeric order of files, it is logical in a top -to- bottom sense and was used by nearly all of the witnesses. Consequently, the same order will be found in this decision. The Riverton annexation is 223 acres situated between the Duwamish River on the north and South 139th Street on the south, the east margin of Pacific Highway South (S.R. 99) on the west and Tukwila on the east. Immediately south of Riverton is the Foster proposal, which consists of 196 acres, also bounded on the west by S.R. 99, and on the east by Tukwila. The south boundary of the Foster annexation follows South 144th Street, which is also the north boundary of the Thorndyke proposal. Thorndyke lies east of S.R. 99 and extends easterly to the boundaries of Tukwila. Its south boundary follows So. 160th Street. Thorndyke is the largest of the annexations at 469 acres. The three proposals total 888 acres, or 1.39 square miles. All utilize the east right -of -way line of S.R. 99. The City currently is 4.5 square miles, or 2,888 acres. If these annexations are successful, the City would be expanded to 5.9 square miles, or 3768 acres, a 31% increase. Riverton, in addition to being contigous to existing city limits, is contiguous to the annexation referred to as "Fire District No. I ", (Boundary Review Board File No. 1450.) That annexation is scheduled to go to the voters in February, 1989. Population The Riverton annexation contains a population of 1,224, for a density of 5.49 per acre. Foster has 752 residents, at 3.83 per acre, and Thorndyke has 4,604 for 9.82 per acre. The total population added by these annexations would be 6,580. The existing Tukwila population is 4,780 and the new combined total would be 11,360. The resulting increase would be 138 %. Tukwila's current population density is 1,058 persons per square mile, or 1.65 per acre, considerably less than that of the annexation areas. Much of Tukwila is devoted to the Southcenter shopping mall and light industrial or office uses. The daytime or transient population is far greater than the resident population in Tukwila. These annexations will result in a population density of 1,930 per square mile, or 3.02 per acre. The Puget Sound Council of Governments projects only slight population growth in Tukwila by the year 2000. PSCOG projects negligible growth for the general area. The Riverton Forecast Analysis Zone (which includes much of the annexation areas) is projected to decline in population. The Sea -Tac incorporation area described in File No. 1523 includes more than 4,000 motel and hotel rooms. Most of these rooms are located in the subject annexations. This results in a large transient population although no estimate was provided. Topography In the Riverton area, drainage is generally to the north where it flattens out in the northern two - thirds of the annexation area. The Foster area is generally PAGE TWO - TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke (Apv.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 located on top of the western slope of the Green River Valley. It is fairly flat except for ten to fifty percent slopes in the northeastern portion. The Thorndyke area also lies mostly on the plateau above the river valley, although parts of the area are steep hillsides or portions of ravines draining to the river. The river in this vicinity is referred to as both the Green River and Duwamish River. The transition in name occurs somewhere in the vicinity of Interstate 405. Land Uses, Comprehensive Plans and Zoning The annexation areas are primarily residential in character with commercial developments along S.R. 99 and East Marginal Way. Riverton contains low intensity commercial centers at the intersection of East Marginal Way So. with So. 136th Street and South 126th Street. Foster High School and a junior high school are located in the Foster annexation, along the north side of 144th Street. The north end of Riverton is a commercial - industrial area. Community facilities include an undevel- oped County park (South Gate Park), South Central Pool operated by King County, the Foster Library and a King County Fire Protection District No. 18 station. The King County Comprehensive Plan and the Highline Community Plan are the two primary County documents which apply to this area. Comprehensive plan policies pertinent to annexation include: P -I 203: King County should play an active role in municipal annexations, supporting them when consistent with land use plans and opposing them when inconsistent. P -I 302: King County should work with cities to focus growth within the King County Comprehensive Plan. King County should support incor- poration when formation of cities is appropriate to assure adequate facilities and services for growth, consistent with the plans. P -I 304: King County and its cities should work together to identify future annexation areas. Interlocal agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within agreed -upon annexation areas. The process should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, land owners, and affected governmental agencies. Land Use Classifications by Planning Area The King County Comprehensive Plan provides a general classification and policy guideline for land use in an area. The County Comprehensive Plan designations are as follows: RIVERTON FOSTER Urban /Park Urban The Highline Community Plan is the device by which the County provides PAGE THREE - TUKW1LA: Riverton, Poster, Thorndyke (Apv.) THORNDYKE Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 more specific guidelines for land use. RIVERTON Industrial Light Manufact. Single Family High /Maximum Density Multi- ple Family Neighborhood Bus. Community Bus. Park & Recre. Low /Medium Den- sity Multiple Family The existing County zoning categories are: RIVERTON Heavy Manu. (M H ) Manu. Park (MP) Lt. Manu. (ML) General Corn. (CG) Neigh. Bus. (BN) Multiple Fam. (RM -900) Duplex (RD -3600) Single Family (RS-7200) Residential (SR) The City's Comprehensive Plan addresses RIVERTON Lt. Industrial Commercial Low Density Res. High Density Res. Parks & Open Sp. Those classifications are as follows: FOSTER Highway Commercial Low Density Res. High /Maximum Density Multiple Family Community Facilities Parks and Open Space FOSTER CG RS -7200 BC Mult- Family (RM-2400) Multi- Family (RM -1800) FOSTER Low Density Res. High Density Res. Public Faci 1 ity Parks & Open Sp. PAGE FOUR- TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke (Apv.) THORNDYKE Highway Corn. High /Maximum Density Multi- ple Family Corn . Fact 1 ities Park & Open Sp. Neighborhood Bus. Community Bus. Low /Med. Den- sity Res. Single Family THORNDYKE CG BN RM -900 RS -7200 BC RM -2400 RM -1800 the annexation areas as follows: THORNDYKE Commercial High Density Res. Public Facility Parks & Open Sp. Low Density Res. Tukwila created a Task Force of citizens in the area to consult on land use, and will include a zoning regulation on the ballot with the annexation elections. In general, the land use classifications proposed by the City are not substantially different from existing County zoning. Densities for approximately forty acres would be reduced from high to low or medium. Also, some changes from residential to office and /or commercial would affect approximately sixty -five acres. There are several identified environmentally sensitive areas in the annexations. In Riverton, this includes the hill east of East Marginal Way and north of South 124th Street and south of the Rainier Bank processing center, and the hillside running northwest to southeast from S.R. 99 around South 133rd Street across 42nd Ave., South, and around South 135th Street to McAdam Road, plus the hillside running 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 north to south on the west side of McAdam Road from 135th into the Foster annexation. In Foster, the hillsides northwest of Foster Park at 52nd Ave., South and South 137th Street, and along the west side of McAdam Road through the Foster Area, have been identified. In Thorndyke the hillside running north to south along the west side of 51st Ave., South and the ravine and hillsides running east and west south of 150th and north of South 154th have been identified. Two houses, a cabin, a Masonic Temple and a church have been identified as historic properties in Riverton. One historic property (a house) has been identified in Thorndyke. There are 575 housing units in Riverton, 367 in Foster, and 2,074 in Thorndyke, for a total of 3,038. Municipal Services: Water and Sewer The annexation areas are served by King County Water District No. 125. Tukwila indicates that no change in service would result from annexation. Sewer service is provided by a combination of Val Vue and Rainier Vista Sewer Districts. Additionally, the City of Tukwila provides service in part of the Foster area. As in the case of water service, no change would result from annexation. Municipal Services: Surface Water Management Surface water management is now handled by King County, which has plans to construct a siltation and detention facility just east of S.R.99 between South 133rd and 137th Streets in the Riverton area. This is scheduled for 1989. A second project in the vicinity of 42nd Ave., South and South 152nd Street is scheduled for 1991. Tukwila reportedly has no surface water management program, although portions of the Duwamish River are located in the annexations and some protection will be required. It will be necessary for Tukwila to analyze its surface water management needs. The City may have to develop a strategy to deal with surface water. One approach would be to form a contractual arrangement with King County on either a temporary or permanent basis. The period from the date of this approval until the effective date of the annexation may be a matter of eight weeks or slightly more; the City will have to move quickly. Maintenance of King County detention, retention or other drainage related facilities will have to be addressed in that brief time. Municipal Services: Fire Until recently fire protection service was provided by a combination of King County Fire Protection Districts No. 11 and 18. District 18 has been merged into District 11. The City reports it would provide service to the annexation areas using its Fire Station No. 2 located at 5900 South 147th Street. King County Fire Protection District No. 24 abuts the Thorndyke annexation on the south. That District argues that future small, multiple annexations into District No. 24 by Tukwila would create illogical service areas. The District further argues that the Board should evaluate these annexations in terms of Tukwila's overall annex- ation plan, which the District concludes does include much of District 24. The City reports it will add 5.0 fulltime equivalent personnel to its fire department at an annual cost of $278,000. PAGE FIVE - TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thornd ke (a • v.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Municipal Services: Police Tukwila would provide police service from its existing police headquarters located at City Hall, approximately 2.5 miles from the annexation areas. The City proposes to add up to 14.5 fulltime equivalent positions and one patrol district to the police department. This would provide one officer on duty in the area at all times on a 24 -hour basis. The 14.5 FTE would include five patrol officers. The City estimates the cost to be $606,000 per year. The Board received overwhelming testimony regarding crime problems in the annexation areas and particularly along and in the nearby vicinity of S.R. 99. Municipal Services: Parks Citizens in the annexation area reportedly participate in Tukwila's Parks ez Recreation Programs, including programs for seniors. City parks include the Foster Golf Links and the Tukwila Community Center. Testimony and evidence throughout the record indicates that the primary motivation for these annexations is the desire for improved municipal services, and in particular, for better police protection. Citizens frequently cited the desire for better access to local government for problem solving and services. They discussed (at times graphically) the problems of prostitution, drug sales, and related crimes. Schools The annexations are entirely within the South Central School District, which also contains all of the City. The district boundary follows Pacific Highway South in the vicinity of the Thorndyke annexation, then extends northwesterly along Military Road from its intersection with S.R. 99 north to South 128th Street. Citizens frequently cited a desire to extend the city to the school district boundaries. The school board, by its resolution 417, cited the mutual benefit of the City- Community relationship and the desirability of a aligning the City and District boundaries. They indicated that these three annexations, together with the Fire District No. 1 annexation, would bring substantially more of the School District into the City and indicated the District's support for the proposals. Assessed Valuation Assessed valuations in the annexation areas are as follows: Assessed Value Assessed Value Per Cap Riverton $ 43,039,680 Foster $ 28,063,113 Thorndyke $ 80,339,720 $ 151,441,519 The current assessed valuation for the City of Tukwila is $882 million for a per capita value of $185,000. After annexation, this would be $1,033 million and PAGE SIX - TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, (Apv.) $ 35,163 $ 37,317 $ 17,450 $ 23,020 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 an average of $91,000 per capita. This change, a reduction in the assessed value per capita by one -half, is not so serious as it would appear. Tukwila is a unique city which derives a greater- than - average portion of its revenues from sales tax distributions due to Southcenter. In addition, a disproportionate share of its expenditures are devoted to providing police and other services to the shopping center and related uses. Taxes The total property tax rate within the annexation areas (all numbers rounded to even cents) is $12.53/$1,000 in assessed valuation. This would become $11.97 following annexation. Reductions would include $1.50 for the fire protection district, $1.58 for the County Road District, and $.50 for the Library District. Added would be a City levy of $2.93. The net reduction of $.66/$1,000 in assessed valuation would amount to $52.43 annually on an $80,000 home. Utility rates would not change, and the City has no utility tax. The City estimates it would derive sales tax revenues from the annexations in the following amounts: Riverton $ 169,959 Foster 18,144 Thorndyke 55,602 Total: $ 243 , 705 The City estimates that total taxes accruing to the City as a result of the annexations would be as follows: Riverton $ 397,058 Foster 161,585 Thorndyke 703,503 Total: $1,262,147 Tukwila's current tax revenues of $10,991,414 would escalate to $12,253,561 following annexation. The current tax revenue on a per capita basis is $2,299. This would be diminished to $1,079 per capita. It must be remembered that the Fire District No. 1 annexation is likely to occur almost simultaneously with the subject proposals. Fire District No. 1 as approved had an assessed valuation of $453 million. Annual revenues accruing to the City from that annexation were estimated to be from $1,945,000 to $2,157,000. The City projected an operating surplus of $434,000 to $647,000 annually. However, the City estimated that approximately $12,920,000 in capital costs could be required. Reasonable amortization of that capital cost could amount to $460,000. There was some evidence to indicate that operation, maintenance and capital expenditure responsibility incurred by the City in Fire District No. 1 could exceed the revenues generated. Adding the estimated Fire District No. 1 revenues to the total results in estimated revenue of $14,253,000 as a result of the four annexations, and a revenue per capita of about $1200 or more. PAGE SEVEN - TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke (apv.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Expenditures The City estimated a maximum annual expenditure as a result of these three annexations at $1,715,000 plus $135,600 the first year for equipment costs. The three areas could require operation and maintenance expenditures of $450,000 in excess of revenues generated. Added to this would be any continuing equipment costs plus capital costs. The City's Capital Improvement Program as described is generally limited to surface water management and roads for the area. Two surface water management projects now planned by King County total $307,000 and various street projects identified in the County's CIP total $3,240,000. However, the street projects are not high priority and are not reported in the file materials to be funded. It is common for the County to include projects in its capital improvement program which are not funded. The City reportedly is examining its options for funding surface water management activities. These could include the creation of a new utility acting as an enterprise fund. There is some speculation in the record that if the State of Washington reduced or eliminated the sales tax, the effect upon Tukwila would be substantial. The conclusion drawn was that annexation could have a mitigating effect upon this impact. The timing and distribution of property taxes can vary considerably depending on whether an annexation election occurs before or after the first of March. (See Exhibit K.) The City estimates that 1989 taxes for Tukwila would be $190,930 if the election is before March 1st, and $89,101 if conducted thereafter. For 1990, this would be $44,784 and $254,573. By 1991 there would be no difference. In the latter case the City would have service responsibility for a shorter period and the Library and Fire Districts would continue to serve while collecting taxes. Effects on King County Little information is in the record regarding the financial effects upon the County. A major revenue loss to the County (road district funds) at $1.58/$1,000 for an assessed valuation of $151,141,519 would be approximately $239,000. Other revenue losses would fall in the category of surface water management fees, fines and forfeitures, retail sales and use tax, gambling tax, and gasoline taxes, etc. The County's 1988 Budget is in the range of $600 million. Population loss to the County would be approximately .5 %. Cascade View Annexation The Cascade View neighborhood immediately west of the proposed annexations and located between S.R. 99 and Military Road, So., from So. 154th Street to approximately So. 116th Street is reportedly circulating petitions for annexation. Testimony indicated that there was support for annexation to Tukwila in the area due to identity with the city and inclusion within the same School District. As with the three currently active annexations, the Cascade View proposal was initiated by a petition calling for an election. In approving the proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation, the Boundary Review Board has deleted the Cascade View Neighborhood so that those residents might first have an opportunity to vote for joining Tukwila. OBJECTIVES This decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board tends to accom- PAGE EIGHT - TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke (apv.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 plash the pertinent objectives specified in RCW 36.93.180. The particularly significant objectives in this proposal are as follows: 1] Preservation of Natural Neighborhoods and Communities: The Board is satisfied that readily measurable or observable factors, such as proximity, circulation patterns, topography, land use, etc., indicate that these three areas could logically be part of the Tukwila community. The most important factor in determining community identify can be decided only in the election booth. Should the voters choose Tukwila, they will receive (according to the bulk of the testimony) significantly improved municipal services. Although the cost of providing those services is estimated to exceed the revenues derived from the area, the City Council and Mayor report that the advantages accruing to the entire community will exceed the cost. They have stated that Tukwila, while rich in revenues, is not well endowed with population. A healthy city needs a good supply of citizens to serve on its boards and commissions, run for City Council, and in many other ways support the city. While the annexation will result in a reduction in assessed valuation per capita and in revenue per capita for Tukwila as a whole, the net effect on Tukwila's ability to serve the entire community will be negligible. The annexation will benefit the City by providing a resource of equal importance. This decision therefore tends to accomplish that objective specified in RCW 36.93.180(1). 2] Use of Physical Boundaries: The annexations will eliminate extensive use of non - physical boundaries and will, in conjunction with the Fire District No. 1 annexa- tion, create a readily identifiable new boundary along the east margin of S.R. 99 and along South 160th Street. The Board has weighed alternatives suggested for a western boundary, e.g., a combination of South 40th and 42nd Avenues, or the use of property lines east of and parallel to S.R. 99. Although the alternative along 40th -42nd would have followed a street, it would also have divided a residential neighborhood. Use of property lines would have created other substantial problems. No other alternatives were identified. While it is clear that the use of S.R. 99 is not a perfect solution, the alternatives proposed were more problematic. This decision therefore tends to accomplish that objective specified in RCW 36.93.180(2). 3] Creation and Preservation of Logical Service Areas: Tukwila's boundary in this vicinity is irregular, follows numerous minor streets, is not well related to the circulation of the area, and in other respects is not conducive to the effective, efficient delivery of services. Expansion westward to S.R. 99 will create a clearly recognizable service area readily accessible from Tukwila. This boundary will keep a residential neighborhood intact and consequently will help ensure coordinated planning and consistent service delivery throughout. The area has good access to and from Tukwila's nearest fire station and police headquarters (at City Hall). The annexation will enhance the City's economy of scale and reduce the unit and /or per capita cost of several services while improving the level of service to the neigh- borhood. Police and fire services especially should benefit. This decision therefore tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180(3). 4] Annexation of Areas which are Urban in Character: Population density, assessed valuation per capita, land use, comprehensive plan designations, and other pertinent factors clearly indicate that these three areas are urban in character. The Board was faced with the option of allowing these areas to vote for incorporation or allowing them to vote for annexation. After weighing the factors and objectives, the Board is convinced that either annexation or incorporation would satisfy the satutory objectives. However, the case for annexation is slightly stronger and by approving this option, the people will be afforded two choices: Should the annexation elections be unsuccessful, the citizens in the annexation areas would have the PAGE NINE - TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke (Apv.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . 28 opportunity to vote for annexation to the City of Sea -Tac, should that effort be successful. This decision therefore tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180(8). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY THAT, for the above reasons, the action proposed in the Notices of Intention contained in said Files No. 1537, 1538, 1544, be, and the same are, hereby approved as follows: FILE NO. 1537 - Riverton - Approved as Submitted FILE NO. 1538 - Thorndyke - Approved as Submitted FILE NO. 1544 - Foster - Approved as Submitted all as evidenced by the legal descriptions attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as Exhibit s as noted on Page One hereof. ADOPTED BY SAID BOARD by a vote of in favor and against this 8th day of December, 1988, and signed by me in authentication of its said adoption on said date. FILED by me this J L "- day of Dece - r, 1988 G. RI AR ' , Execut - - cretary WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY PAGE TEN - TUKWILA: Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke (apv.) tit " ;19 4 1 : 1St e elii, px:1:? !te • V ettk.k. •■•■.!1:7"1111!Illina, IAA •9 . , 1 it • .•••■ ..• 7r • - ••1• " • —14 r ee 1 _ 4 11 1 . 41 V-2414.t., 1.41fle,floptto•l %=-J- —; ••• ! I ;:•.; • • • - • -V • : - ' • C .■ • ••" • • - • PAGE ELEVEN Hap of Riverton Exhibit A RIVERTON ••• ANNEXATION AREA (223 ACRES) CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' 1 NORTH • 244 11 3 ' 1 ( 1 j . . • , •• • / _177H ........ . vt•:-14 - -••• t -et-- • . • .......--a---•141,-1,4•■••-•••• . • • RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION 03 MAR 88 REV. Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, T23N, R4E, W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22, Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the west line of said right -of -way, 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 1 0 -1 1 - 61 :r " V south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the east margin of South 131st PI ace (6As7 Mau,INA; ,.404.1 soorti\; thence southeasterly along said east 'margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street,respectively, to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence • easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along hi the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the nortftne of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, records of King County, WA; thence north 40 ° 17' east along s a i d north l i n e 42 5.2 �-���• >= c t ��� thence south 49'43' east, 91.43 feet to the north"'Tfn'e of the southAW0 .86 Acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40'17' east, a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 ° 43' east, 10 feet; thence north 40 ° 17' east, 119.11 feet; PAGE TWELVE Riverton Legal Exhibit A.1 -2- thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or less to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin, respectively, to the west Iine of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence southerly along said west Iine to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south line, respectively, to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15, Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County, WA; thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north line to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the north line of the Duwamish River; thence easterly along said north line of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10, T23N, R4E; thence southerly along said west line to the south line of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south line to the west margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its intersection with the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said north line of Lot 1 and its extension to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to the extended east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of Riverton Addition as recorded in Vol. 13 of Plats, Page 36, records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said extension and east line, and the east line of Lot 9 to the north margin of South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along the easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said east margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAGE THIRTEEN Riverton Legal Exhibit A.2 I . • 1.r --_. _ - L• I- - - i ' - P '., • •I -. • '1 +ter r, ti .�� • te r., ia So 160th St i y , ♦; • 1 i • ..• -• , , ; _ / '• ` ' 1 a* , . 4 .: ■ ..::: 1 ' . -. ...V t. -■ -..• • 7 _ . 04 ...-I .• , ,A A rMot 5 t ' .� ..1... ;.11 r 1 ; M 4': i . . 4 41. i $ i�f 4 F{ 0 • M �'�'' c - ` r ;'.t:..1 _ 111! i ,�� .. �. '. l • 1 ' � �+ :_' t G • ' +' e•'"� • : {}_-� r .. T. SO 14/ t n V ., / t i ,• ,_ r��,i a`•'__. 1 • +� J ✓ ": t ' I�. • t...• , ! 7 ' H . r ? $1: ' •` - ^ IC «!v = _ so 1411 s t. � ' — • — - t . 1 . 1 . _ t J . .. •�i . • o :, I _ � ,, - H M : = � j .. � ` ^ t A D M — '� J f I H i O 1" o a. : mod -.SO. 150th St. • - •r �e�: -•'!ri "• • " .h ...` • \‘11-4:-•:4 ' . v . q T _ ± • r- • � � �. I 1 F{O ' 6 0. • it i fjf 14:11'I , So. 144th St. • T PAGE FOURTEEN MAP OF THORNDYKE • EXHIBIT B ' THORNDYKE • ANNEXATION AREA(469.15 ACRES) a•— CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' NORTH i - • .., , • REV. MAY 17► 1988 A parcel of land situated in Section 22. and in a portion of_ the west: 1/2 of Section 23. all in,T23N► R4E► W.M. described as follows: Commencing at. the northwest corner of.Section 23. T23N► R4E; thence' north.134'41.5" east, the easterly extension of .. . the north,.margin• Street and the ?UB POINT OP' BEGINNING;. thence. continuing. easterly'along said easterly extension to 'the east line of Primary 'State'.Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior.Court'Cause No. 598539►. records. of. King County, WA; thence 'southerly' along said east line.to its intersection with the '.centerline of.53rd Avenue South; .thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly •extension'of the north margin of South 151st Street. said 'centerline also being the Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as.tiled' in the office of the Secretary of • State. in Washington State• per King County Commissioner's Resolution 423309► dated 10- 11 -61; thence westerly along_ said. north. margin and the•westerly extension thereof to the centerline' of 51st Avenue South; thence southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the southerly margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under Superior •Court Cause' No. 656772. records of King County. WA; thence' westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection - with the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly. along said east margin to it. intersection with the north margin of South 160th Street; ...thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of. Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the .north margin of South 144th Street •• thence' 'easterly along said north margin to 'the TNDS POINT Of BEGINNING. . _ • • • •••,.. • 12.!„ :". •".: . , ;• • . • , N. _ :,, , • :-,... ••■ • ,,, It. - •,: • . ,,„..4 .• N. ' • \ • ..- ' —......... .... ■-•••••• 1.. ,,,,, *5 •• 4 ea .t I — 15 „ _ __ t ........A/ .. 1 . ... ■••••■••■•••■- , . . . - .: . . 4' t - a .r., ": , . • ".: - - - • s; ' • • .• - -- -,' ,.... .,,,: ,3 -•••• a ‘ Pk"' ...r 11 --■PLir■■ ‘ ., ; : ,. • . I • , . • 4 . — — - .. • - - • •C‘ • • "•'. ' • 4' /I .- a :: ,- ,r i '7 . : .. - -- • .,,.. ,.., A ., 4 f , /'' ' f.f ,2F`g . - . --. , i:! • :. ...;j 1x .,,IN:5 . 1 . s.' ‘.... • - \ ...' \ 1 %...• .. . I . % ■ ; • S ; • , i ' ••• . . *11!. .1 s • , .. .. • • • ‘‘ l' . ';'' ‘‘. ‘. C1-1. • . i -.. ••■•• .6.: . r :41,7•11 * ....Is 'AI • • ., , t - • ' • ' ' .S;;;111.! . . ‘■ ...... '.".:.‘ ii`& ,' ! 1 .A . til . .F . ' •—• "121Eil — .5 , . •••• ..... ...■ . • '‘.... ?.."..,.:- :: 5 ',;‘: ‘: iVY;;`t 3 . . •• - • ---• ' \ i ;1 II • . .t.. • * 7..1 1 1•■•■■61 ....SW 1. !' O "'r . i. • .,,.:••••"' ... . . . t . . . .. .. . ..... . ..""; I i i l'e , $;' ' v '' \: \.• . • • I'": • ..: . . .. s. •...vk l'o' '1' .; 1,i11.1‘.1.1 17: . :--.-..-6 .5.. = •• 5. :•' 66- s • .; '. • . •': ' : -•.,. t: • . . ..... ; I : 3 ' I; .•*•. s ! .1 . d * e . 1 . i . ) i t • - ' .. .5 • .. ••••• ''.. ••'' r • " „ % t I • • ' . I • .1 • •' . 3., • ■ 1 • • • ; • r ; t . N. . , ' .. ... : • .;,s. .• 1... ‘ '7.4;;• . , r -.„ ,.; .. . • .. . , • s '+'• ''. - * • iiCI — ,: , , tc* i,' \ • ". • ' ' • • - oil. :" '...... • 11 1 1 1 , • ...• • A -:: ,.. . - . --..... -. . -- - , - • ! .. z.____... 2 .%' It i... . i • • '''..;,.—;. — 4 !__,, ',. .. .. — .. 1 .., ••■• ...7...... 1. - •" — *I1 111= "".'...... ... ,t • VI 411104 •••,:. ! . ' ... • . . . ,... fr • . • • •••••• •••:,• r •. : S I, • •• , • • • i • • • • • • •1 S I '•• • • . " ‘• ..‘ .• • .. . • 1 ... • • • ., 1 • ! • I i*Ivrs`01 . • , • • "' % : ' -Ir., 4- -• ' '. •, .c. ::../ • -. ..• : :.t..: 0 . ,0 • • 1 ..' • -1 . • a. -, ... .• -* • . ....1.--- • . 11 "! • i " ' " 7" ,`• '■• ...z•-...• 1•••..i • •• S. , • • \ ..- • \ • •-•••"7:, • • ; • fr ...fr.—. • •• • • e:•• . : , PAGE SIXTEEN Map of Poster Exhibit C • 0 GI -• 1 1 • I i ; , • • i* • I —_- 1. • • • • S FOSTER EXHIBIT A REV. JUNE 28, 1988 A parcel of land situated in Sections 14, 15, and 23, T23N, R4E, W.M. described as follows:. BEGINNING at the intersection of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 and the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Ave. S.); thence easterly along said Donation Claim line extended to the west line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence northerly along the west line of said Primary State Highway No. 1 to the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue) as shown on Subdivision of Lots 7, 8, & 9 of Fostoria Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 11 of plats, Page 76, Records of King County, WA; thence northeasterly along said southeast margin to the the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South (formerly Secondary State Highway No. 2M); thence southeasterly along said southwest margin to the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No.598594; thence southwesterly and southerly along said east line to the westerly extension of the south line of land described in Statutory Warranty Deed as recorded under Auditor File No. 8408010506 records of King County, WA; thence south 88 ° 27'39" east along said westerly extension and said south line, 334.18 feet to the most northerly corner of land described in Real Estate Contract recorded under King County Auditor File No. 8306070243; thence south 58 ° 57'39" east along the northeasterly line of said land a distance of 211.58 feet to the most easterly point thereof and the northwesterly margin of 52nd Avenue South (Foster Street); thence north 29 ° 30'00" east along said margin, 58.66 feet; thence south 60 ° 30'00" east, 17 feet to the centerline of 52nd Avenue South; thence thence continuing along the present Tukwila City Boundary north 29 ° 30'00" east, 20 feet; thence south 60 ° 30'00" east, 17.5 feet to the southeast margin of 52nd Avenue South• os thence south 31 03'30" west along said southeast margin to the northeast margin of 53rd Avenue South; thence south 23 ° 49'15" east, 189.97 feet; thence north 40 ° 36'00" east to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South thence southeasterly along the Tukwila City Boundary and the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South 530 feet more or less to the south line of a strip of land described in deed recorded recorded October 3, 1955, under. Auditor File No. 4622227, records of King County, WA; PAGE SEVENTEEN Foster Legal Description Exhibit C3 Page 2 thence southwesterly along said south line of the Mannington Tract (also known as South 137th Street) and the extension thereof, 330 feet more or less to the 04t4w.eOATI.y ma_r,g .n o 56.th ;:;:;Avenue .So uth, tjhence c on.t,in.uing;;westerly al the, south margin of ...::South .. 137th` Street t_o ?`the. southeast,,margia .of South 1 Street, then southwesterly along said southeast margin of South .138th Street to the east margin of 51st Avenue South (formerly known as Charles Avenue); thence southerly along said east margin, 315 feet more or less to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly known as Orchard Avenue); thence easterly along said north margin, 184 feet; thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 334 feet along the west line of a parcel of land annexed under Tukwila Ordinance 1411, to the north line of lot 3, block 1, of Colegrove's Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 11, Page 85 of Plats, records of King County, WA; thence north 89 0 44'30" east, a distance of 10 feet; thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 148 feet to the southerly line thereof; thence south 89 ° 44'30" west, a distance of 10 feet; thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, a distance of 77.97 feet; thence north 89 ° 22'00" east, 351.94 feet to the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to the centerline of South 144th Street; thence easterly along said centerline 100 feet more or less to the centerline of 53rd Avenue South (formerly Graham Avenue); thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to its intersection with the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1, contiguous. with land condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 594362; thence northerly along said east line to the north margin of South 144th Street; thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 139th Street; thence easterly along said north margin .of South 139th Street and the easterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15. Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said west line to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence easterly along said north margin to the west.margin of 46th Avenue South; thence northerly along said west margin and continuing. along the west margin of Macadam Road South to the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; PAGE EIGHTEEN Foster Legal Description Exhibit C.2 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 MEMORANDUM TO Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Director DATE: December 2, 1988 SUBJECT: BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION ON SEA -TAC AND RIVERTON, FOSTER AND THORNDYKE The Boundary Review Board (BRB) on November 29, 1988 directed their staff to prepare resolutions for approving a modified Sea -Tac incorporation and the Riverton, Foster and modified Thorndyke annexations. Those resolutions are scheduled for adoption on December 8, 1988. In brief, the BRB subtracted from Sea -Tac the following: 1. The Cascade View annexation area 2. The Riverton and Foster annexation areas 3. The Thorndyke annexation area possibly less the Lewis and Clark theater 4. The Segale- Gunther area north of S. 204th St. (See attached map). The BRB will decide on December 8, 1988 whether or not to delete the Lewis and Clark theater from the Thorndyke annexation area and add the theater to Sea -Tac. Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke were modified only by the potential subtraction of the Lewis and Clark theater. Because the BRB decision occurs on December 8, 1988 the decision will be filed with King County on December 9, 1988 at the soonest. Under the normal King County Council rules this filing is too late for placing the incorporation and annexations on the February 7, 1989 ballot. Therefore, the next available special election dates for the annexations are March 14, April 4 or May 16, 1989. We need to specify for the County Council, which sets the election date by ordinance, which date we prefer. The annexation task forces seem to favor the March 14 ballot. We will update you again after the December 8, 1988 BRB meeting on the issues and process. At this time at least two issues are unresolved. First is the status of the Lewis and Clark theater. Second is the irregular boundary along I -5. The attached map speaks for itself. attachment City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 November 29, 1988 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Board Members: Introduction Sea -Tac is an urban area needing urban service levels provided by a fiscally capable mid -sized city. This final submittal focuses on the viability of the City of Sea -Tac in comparison with Tukwila and the validity of the proposed annexation boundaries. Fiscal Viability of the City of Sea -Tac All data regarding incorporation revenues and costs has been drawn from the Georgette study and every effort has been made to ensure comparability of numbers when contrasted with other cities. Annexation costs have been drawn from the Tukwila annexation study. Incorporation and Tukwila annexation costs are approximately comparable; but with much lower service levels being provided with incorporation. Lower incorporation service levels are especially serious in: 1. its provision of only two professional planners compared to Tukwila's six to deal with all airport, land use, and traffic issues; 2. no provision for hazardous materials, fire code or fire event investigations; 3. assuming that the $1 million of County road maintenance now done in the area can be contracted for an equivalent sum. 4. estimated incorporation staff (150 + 31 volunteers) being 62 to 200 persons low when contrasted to Georgette study Comparable Cities; BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 2 City Total Staff Equivalent Staff Sea -Tac 150 +31 vol. 150 +31 vol. Renton 457 300 - -350 Kent 459 320 - -350 Auburn 285 212 5. staffing assumptions rely upon volunteers for over 70 percent of fire fighters; a situation found nowhere else in Washington State. All other cities of 33,000 have full - time fire protection. 6. the maximum basic budget reserve of $600,000 is possible only under the following optimistic assumptions: the maximum $3.60/$1,000 tax is levied (higher than any other comparable cities in Attachment C), fees collected exceed Tukwila estimates by over 20 percent, and no additional staff will be needed. The City of Tukwila concludes that Sea -Tac could be a marginally viable city under the above assumptions. However, such assumptions reflect very optimistic circumstances with little reserves for unanticipated costs and capital demands. No flexibility exists to absorb changes in these assumptions. The Tukwila and Kirkland budget experiences have shown planning cost estimates to be uniformly low. Reserves of $600,000 are unlikely to be sufficient for probable incorporation costs. The City of Tukwila recommends Board denial of the proposed incorporation as being fiscally unsound, and misleading to area residents whose expectations of quality urban services will be unsatisfied. REBUTTAL TO SEA -TAC AMENDED BOUNDARY At the November 22, 1988 Boundary Review Board meeting, representatives from Sea -Tac recommended two modifications to the Sea -Tac boundary. The following is the City's response to these modifications: BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 3 Orillia Road The proposal is to move the eastern boundary from the Green River to Orillia Road. Both the cities of Kent and Tukwila have stated a more logical boundary would be I -5. The proposal should NOT be considered for the following reasons: 1. It would create abnormally irregular boundaries between Kent, Tukwila and Sea -Tac. 2. It would not provide logical service areas for the area between I -5 and Orillia Road. For development to occur west of Orillia Road, sewer, water, storm drainage and road improvements would be provided by Tukwila or Kent. 3. It would not provide as good a physical boundary as I -5 currently does. East Side of Commercial Properties Along Highway 99 The proposal is to reduce the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke annexation boundaries from Highway 99 to behind commercial properties along Highway 99. The proposal would also deny the opportunity for the residence in Cascade View to annex to Tukwila. The proposal should not be considered for the following reasons: 1. It would break up natural neighborhoods. 2. It would create abnormal irregular boundaries. Many of the commercial zoned properties also have portions of their property which are zoned residential. Under the current proposal, properties under one ownership could be split between two cities. 3. It would create illogical service boundaries, particularly for Fire and Police. As stated by the public comments, criminal activities do not stop at Highway 99. They occur in the residential neighborhoods. 4. It would prevent the Cascade View Annexation petition with 210 signatures from the opportunity to be part of Tukwila. 5. It would prevent the consideration of the community identity with the South Central School District and Tukwila. BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 4 Tukwila continues to support a boundary which preserves the Cascade View annexation and a logical boundary west of I -5 in the McMicken neighborhood south of SR -518. Conclusion Based upon this information and our knowledge of the SeaTac rea and municipal government, we do not find the city of SeaTac to be in reality a fiscally viable alternative to annexation. Sufficient money won't be available after the incorporation. We also do not find that Orillia Road and the east side of Highway 99 to be a logical or reasonable compromise boundary. A more logical boundary is Military Road in the north area and west of I -5 in the south area of SeaTac. Si ncely, LRB /jj L. Rick Beeler Planning Director '4- i:.-.J'ix�l t:. .. ., •. - i�:�V.t.vl�t. rta�u��e+..e:u....e..aa.:..� •' L { . ° STE 777 Mail (206 November 29, 188 King County Bo Eastpointe Pla 3600 136th Pla Bellevue, WA Dear Honorable On behalf of S Recreation Cen 15860 Highway modification a Committee on N modification w annexation. T SRO was first five months pr the Incorporat that first con Annexation Tas meetings, the Council meetin can see, we ha Annexation pro In my public SRO is willin the City of T approval of t lished, known During the co has become mo Tukwila. Theatres The formation those are a 1 provide accur policies, zon Sea -Tac is no LING RECREATION ORGANIZATION 08th r.E., Bellevue, WA, RarniFr N u � Pi:�z� `u to 1 €.00 N.U. Box 91725, Bellevue, :&'A 98009 -1725 455 -8100 ndary Review Board a e S.E. 8006 Members of The Boundary Review Board: 0, property owners of the Lewis & Clark er situated on a twenty -six acre holding at 9, I am writing to oppose the boundary proposed by the Sea -Tac Incorporation vember 22, 1988. If accepted, this boundary uld split us from the Thorndyke area is we strongly oppose. ontacted by the City of Tukwila approximately or to being contacted by the Committee for on of the City of Sea -Tac. As a result of act, I became a member of the Thorndyke Force. I attended all of the Task Force lanning Commission meetings and the City s regarding the Thorndyke Annexation. As you e much time and effort invested in the osal. estimony on November 17, 1988, I stated that to work with either the City of Sea -Tac or kwila in the event of the denial of one and e other. I stated that we prefer the estab- quantity that the City of Tukwila represents. rse of the hearings, our preference for Tukwila e clear. We wish to be annexed to the City of of a new city has significant impacts. Among ck of set policies and representatives who can to information regarding taxes, ordinances, ng, etc. We feel that the proposed City of exception. Sport,; [31 c,ancostinq Video Page 2. Boundary Review Board November 29, 1988 We also find discrepancies in their projected revenue as reported in the Georgette Study. We feel that a very good point was brought forward when the Sea -Tac area was compared to the City of Renton in size and population, yet its pro- jected revenue is one -half of what the City of Renton needs to operate. This is a grave concern to us. The Lewis & Clark Recreation Center is a community enter- tainment center, which has operated at its present location for some thirty -one years. We consider ourselves part of the community and neighborhood services. The neighborhood is comprised of our patrons and friends. Patron identification and neighborhood continuity are essential to a business such as ours. We are distinctly different from the typical busi- ness uses along the Highway 99 strip. Other businesses along the Highway 99 strip almost exclusively serve people who are from outside of the area. Our patrons live in our neighborhood and, together, we have a strong sense of community. For these reasons, we wish to remain intact with the Thorndyke Annex- ation area, the South Central School District and a part of the annexation process to the City of Tukwila. Through my Task Force participation effort, SRO has come to identify strongly with the City of Tukwila, its staff and its services. We are in agreement with the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, its proposed land use and zoning. The City of Tukwila has an established infrastructure with its services already in place. Therefore, although I am certain we would feel some transition pains, being annexed to Tukwila would in no way compare to the potential impact to our business caused by the formation of a new city. It appears to us that 160th, the southern border of our prop- erty (see attached map), is a natural boundary as proposed by the Thorndyke Annexation. Water District #125 serves our immediate area as well as the largest part of the South Central School District. The southernmost boundary for Water District #125 is 160th. We were formerly part of Fire District #18 which served all of the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke Annex -ation areas. Again, 160th was the southernmost boundary for Fire District #18. It is also the southernmost boundary for the South Central School District. Page 3. Boundary Review Board November 29, 1988 In closing, I point out that the Committee for the Incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac maintains it is their desire to allow people and businesses to be in the muni- cipality of their choice. Again, I emphasize that it is our choice to remain an intact portion of the.Thorndyke Annexation area and to be annexed to the City of Tukwila.. We welcome your questions. Very ruly yours, Che ' Brown Pro -erty Manager Real. Estate Division CB:tc Enclosures c: G. Brice Martin Rick Beeler Moira Bradshaw David Schooler IREM1111111 MEMO' IMMEIN MN. RMANISISMIESEEN11 MENU . 174 ' 31 1 in k t•tutt ! tat ■s sense at lae ten•uiIuuu.tt•tst {ateen.1••en , A J IU naA• flat a aa a nataalt Na5Sruaai NU Nate ltt■ .1t ett ••1111•11•11 I1•111•111•• Jul II t�_ - _ _a tat au auat uiatnuu •tatar urlu au uuu ttnaal • MI st ll•tat ■u t itt■ slum u•utuataletent•aaau ■auituu Nom so mom misuse t•1 • ■aaaaet•■ mamma ttn u faa►tultaaat ass uaa:tL uatum ••lean•, etlhtattkttat tig ■•naf•••e'!r.■ I•H•e Na ■•ll•■•nIHelll ■ tata lllltaattue■tie•Ilttna•ttuitat■ M 1±.^ 1 e•nt•a at•u •• mimosa uttatu utatt u Uhl ■unuuauneueaeuaanaatuuaau>> !w!aaau+aa ■ mamma aauau a. =watt tune:uait t� a•uuacaaaatua lt •atunuum :- .% _2 46TH AVE S. A 1 t .-1s,. .. I . 1 . 1 1 . _ - � I _ -- -- , �� , t - • 1 s . I ., - _� S OUth (9entira l K Cti OO L DI T Y 4640 SOUTH 144th STREET Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Board Members: • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 -4196 • November 29, 1988 The purpose of this letter is to summarize the main reasons why the South Central School District endorses the annexation proposals pending before the King County Boundary Review Board. The School District is in favor of the annexation proposals with the City of Tukwila, effecting Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke, and supports the proposed Cascade annexation petition for the area West of Pacific Highway to Military Road. South Central School District is a unique, small school district with an area of approximately 7.5 square miles and has schools located in both the City of Tukwila and unincorporated King County. With only one high school, Foster High School, the district has been able to provide an identity for both the City of Tukwila and the unincorporated King County communities located within the school district boundaries. It would be highly desirable to preserve these natural neighborhoods and communities so they are part of one city government unit and one school district. Phone: 244 -2100 Another main reason for the school district's endorsement for the annexation petitions is because it would be desirable for the boundaries of the school district, as a unit, to be aligned with that of the City of Tukwila, as a local government unit. This alignment between the school district and the City of Tukwila would be preferable compared to continued fragmentation of the school district between the City of Tukwila and unincorporated Kinn County. The areas to be annexed would create and preserve a logical service area for the City of Tukwila, aligning the South Central School District with the boundaries of the city. The current arrangement of having South Central School District split between Tukwila and unincorporated King County makes it difficult and impractical to conduct business with two local governments. Annexation provides the opportunity to combine abnormally irregular boundaries and adjust impractical boundaries by aligning the school district and the City of Tukwila. The third main reason for endorsing the annexation petitions is that annexation would allow a cooperative arrangement of school programs between the City of Tukwila and South Central Schools to be expanded to all five schools in South Central School District. Rather than splitting programs, annexation would allow Tukwila programs in the areas of drug prevention, fire prevention, parks and recreation programs and career education programs to be part of each school in the South Central School District. If the school WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY November 29, 1988 Page two district were contained in the City of Tukwila a beneficial, cooperative relationship would continue and be further expanded. On behalf of the South Central School District, I urge the King County Boundary Review Board to approve the election methods annexations requested in the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade annexation petitions. These proposed annexations will enhance the school district and the City of Tukwila as communities. Thank you for your consideration. MS:mm Copy — King County Council Tukwila City Council Michael Silver, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools and Secretary to the Board November 29, 1988 Gunbjorg Sandvik, Chair Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S. E. Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Re: Sea Tac Incorporation Dear Chair Sandvik Attached is a summary of the value to the community and the State of . Washington for the development South of the airport in the area designated for commercial /industrial use This area was purchased from home owners as being no longer suitable for residential use. This development is planned to come on line within the next twenty years in an orderly manner. This will significantly increase the Assessed Valuation for the area. However, we need to start immediately to put in place the infrastructure required by the development. Sincerely, CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED TAXATION AND CONTROLLED TAXATION • Barbara Blake 18028 51st Ave South Seattle, Washington 98188 248 -2298 Enclosure A. Project DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY FIFTEEN —YEAR CAPACITY PROJECTION SOUTH SEATAC DEVELOPMENT (CONSTANT 1987 DOLLARS) Description Th•e'..p ;South Sea -Tac Development . corridor consists of a :' mixed use office /light industrial hotel - conference center complex including':. , ;General Office .'•': Light Industrial :.•:t Hotel (50.0 'rms ) Convention Ctr . .`(50 -400 .persons ) Trade Center 1 . ;>Co.nst:r,uc ; i ; on :,of facilities is expected to take place over a p.er i;o�d :o; (-'fifteen years, starting,. in 1.988. The area to be `d:eyelop;ed •: .'200 acres. `t�<: �Cona truc tion ' Cos t ,_ for the project are indicated for the five. ma`j:o Site .preparation costs are included. Land costsand construction financing costs are excluded. Dollar •.valUes':are constant 1987 'General Office ,Hard cost @$60 'sq It on gross . area (7 million .: sq f t),. • Soft cost @.30 of . hard cost Contingency @.09 • of hard and soft cost Total . ..Light Industrial Hard cost @$30 per sq ft on gross area (1 million sq ft) Soft cost @.25 of hard cost ...Contingency @.09 of •Hrard and soft cost Total .... '7 million sq ft 1 million sq ft 250,000 sq ft 4Q,000 sq ft 200,000 sq ft $420.0 million 126.0 49.1 $595.1 million $ 30.0 million 7.5 million 3.38 million $ 40.88 million Hard cost @$104 per sq ft on gross area (400,000 sq ft) Soft cost @.25 of hard cost •.Contingency 0.09 of hard 'and soft cost 'Total Conference Center Hard cost' @$69 per sq ft ongross are (40,000 sq ft) Soft cost @.20 of.hard cost Contingency 0.09 of hard and soft cost Total Trade Center :Hard . cost @$75 per sq ft on .. gross area `(200,000 sq ft) S,o,f�t�. :coat. @30 of hard cost '.Con ing 0.09 of 'hard aWsoft cost 7q141 otal 'Cost Over 10 - Year Period onstruction Phas Employment, Materials and ;ab .. share of total construction cost 'ased ' on a ratio of .33 '(Source: U.S. :;Census -of Construction Schedules, 1982) •aterials/Services share of construction cast.•basad.. on •a ratio of .43 (Source ibid) • fiotal direct construction employment (man fyea ; based on. average wage of including . fringe benefits (Source >B'ure.au ofLabor Statistics, Bulletin 1370 -19 .S.upplement to Employment, Hours and Earnings • ..';S tate's and Areas;, Data for 1980 -84, adjusted ;f'or inflation to, 1987) "Construction worker earnings (exclusive of fringe benefits) amount to • $ 41.6.'million 10.4 4.7 million $ 56.7 million $ 2.8 million 0.56. million $ 15.0 million 4.5 • 1.8 $21.30 million $717.6 million Services 3.6 million 3.4 million $236.8 million $308.57 million 6,400 man years $205.0 million ' .and indirect employment based on the •1982.total employment multiples for. the con - •structi.on sector Washington State I/O table ,,•of 2.11 (Source P.J.Bourque, the Washington _,•State'Input- Output Study for 1982, University •of Washington) amounts Induced•;indirect earnings based on the : multiples for the construction sector (Source; ibid) of 1.68 amounts to,: • •To.tal• employment and earnings during the ; conet ; ruction phase are, as follows: mployment ;Earningp• • .Sta,te Sales.& Use, B &0, Utility and Property Taxes 4les.4nd .Use Tax• • a.ter.i'al•:s and Services @6.5% ;'wag.g4expendi.tures = @2.5% . i•n'd•uc,ed /.inndirect. construction @.5 'f:''..materials /services and wage e.xpenditu'res •taxes • 13.7 ' fi r : ;' .. o tah.' $ 41.0 million O'Tax. Based on .33 of sales and use .taxes $ 13.6 million .tility' Tax 'Based. on .019 .of sales and use taxes .8 million • roper•ty . Tax ':Based 'on 477 million land value (200 acres X1387,000 per acre or $9 per • '.sq :f t) ; $686.9 million in building ..:cost escalated by a factor of 1.22 'for a• improvement value of $837.8 million resulting in total market valuation of'$914.8 million. Assessed to market value ratio if is assumed :State tax rate of $3.60 per $1000' assessed valuation is applied. At full development' °.' State 'property taxes will amount, $3..L.million. • D•u -r•ing the 10 -year .construction buildup, 'total State property.....tax' is estimated at: 7,104 man'years $161.02 million 13,504 man years $397.8 million $ 19.2 million 8.1 million • $ 15.5 million Total'State.Taxes (selected) $ 70.9 million 'The• employment . and earnings estimates presented reflect total : changes 'in economic activity. This is a reasonable assumption • given :the lengthy development horizon of the project and expected ; ,.g.row • th of economic activity in the Puget Sound region during the , per.iod,:of development, Nevertheless, it can be argued that a *aomp.onen.tof' the market activity associated with the ' project will :be related to • shif is in intra- regional economic ' activity. Employment and Earnings.Associated With Operations Office ,Assume .70% rentable space or 4.9 million. sq ft Assume 175 sq ft per tenant employee /Total employees '18000. Assume X22,000 annual earnings 'per employee/ Total earnings $616.0 million per annum .*.!Light Industrial ;•Assume ,.907. rentable space or 900,000 sq ft Assume175 sqf t? per employee /Total employees 90 ssume $20,000.annual earnings per employee/ • Total earnings.$1.8 million per annum • oe l•. Assume 500 rooms : ' '•Assume,:occupancy rate at .60 (gross annual) : ' Total visitor and room nights.— 109,500 Assume4125 per visitor expenditure per day :.':'Total visitor spending - $13.7 million Assume .31 rate labor costs to total revenue Total labor costs - $4.3 million Assume $20,000 annual earnings per employee employees - 215 Total earnings (net of fringes) - Conf•er.ence. Center Assume staff of 15 with average annual wages at $22,000 for. total earnings of $330,000 per annum. Trade Center Assume .70 rentable years or 140,000•sq ft :.Assume 175 sq ft per employee • • •' Total employees - 800 Assume $22,000 annual earnings per employee Total earnings - $3.9 million per annu ' $17.6 million per annum i, In Auce.d /.indirect employment and earnings are computed based on .niultip from the 1982 Washngton I/O Table for the. servies ::;:sector-7.- employment and 41.54.for earnings* :Indirect :Indirect !;Total' employment 43,9 per annum $985.0 million per annum Total •earnings •.S tat_e:.Sales and Use /B &0 /Utility /Proeprty Taxes ales' 4 Use Tax , Earning @2.5 'X Other @20X of earnings Total T ot'al•Selected Taxes employment - 14,851 per annum earnings. • .B &' 0' Tax @0.33 of Sales and use '4•1 *.ty ' Tax. @ 0'.06 ;;;Pro'perty 'tax computed ;million per annum. - $345.4 million per annum - $24.6 million per annum - $ 4.9'million - $29.5 million - $ 9.7 million $ 1.8 million per'annum in construction phase at. $3.5 - $54.45 million per annum CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED TAXATION AND CONTROLLED TAXATION November 29, 1988 Gunb, jorg Sandvik, . Chair Boundary Review Board 3600. 136th . S. E. Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Chair Enclosure Sea Tac Incorporation Sandvik Attached is a copy. of Gene Tonnemaker's rebuttal given the night of November 22 with additional comments addressing the Fire District question. Sincerely Barbara Blake 18028 51st Ave South Seattle, Washington. 98188 248 -2298 Madame Chairman and Members of the Board You are hearing what I hope for your sake the last arguments concerning this matter. I want to address three primary issues on which you have heard testimony. These are Budget, Boundaries and Services. There have been throughout these hearings attempts to interpret the Georgette Group study in a way which would be detrimental to our cause. They have all failed to produce a significant flaw. You have heard that the Comparison to Renton Budget is in fact a verifier of the viability of Sea Tac, When the service district assumptions are aligned properly, we find very close comparisons to the Sea Tac area allowing for certain differences in make up and factors peculiar to each area. There have been several attempts to make vernier adjustments which we feel are insignificant at the estimate level this far in advance of the city actually starting up. The Georgette Study assumed there would be an annexation of the city into Fire District 24. This allows Fire District 24 to continue to collect their own levied revenue and operate in their current mode. Should it be determined that some other course is appropriate, the City of Sea Tac would have an additional levy capacity of $1.695 to provide to the District. (3.375 Current County less 1.68 ). This alternate method provides the City with $2:835 Million to provide the services. With reference to numbers supplied by Tukwila for their fire department and for that of Renton, the justifications are in the area of paid firefighters vs volunteers and mix of commercial vs residential basis. Our assumptions are all based on keeping the same mix of volunteers and paid staff in all areas. We feel the Georgette Group Study to be essentially accurate and is supported by the previous preliminary Dibble Study. In the matter of boundaries, you have heard all the arguments concerning their location. We feel the question of neighborhoods is one which you will consider in your deliberations. As you remember our proposal is the only one which did not further divide neighborhoods beyond the current situation. Certainly one of the factors to consider is school service areas. However, it is only one and other factors could be of equal or more importance. You have heard that the City of Tukwila has three other schools districts partially within their boundaries with restriction to those districts. The Highline School District is partially within the boundary of at least three cities other than Unincorporated King County. Both Highline and South Central School Districts have recently passed bond issues even with these complicated boundaries. However, being realistic, we recognize and appreciate the wishes of the residents of the annexation areas. We have submitted a compromise suggestion which we hope you will consider. This essentially leaves the Pacific Highway South business corridor in the proposed City of SeaTac while leaving the residents of the annexations areas with the ability to vote on entrance to Tukwila if they wish. This is in the spirit of compromise and is not as we would have it as we had in mind improving all the neighborhoods that have suffered from some neglect in the past. And further, it is not as the annexation folks would have finalized the boundary. I think because we have had a lot of ink on this question of annexation recently, I should say a few words on that. Tukwila has recently found this new "religion" of annexation. There is no zeal like that of a convert. We have repeatedly stated " we do not wish to be annexed in a timely and progressive manner ". We wish to address the problems of area vigorously and address them now. I would like to address the issue of service districts. Our original plan was formulated about the issue of bringing within one governing body the crime, traffic and zoning issues of our community. By gaining local control of these issues, and really concentrating our dollars on local issues, we can and will improve the quality of life in our community. And we will do it at the same or less cost to our taxpayers as is currently charged. We want to establish at least twice the police presence in the high crime area as we currently have. We will work with other jurisdictions and use whatever facilities are available from other units to further this cause. We look forward to having mutual aid and assistance contracts with the other municipal bodies with our surrounding area. We would most assuredly utilize the facilities of King County in those areas that do not make sense for a smaller force to staff full time. These are such things as SWAT teams and crime labs. It is the very presence of additional forces and the backup of other municipalities that will help us do abetter job of controlling crime in our community. In relation to other special service districts, we see absolutely no reason to change the current numerous service district boundaries to place those duties on a new fledgling city when all of these areas are currently doing their job without significant problems. The other public safety issue of fire should have special attention as it has been addressed as a concern by Fire Districts which have a portion of their district in the proposed Sea Tac boundary. It has been shown that those people living within fire district boundaries are very loyal to their fire districts. There is certainly no reason to change to a full city fire district. As has been repeated several times, there is no intent to change these. However, being only . a proposing body and having no contracting ability, we cannot offer documented evidence to satisfy some jurisdictions. In conclusion, this has been a long. process for our group. .We have completed all the requirements. to have this matter brought .before you And ,Ultimately to a vote of the people. As with. all. good .plans once announced, there have been detractors and .modifiers. We would plead 'that you consider our petition with the proposed compromise of :the' overlapping area. We feel that this is the: best that could be reached of those proposals before you. We also have suggested modifications in the valley area using Orillia Road and a compromise with the City of Des Moines per our agreement letter. We do thank you for your consideration and hope for an early disposal •of . this matter. Madam Chair and Members of the Board I am Barbara Blake, 18028 .51st Ave So, Seattle, Wa 98188 I live and work in the proposed City of Sea Tac I would like to discuss three points in my time with you. • First The Dibble Study • Second The Georgette Study • Third The Survey 1. The Home Rule Committee commissioned Charles Dibble in July 1987 to study whether the City of Sea Tac could improve services to the citizens and businesses without raising taxes. We agreed to stop our effort if his study revealed we would have to increase taxes. While the study was preliminary and conservative it revealed what we suspected. 2. King County required The Committee to gather petition signatures to request an in- depth study, which was filed Jan 15, 1988. The Georgette Group was selected to ` investigate some of the same questions we were asking and to report to the Boundary Review Board by Oct 31. Their study confirmed The Dibble Study. It concluded there is revenue from the existing tax structure to double the police service without raising taxes. Perhaps even lowering taxes, especially if the airport tax monies could be used in our community problems. Quality of life was not a factor discussed in the study but remember, you have to have a dream before it can come true. We, the Citizens for Improved Services and . Controlled Taxation have committed ourselves to make this a safe, secure community to be proud to live and work in. As Samuel Adams once said "Facts are stubborn things" The facts reported in the studies support our premise and we would not be here tonight if they did not. We can make a difference with the monies already created here. 3. The Survey reported in the Georgette Study offers an indication of attitude. While it is not scientific, statistically significant, nor was it intended to be, 127 people responded: • 80Z identified Sea Tac as their community • 75X responded the boundaries were logical • When asked if they could identify the City of Sea Tac as their city only 2g said no. In conclusion, we would like to let the registered voters of this area decide if a local government could make their community a better place to live and work in. .• We do need community identify..• Perhaps :I should say replace our image of Sin City with a positive image of the'. • Gateway City to the Northwest. •. We need a sense of community. • We need our schools and residential areas. :Many of our schools and neighborhoods are gone forever: • We need to promote- ecomonic development in our Dead zones, create :good Jobs and provide social services to our seniors, our children .and our business sector. We need a police force designed to handle our unique needs. We do not turn the lights off at 9:00 PM, we never turn the lights off. This is a community with real city needs. Thank you for listening to my evangelizing. We need to be involved in regional transportation planning. • We need to have a voice in Puget Sound Government November 29, 1988 To: The Boundary Review Board Re: Tukwila Annexation Dear Members of the Board: My name is Susan Finigan. T reside with my husband, Robert, and three daughters Christina age 13, Brigitte age 12 and Sophia age 6 cL"t 4010 South 150th Street. I was also the last person to verbally testify at last Tu'esday's boundary review board meeting which was held at the Red Lion Hotel. To verbally discuss in depth my personal reasons for annexation was difficult and I am choosing to write this letter to you which may further clarify my feelings. Our six year old daughter was in fact a victim of a terrible incident which happened last year in our Riverton Heights home (attached article). We are in total support for annexation with Tukwila for the following logical reasons: 1. This area needs better police protection. 2. .Padific Highway is deplorable and I think Tukwila could . do more with the problems related to this area. Tukwila already has an excellent police and fire department .readily available and already in force. 1. K.C.B.R.B. FILE: # /,-), Exhibit #tait- Additionally, my husband and I both•work with Windermere Real, Estate 'and sell residential houses in this area. Anyone.buying in this area often. voices major concerns about the safety of Riverton Heights. Property values. would be better enhanced I believe with a'community - identify, better safety for our children and a better feeling of well- being for all of us. For all the above reasons, I plead with you now to support our annexation with Tukwila. Thank you. Sincer •wm • Transient gets 10 -year sentence. for raping •5- year -o ld Riverton girl Sy SAMARA CLEMENTS County Bureau A 36-year-old transient was sentenced to 10 years in jail Friday for choking and raping a 5 -year -old girl in her Riverton Heights hone. Robert Thomas was sentenced to 120 months for first-degree rape and. concurrently, 20 months for first- degree burglary by King County Superior Court Judge Robert Dixon, who said he chose to go outside the state guidelines for sentencing because of the victim's age. "This one is about as bad as you can get," said Dixon of the May 22 rape: "This involved a help- less child in her bed." Thomas pleaded guilty to both charges in Septem- ber. According to court documents . filed with the charges, Thomas entered the girl's house sometime on the night of May 22 and crept upstairs to the girl's bedroom. There he choked her, raped her and then told her not to tell her parents what had happened. The next morning, the girl's 11- year -old sister found Thomas sleeping in the bed with the girl. The sister coaxed the girl out of the bed and alerted her parents. When police arrived, Thomas was still asleep on the bloodstained sheets. . A medical examination showed the girl had been Thomas' defense attorney, Russ Aoki, said that Thomas has been drinking that night and remem- bers nothing about raping the girl. "When he woke up he thought he was in detox facility," said Aoki. "When he found out what he was accused of. he couldn't believe it." Aoki also pointed out that Thomas had served in Vietnam and had been decorated for his war ser- vice, including receivin a good conduct medal and . a Bronze Star. In fact ' drinking problems began while serving there and he is still suffering from post traumatic stress. disorder, he said.. "Totally removing him from society 'would not solve his problems," said Aoki, who recommended that Thomas receive counseling and be sentenced to only five years in prison for both charges: Speaking in a barely audible voice, Thomas said his drinking was probably his way of punishing Governor's panel opens drug hotline A 24 -hour toll -free information hotline, 1-800-562-1240, has been established by the Washington . State Governor's Alliance Against If you need the name of • drug bent agency in your area a • M about drug abuse, the a,, tp local 1?TA'3 alcohol Jose chair or answers .. :P l ag` siugsb.asa . 1 .-)0 !' , 'This one is about as bad as you can get This involved a helpless child in her bed. The whole family • has suffered from this.' — Robert Dixon, Superior Court judge himself for Vietnam and away of "killing himself one way or another. I can't believe this." But Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark . Larson said that the girl's age, should be taken into consid- eration and asked for the 10 -year sentence. Lar- son's request wad backed up by a letter from the girl's mother, who urged that . Thomas "not be available to our society to do further damage to children and women. We are fortunate that (our 1 daughter) is with us today. The next victim may not be as fortunate." The mother added that since the attack. her fami- ly has bought a German Shepherd. fenced the front yard, bought new furniture and let the girl sleep in ,1 different rooms of the house to try and calm her fears. The girl also has undergone counseling. • •The whole family has suffered from this. said Larson after the sentencing. "The girl came down 4 the next morning and asked her parents why they '1 didn't hear her crying." The girl's sister and her friends had also been. it camping outside that night, so the back door had been left open. "They've been feeling some guilt about that too," said Larson. Thomas will also have to pay for the girl's coun- seling fees, up to $500. The standard sentencing range for first - degree rape is from 51 to 68 months. s A first- degree burglary conviction carries a sentenc- ing range of 15 to 20 months. Thomas had no prior felonies. Dixon said Thomas' lack of prior felonies and hid vj military career might have softened the sentence if : the case had been different. "But this is the worst one I've ever seen," he repeated. . We sell first quality and discontinued metrhandise from . !Was" prices quoted are the at which the catalog or in many retail stores around QUANTITIES AND ASSORTMENTS ARE LIMr Riverton Heights Exxon 14415 Pacif is Hwy South Seattle,WA 98168 November 28, 1988 Boundary Review Board Subject: Business Support for Tukwila Annexation Members:.• K.C.B.R.B. FILE #1 1 �Yc�l {�It #S Dear Board During the, last two weeks you have heard testimony from residents of the Tukwila annexation area and residents of the Sea -Tac incoporation area. After listening to the incorpora- tion proponents, it seems apparent that they do not really need or want the areas of Foster, Riverton, Thorndyke or Cascade View. What they do want is the business strip down Highway 99. Sea -Tac supporters have also tried to convince . you that .. the businesses in the area overwhelmingly support this movement. the owner of a business in the Thorndyke annexation . area located on 144th and Highway 99, I wanted the Board to know that no one from the Sea -Tac incorporation group has contacted me for my support. During the Thanksgiving weekend of 11 -23 through 11 -27, I asked other local businesses whether they preferred Tukwila annexation over Sea-Tac incorpo ration. Attached is a list of those businesses which preferred Tukwila annexation. I am submitting this list to you for your evaluation. 'T.g King County Review Board We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade View annexation areas wish to express our desire to annex; to the City of Tukwila for.the following reasons; 1.. The South. Central School'District is a single community. The Sea -Tac incorporation proposal divides that community. . Annexation of the proposed areas will increase Tukwi].a's population from less than 5,000 to more than 18,000 which will allow Tukwila to more effectively compete with neighboring cities - in economic and governmental issues. 3. Residents of our community are more oriented toward Tukwila than toward the other communities included in the Sea -Tac proposal. We participate in Tukwila parks and recreation programs, including programs for seniors, and our children attend the same schools as the children of Tukwila residents. 4. The .annexations would provide better • quality and quantity of services for the taxes we pay than we now receive. For example, we would receive better police protection and we would have more voice in land use decisions that affect our community. 5. The annexations'would adjust portions of the city boundary that currently are impractical -- in particular, the unincorporated area east of Interstate 5 between Interurban Avenue and South 144th Street. 6. The annexations would establish practical- boundaries -- the Duwamish River to the north, Military Road to the west, 160th Street to the south and the present Tukwila city limits to the east. 7. Tukwila has adequate resources to address the growing urban problems in our community, particularly crime. Tukwila has a strong tax base and capable' staff, including a highly professional police force, in place already. 8. Tukwila City Hall, where .city offices are located and city decision - making bodies meet, is close to where we live, allowing us ready access to local government. 9. The city's pre - annexation zoning process has allowed residents of the annexation areas to participate in the comprehensive land use planning and zoning for those areas. As a result, residents will know when they vote on the annexation proposals what their zoning will be when the annexations take effect. 10. Residents of the area overwhelmingly favor annexation to Tukwila over inclusion in Sea -Tac, as evidenced by the attached petitions and the number of signatures un the annexation petitions. In conclusion, it is important for the Boundary Review Board to understand that our annexation movement has been ongoing since early 1987 and grew out of discontent with the inaccessibility of King County government and inadequacy of King County services. The initial interest in annexation was not in response to the proposed City of Sea -Tac. The annexation effort was in response to providing our community with a stronger voice in issues that affect our community. We felt this could be achieved through annexation to the City of Tukwila. This is still our intent. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: *( 5 graduates from South Central Schools) * + 3 children, 2 of which now attend. E ° z . We, the 'extended family listed below wish to make it known that we are REQUESTING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA. We are residents of the Thorndyke area seeking the above referenced annexation. We are also the property owners. We further sulimit to the Boundry Review Board the request that they make the SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BORDERS the new boundry for the City.of Tukwila. As residents we use facilities such as parks, stores etc. on both sides, east and west of the 1 -5 Freeway. We are residents of the east side of. Highway 99, but we shop and bank on the west side of Highway 99, all the way to Military Road. Therefore our considered opinion is that these areas that are NATURAL BOUNDRYS for our community be the ones you use for your decision. Thank you. * Donna Lee 4259 South 146th Seattle, WA 98168 243 -2960 * Murrell Lee 4259 South 146th Seattle, WA 98168 243 -2960 Carl 0. Lee 4233 South 146th Seattle, WA 98168 243 -9644 * Marjorie Schwartz 14650 42nd Avenue So. Seattle, WA 242 -1986 * Michael Schwartz 14650 42nd Avenue So. Seattle, WA 242 -1986 * Robert Lee 4242 South 146th Seattle, WA 98168 241 -9234 1 TIT oftat PETITION OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade View annexation areas support annexation to the City of Tukwila over inclusion in the proposed City of Sea -Tac. Address /Lk3 /1 . 1 2s ?a 3 i 6 T u./ tqtr v3 Name Annexation Phone Area 7- II I 44s�i 7 31.1....t F1U' 50. 3 iv6 iz4V roue r 392c, /; how sa S 4 1464 3 Napa- gum, J. stiz fizsPe c - ec g6 � �es -erg / sz Krim' . 4 ° - dttso q ft c S 5v 1,u4;u)de -m ' i- /5 1 .5 4 5 - F 4 1 -4 4 r 4c• Ste. see i cr40 TO THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD: Elizabeth Springer November 29, 1988 Earlier, I had thought that the boundary change offered by Sea -Tac (42 /41th) might be divisive. But it is Tukwila's refusal to compromise and to drive for joint management of "The Strip" and widening of its boundaries to the west that is divisive. Those who have allowed themselves to be stampeded into Tukwila's "Yes Annex" campaign have apparently forgotten that their petitions were seeking retention of their single family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods had no collective identity as evidenced by the four annexation proposals: Fire District , "•1, Riverton, Foster & Thorndyke. The Tukwila Riverton Annexation Task Force (to adjust the present King County zoning to Tukwila Plannings direction zoning) met and at Tukwila/ changed three areas from single family residential to commercial. These changes abrogated the intent of the Riverton petition yet didn't disturb the residents of the various neighborhoods until Tukwila launched its "Yes Annex" campaign and the School District endorsed the camnairn with its version of annexation identity. Why the School District has supported this supposed identity crises is not yet understood. With little public input The District did sell or lease at bargain prices Southgate School in Riverton (retaining the under -lying land), and recently lost a bond issue due to this imprudent use of public money. The District is now in need of space. Whether this reflects a "hidden agenda" or not between Tukwila and the District will unfortunately not be determined until after the boundaries are establish. The campaign has evidently established an aura of hysteria within the community. KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD -- Page 2 - -E. Springer Many residents know that annexations to Tukwila have been defeated more than once by wide margins. Whether such voter participation will again reflect a lack of interest in annexation to Tukwila is uncertain. It is apparent that these various neighborhoods have confused school attend- ance of their children with identity. It is to be hoped that you do not. And that you consider sole management of "The Strip" together with its drug and crime problems as prime importance to the City of Sea -Tac and affirm, the 42nd /40th compromise. This would leave the neighborhoods to determine whether they wish to remain in King County or join Tukwila on the merits of their petitions. ELIZAB i SPRING E 133 42nd Ave "Sea le, WA 98168 e 1 2 3 4 5 In Re: City of Tukwila Proposed Annexation of 469 acres of South 6 King County County [Thorndyke area] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY hearings before the Boundary Review proposed annexations. 1. to utilize hoods and communities nor preserve areas or reasonable boundaries. District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -1- FILE NO. 1538 KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #24'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO CITY OF TUKWILA'S PROPOSED ANNEXA- TIONS COMES NOW King County Fire Protection District #24, herein- after referred to as District #24, by and through its undersigned attorneys of record, GIERKE, CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK, and respectfully submits the following supplemental memorandum of authorities on the issues raised during the course of the public Board on the City of Tukwila's FIVE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD TO DENY THE ANNEXATIONS AS PROPOSED Tukwila's proposal is contrary to the BRB's objectives set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.180[1], [3], [4] and [7]. By attempting State Highway 99 as the westerly boundary for the proposed Thorndyke annexation, the City of Tukwila is suggesting that the Highway 99 commercial district be split in half and fragmented. This will not serve to preserve the natural neighbor- logical municipal service The complexities of the problems LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA (2061383.3761 SEATTLE (2061838 -3040 FAX ( 2061 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 facing the. Sea -Tac community demand a unified and coordinated response to municipal services to properly meet the needs of the community. The answers to these problems do not lie in multi - jurisdictional administration of municipal services between competing municipalities. The 24 hour community activity associated with the airport facility alone militates against multiple jurisdictional splitting of services. Tukwila has urged the BRB to move the westerly boundary of the proposed annexations to Military Road South. During the course of the public hearings many citizens have urged the BRB to shift the westerly boundary of the proposed annexations west of State Highway 99 to Military Road South. However, without a petition for annexation being filed, a resolution being passed, an appropriate SEPA study undertaken, and the filing of a timely notice of intent to annex along with public notice, the BRB has no subject matter jurisdiction to alter the boundary of the Thorndyke, Riverton or Foster proposed annexation areas to include an area not presently covered by the notice of intent . to annex before the BRB. RCW 36.93.150[2]. 2. The proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area will effec- tively isolate a small peninsula between State Highway 99 and the Port of Seattle which will remain to be served by the King County Department of Public Safety. This is bound to create certain overlapping law enforcement problems by fragmenting the area and will result in differential law enforcement authori- ties along State Highway 99 which will complicate public safety District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -2- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA (206 ) 383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272 -2766 1 concerns. Issues of public safety, traffic and crime are not 2 only of paramount interest to the community, but are the types of considerations which do not readily confine themselves to neat geographical or jurisdictional boundaries. 5 3. The division of the Sea -Tac Community into several jurisdic- 6 tions may be thought to create some logical service boundaries 7 for the proposed annexation area, but in reality they would 8 leave the remaining unincorporated areas of King County with 9 far less logical service boundaries. Cohesive planning and 10 administration are necessary to deal with the highly urban nature 11 of this 24 hour community, and would be hampered by multiple 12 annexations which do nothing more than divide the community 13 "pie" between several jurisdictions. R.C.W. 36.93.170[2] and 14 [3] outline these factors as matters for consideration by the 15 BRB. 16 4. Tukwila's proposed annexations will further reduce local 17 control of taxation and will not serve to insure that Port of 18 Seattle related revenues remain in the area to provide improve - 19 ments in local service commensurate with the degree of impact 20 created by the presence of an international airport with its 21 24 hour community activity. By dividing the area into multiple 22 annexations to adjacent cities, the community benefits that 23 flow from taxation would be dissipated between multiple juris- 24 dictions rather than concentrated where they are badly needed. 5. If Tukwila continues to expand its respective "planning area" and "sphere of influence" which already extends substan- District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -3- 25 26 LAW OFFICES GIERKE, CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA (2061383.3761 SEATTLE (206)038.3040 FAX ( 2061 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 tially throughout District #24's territory, and continues to pursue its haphazard and uncontrolled quest for additional munici- pal territory, District #24 and other similar special purpose districts will ultimately be fragmented and unable to provide adequate fire protection services for residences and businesses in the remaining area of unincorporated King County. The City of Tukwila's Resolution No. 1094, ostensibly passed on November 21, 1988, serves to confirm that Tukwila's long term planning program envisions the annexation of the entire Sea -Tac incorporation area. District #24 is opposed to any pro - posed annexation which will have the net effect of fragmenting and reducing its ability to provide adequate fire protection, code inspection and services to the constituents of its district. Tukwila has already conceded in their notice of intent to annex the Thorndyke area at page 5, Paragraph 9.H.7, that the .proposed annexation will have a potentially cumulative effect on other governmental units taken in conjunction with pending and future annexations in the area. The BRB must assess the severity of this impact under R.C.W. 36.93.170[2] and [3]. The evidence in this proceeding suggests that the impact from the proposed annexations on the adjacent areas and municipal services through special purpose districts would be too severe to justify to the remainder of the Sea -Tac community in South King County. The best interests of the citizens and businesses lying within the community would be served by a unified and compre- District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -4- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-33t9 TACOMA (2061383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 hensive approach which could address the problems of the area, 2 not by Tukwila's attempt to fragment special purpose districts 3 and engage in "revenue shopping" to increase their fiscal tax 4 base. The BRB should make a decision on the proposed annexations 5 which takes into consideration the entire South King County 6 community's needs and interests, not solely those of competing 7 municipalities anxious to obtain a greater share of tax dollars. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 as follows: RESPONSE TO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #2'S ARGUMENT RE: POTENTIAL DIVISION OF ASSETS King County Fire Protection District #2, hereinafter referred to as District #2, testified through their attorney, Clark B. Snure, on November 17, 1988 and filed with the BRB a written memorandum of authorities dated November 22, 1988 on the issue of potential impact of incorporation on Fire District #2. It has suggested that although the boundaries of the proposed City of Sea -Tac include 20% of the assessed value of taxable real property of District #2, they actually include approximately 40% of the assessed value of all real property located in the district. The division of public assets is a matter of concern for the BRB and one of the issues set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.170[2] and [3], which describe factors to be considered by the BRB. For the purpose of determining the ownership of fire district assets, R.C.W. 35.02.200 [formerly R.C.W. 35.13.248] provides ANNEXATION OF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - OWNERSHIP District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -5- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA (2061383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838 -3040 FAX (206) 272 -2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A portion of Fire District #2 overlies the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, which is a separate municipal corporation. (The Georgette Study at page III -68.) In the case of The City of Normandy Park v. King County Fire District #2, 43 Wn.App. 435, 717 P.2d 769 (1986), Division I of the Court of Appeals interpreted a portion of R.C.W. 35.13.248, the predecessor to the current R.C.W. 35.02.200. The only issue before the court in Normandy Park, supra, was whether or not the area of Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, which partially lies within Fire Protection District #2, should be considered for the purpose of determining whether or not the area annexed into the city of Normandy Park involved less than five percent of the assessed valuation of the real property of the fire protection district. If so, no payment would be required by the fire protection district to the City of Normandy Park. The court held that in making this threshold determination, District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -6- OF ASSETS OF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHEN LESS THAN SIXTY PERCENT. [1] If a portion of a fire protection district includ- ing less than sixty percent of the assessed value of the real property of the district is annexed to or incorporated into a city or town, the ownership of all assets of the district shall remain in the district and the district shall pay to the city or town within one year or within such period of time as the district continues to collect taxes in such incorporated or annexed areas, in cash, properties or contracts for fire protection services, a percentage of the value of said assets equal to the percentage of the value of the real property in the entire district lying within the area so incorporated or annexed: Provided, That if the area annexed or incorporated includes less than five percent of the assessed value of the real property of the district, no payment shall be made to the city or town. LAW OFFICES GIERKE, CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA( 2061383.3761 SEATTLE I206)838.3040 FAX ( 206 1 272-2766 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that the portion of the Port of Seattle lying within District #2. should be considered in calculating the overall area within the fire protection district to be annexed or incorporated not- withstanding the fact that the fire protection district did not directly levy tax to the area nor did they provide regular fire protection services to the Port. It is important to understand that the Normandy Park opinion, supra, does not address the issue of whether or not the Port of Seattle properties' "assessed valuation" is to be considered in any potential "division of assets" between a city or town annexing or incorporating into Fire Protection District #2's area. There are obviously two determinations to be made under R.C.W. 35.02.200. The first is the threshold determination under the Normandy Park opinion, supra, to determine whether or not the land removed from the fire protection district equals or exceeds five percent of the area of the district affected. The Normandy Park opinion, supra, did not address the more critical question which has been raised by Fire Protection District #2 in this case: whether or not the Port of Seattle properties' "assessed valuation" is to be considered in any potential "divis- ion of assets" between cities or towns annexing or incorporating to the district under R.C.W. 35.02.200? It is clear that no city, town or municipality has the authority or power to annex or incorporate directly into the Seattle port authority because that entity is a separate and District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -7- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA (206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX ( 206) 272 -2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 independent municipal corporation. Although two separate and independent municipal corporations such as Fire District #2 as a special purpose district, and the Port of Seattle as a port authority can legally occupy and encompass the same geograph- ical areas in part, it makes no sense logically for any portion of the Port property which lies within the concurrent geographical territory of District #2, to be considered in any potential "division of assets ". Since neither the acquiring city or town either by annexation or incorporation would have any legal juris- diction or authority to remove property from the Port of Seattle's municipal corporation, the property subject to the division of assets should logically be limited to the fire district's property, not property concomitantly covered by the Port Author- ity. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that Fire District #2 does not directly levy tax upon the Port property per se, nor is it required to or obligated to provide regular primary fire protection services to the Port property as it is in the remainder of its district not covered by the Port. While District #2 may have contractual obligations or mutual aid agreements, those exist by virtue of contract and consensual agreement between the parties, not by virtue of the Port author- ity's geographical presence within a portion of District #2's area. Since a city or town pursuant to statute can only operate to remove property from a fire protection district and not expressly from a port authority as an independent municipal District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -8- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA) 2061383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Port of Seattle's "assessed valuation" is to be considered in 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 corporation, it would be fundamentally unfair to consider the Port properties' "assessed value" in determining the amount the fire protection district would be required to pay to a city or town for the removal of property from a fire protection dis- trict. While the language of R.C.W. 35.02.200 is mandatory rather than directive or permissive, neither the statute nor the Normandy Park opinion, supra, specifically provide or suggest that the arriving at a "division of assets" between Fire District #2 and an annexing or incorporating city or town. It would appear that the statute implicitly refers to the subject of "taxable real property" in the event the "division of assets" comes into play. Unfortunately, there are no other statutes which lend any guidance on this issue nor are there any published appellate court opinions that squarely answer this question. In the absence of any such authority, common sense and logic should prevail. The BRB should ask the same question that any reviewing Court would ask under similar circumstances: What public purpose or benefit would be served by considering the Port authority's properties' "assessed valuation" in any potential "division of assets" when the Port authority's "assets" as a separate and independent municipal corporation are not subject to division either to a fire district or to an annexing city or town? To conclude otherwise would require the taxpayers in Fire District #2 to bear the financial responsibility for District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -9- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 - 3319 TACOMA) 206) 383 -3761 SEATTLE (206) 838.3040 FAX ( 2061 272.2766 1 a division of assets over property which they cannot and do 2 not legally control. 3 In this particular case, although there is no competent 4 evidence in the Board's record, District #2 has suggested that 5 the valuation of the Port of Seattle's property lying within 6 District #2 is disproportionately high in relationship to the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 other non -Port property lying within District #2 subject to the potential incorporation. The only competent figures before the Board, however, are those set forth in The Georgette Study at page III -76 which do not support Fire District #2's contention that 40% of the assessed value would be required upon a division of assets. The Georgette Study indicates that only 20% of the 1988 assessed valuation of Fire District #2 would be impacted by the proposed incorporation. However, even The Georgette Study does not address the issue of whether or not the Port of Seattle's property lying within Fire District #2 and subject to the poten- tial incorporation should be considered in a statutory "division of assets" pursuant to R.C.W. 35.02.200. District #2 in their presentation has referred the BRB to the South Angle Lake annexation by the City of Des Moines, and has suggested that the same issue is now pending before the BRB with regard to the proposed Tukwila annexations and the Sea -Tac incorporation. District #24 believes this is an inadvertent mischaracterization by District #2. The question before the BRB on the South Angle Lake annexa- tion was whether the extension of a code city's boundaries by District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -10- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 . 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA ( 206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX ( 206 1 272.2766 1 annexation automatically serves to extend the boundaries of 2 a fire protection district to which the code city is already 3 annexed? King County Superior Court Judge Frank Sullivan entered 4 a judgment on a complaint for declaratory relief determining 5 that District #26's boundaries did not automatically extend 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 concomitantly with those of the City of Des Moines. That decision has since been appealed to Division I of the Court of Appeals. In the South Angle Lake annexation since the Court ruled that District #26 did not automatically extend its municipal boundaries with those of the City of Des Moines, the result potentially left an area removed from District #24's territory, and included within the City of Des Moines' territory by statute, but technically still being outside of the municipal boundaries of District #26. That obviously created an unanticipated anomaly which raised serious questions about the provision and financing of emergency fire protection services in that case. The BRB's denial of the South Angle Lake annexation was based largely upon the problem which arose out of this fire protection question. That issue is not before the BRB on this case because whatever property is taken out of District #2 by the Sea -Tac incorporation will not be left in limbo, but rather will be served by the newly incorporated city. There is no issue in this case before the BRB as to the legal capacity of a fire protection district or the City of Sea -Tac to serve the area which Sea -Tac City proposes to remove from Fire District #2 District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -11- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203. 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA ( 2061383-3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272 -2766 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 2 5 26 upon. incorporation. Respectfully submitted this 28th :y of No -mber, 1988. G }E$ URWEN, M ZLER & BOBRICK District 24's Supplemental Memorandum of Authorities -12- AL Gregory :# urwen Attorneys for KCFPD #24 LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203. 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA (206) 383.3761 SEATTLE ( 206 I 838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 A eittf/ - ea■tf,14 e /tea:-4$ 4)& i ALe.4.1.1 fe 444,c4.7- a4 J -- 14-413-1-124 - 441. _0-07t4k, 4‘-le / ' te-e00,6e-C LEM . q /4 24 9 K.C.B.R.B. FILE #(1)3 Exhibit #441-0411 141j— ao1/4-446., iteou■ /tliae.,tivt44 t 7411%;ff Ofax4,, ,wt t4e. 1;te4Aci 'eAt iett.f:/0 4714241— • • ,L4' ;M • .• 4 • • ...P.' 1 , - s' , Ps. .4 •e4, • • . • , • - • • -1 • • - •4 • 4 ' • . , to • "" ; " - e- - "' r. o n .... ,. „. .,:.-...„.:, ‘.f-..• .• itimi:c ear • :!?0.t.'„:4-...i....,....c,,,.,-• by..CAT_Hy.REINEk sout oti.r - . ...2.-4--. - , „.•-• 4- ) , h runes nuntay ;:•1•:.. =...•• • ... ...sa . .,-.....,.Y,„„ .A h .ithtgliefOr here .71..1 : ... 'Will w., at the • .. probably havp7 p -tmal say 4pn iriltas'Unlike-sch- • whether this corporated'A i'l iltS 01 , ( *cornea a, City,.o.l.... :e;,t.q.t .e*.-ticS40.*: • v, ,/,•,.....x-,:.; Viiiiinext 4.....tM.'$h4.4 .anperralion.005..-: : ..'•'• • .- '"trielc .0: A . t Z ..;,4••• — th„ 'tiltliertOn mute= • . • iityAsh=AllOtt011:1 if) : •:4, . fot •:-. similar:hope*" r,afilil .4 ' t WO:Land. .. ' .•"' , 'r .• ..... a liof .; 4 ..„. .. , • • '1 , .1 n ,:tri t .f . i fprinal xis eleg isoide. , ,.... ,, :4 " I ',' r .)t : " • .. .i.: .. "*.P( 1.... 0 ,. „ tsalui . i . la .,,,... ' I 1 1 • V■ ' rA - t ' , 4 .. •,. „ . fl. -, ' i 1 t• . i '. .Y: Y' ' • ..*•.";•,116th•iS ".,,,,,..'"'• .:::.;_ . .,„; i , ...:`,1_,.e- , ' h.. i -.,.• • f?, I jig .6; ,. A, . 4.,r, r, t . i 4 r.,I ' 1 4.. •, el '" :} ' -' ;' ' '''' ' . ''' •••• , . :t . .1.: ,, • . et a -/ a ''.... 3' 4 E r' 1 • • . ' j . 1.. •.• : ,, - t+ • . • 4.,...e . • .-..t4 a: :40,` ,:- • . . • I 5 • i ' p: itOdrit f91 ,. 7 kY./Aa#A., W4il s, ' " % . e * i. " :- Ili ctn illief.iartlowri.. ; • h :tt .. ... ; ; E , •;;;;; :e ... 1-,-. 1 1 , 4, _,,..._..a . ..,z. - ,7,...ii/..41 . . :1 '• 2 i .... .7' . iiiiti 2,11MA -MOndi appeg; the . review-bOard decLsi : • to King County Superior go*tii .1.... no appeals:arefiled,: the anneXat; tick ‘,TequeSt-goes to. thef.Count • • „ •-• T s, • 1 : ' 7go : fil have ctest uwainklet,'ho*4 . ries'2 . .4 er;Iloym he roaChoweitex;'• yor*•Bautli;,Siiid..The soonest oters could - '�1b lots on the annexation amuld bot.- Council to set a date for electituir,.-....,' ext Septembert4:4 ..,..4.....4..., 1. • Ttiltivili;! Mayor Edgai".13iiichk•7f_EMeanwhilerfeilden ii id th at election probib Willli and • maUk:' .19.: tri." .4 ittl)SIVASkil$5 . ..41* it ne4F Tukwila .'4': are. gearing •%. row. llendiaidt; • an - aiinexa=• 1 . . said thergyk.eyke;.: with neighborhood meetihipir •,. • ,,k : • • •• -.. 1 • . -. • -:, v.. v-• (.,...I.% ii-: t -., .' .... .4.•-• ,-, 4 . ••• ..* 1+1,14.7•44. ,,.! - • L.e — 7 /5Z2 •• --11 ,;// / Z-e-4-‘..u....r...• /-* b King Co. Boundary Review Board 3600 136th Place S. E. Bellevue, Washington Attention: ?r. Bryce Martin Re: Proposed Boundaries of Riverton, Thorndyke, & Foster Annexations Dear.Board Memberss In any weighty deliberation, precedents are a very handy thing. You are probably already aware that in 1979, the King County Boundary Review Board set a precedent by approving Highway 99 as an appropriate western boundary in Riverton's attempt to annex to Tukwila. (Reference File #816) Again, the Riverton community along with the communities of Foster & Thorndyke are asking for approval of boundaries which seem reasonable and logical to the people who live here. At this time of your present hearings, Tukwila and the Riverton community have had 9 years and 9 months to think about those earlier boundaries -- Highway 99 in particular. Foster and Thorndyke commun- ities have verified the wisdom of the choice of Highway 99. as the western boundary in their petitions fob annexation.. Highway 99 is ptill the reason- able, logical choice for the boundary because it is geographically and topographically the western edge of the 3 communities. Highway 99 is at the top of the ridge from which descend to the east the communities of Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, and Tukwila. This is one reason why Tukwila seems a logical annexation choice. We are all on the morning -side of the mountain, so to speak. By designating 40th - 42nd Avenue South as a boundary, the viable, petitioning communities are split in half. The resi- dents on the west side of 40th - 42nd have worked as long and as hard for annexation as have the residents on the east side because their needs and interests are the same. A split community would be a grievous thing. With Highway 99 as the boundary, law enforcement would be immediately enhanced. We have seen King County and. Tukwila Police work together to deliver a double - whammy to "crackhouses" in the Riverton area. The combined presence of King County and Tukwila would send a strong message to the criminal element on Highway 99. Eventually, we would like to see Military Road as the western boundary of annexation. This would be an appropriate next step since it would unify an entire school district in one city. In the meantime, the annexation process involving Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke needs to move forward without delay. Please consider the strong community appeal and the precedent for Highway 99 as the annexation boundary and let us vote. Sincerely yours, 13422 40th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 Telephone 243 -0277 November 27, 1988 K.C.E.R.!3. F 'ter Sip © STERLING RECREATIOFI ORGAfIIZATIOM 1O8t" b ell'_'vuti 'X \. t n r i 38n` ..a::. °U t .: . »D3 • ►•tali To • P.O. 50■...21. Eeiievuo, NA 9F,000-1721. '?0151 :55-E ;: November 29, 1988 King County Boundary Review Board Eastpointe Plaza 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 • K.C.6.R.B. FILE # Exhbi pREIMEM NOV 291980 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING CO Dear Honorable Members of. The Boundary Review Board: On behalf of SRO, property owners of the Lewis & Clark Recreation Center situated on a twenty -six acre holding at 15860 Highway. 99, I am writing to oppose the boundary . modification as proposed by the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee on November 22, If accepted, this boundary modification would split us from the Thorndyke area annexation. This we strongly oppose. SRO was first contacted by the City of Tukwila approximately five months prior to being contacted by the Committee for the Incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac. As a result of that first contact, I became a member of the Thorndyke Annexation Task Force. I attended all of the Task Force meetings, the Planning Commission meetings and the City Council meetings regarding the Thorndyke Annexation. As you can see, we have much time and effort invested in the Annexation proposal. In my public testimony on November 17, 1988, I stated that SRO is willing to work with either the City of Sea -Tac or the City of Tukwila in the event of the denial of one and approval of the other. I stated that we prefer the estab- lished, known quantity that the City of Tukwila represents. During the course of the hearings, our preference for Tukwila has become more clear. We wish to be annexed to the City of Tukwila. The formation of a new city has significant impacts. Among those are a lack of set policies and representatives who can provide accurate information regarding taxes, ordinances, policies, zoning, etc. We feel that the proposed City of Sea -Tac is no exception. Tneatrez Soo 5road•asunc Video Page 2. Boundary Review Board November 29, 1988 We also find discrepancies in their projected revenue as reported in the Georgette Study. We feel that a very good point was brought forward when the Sea- Tac'area was compared to the City of Renton in size and population, yet its pro- jected revenue is one -half of what the City of Renton needs to operate. This is a grave concern to us. The Lewis & Clark Recreation Center is a community enter - tainment center, which has operated at its present location for some thirty-one years. We consider ourselves part of the community and neighborhood services. The neighborhood is comprised of our patrons and friends. Patron identification and neighborhood continuity are . essential to a business such as ours. We are distinctly different from the typical busi- ness uses along the Highway 99 strip. Other businesses along the Highway 99 strip almost exclusively serve people who are from outside of the area. Our patrons . live in our neighborhood and, together, we have a strong sense of community. For these reasons, we wish to remain intact with the Thorndyke Annex- ation area, the South Central School District and a part of the annexation process to the City of Tukwila. Through my Task Force participation effort, SRO has come to identify strongly with the City of Tukwila, its staff and its services. We are in agreement with the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, its proposed land use and zoning. The City of Tukwila has an established infrastructure with its services already in place. Therefore, although I am certain we would feel some transition pains,., being . annexed to. Tukwila would in no way compare to the potential impact to our business caused by the formation of a new city. appears to us that 160th, the southern border of our prop- erty (see attached map), is a natural boundary as proposed by the Thorndyke Annexation. Water District #125 serves our immediate area as well as the largest part of the South Central School District. The southernmost boundary for Water District #125 is 160th. We were formerly part of Fire District #18 which served all of the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke Annex -ation areas. Again, 160th was the southernmost boundary for Fire District #18. It is also the southernmost boundary for the South Central School District. Page 3. Boundary Review Board November 29, 1988 In closing, 'I point out that ` the Committee for the Incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac maintains it is their desire to allow people and businesses to bean the muni- cipality of their choice. Again, I. emphasize that it is our choice to remain an intact portion of the Thorndyke Annexation area and to be annexed to the City of Tukwila. We welcome your questions. ,ruly . yours, Cher Brown Pro erty Manager Real Estate. Division CB :tc Enclosures G. Brice Martin > Rick Beeler Moira Bradshaw David Schooler 'S 3AV Z1 :. ..:3:..... . — - - s — - a� artc. •• a masortallmillis11aataaalill..U• immirsr/salta I U1UflarataaI1 I ue-, a Nrnbar ■all: ■aalrtla / t.l lv Iua■ all/ uNa allalrlla/Ialaaallmtarl111auu.. 1 /ralLYYatlira ■■■•Nat lfa7au/at /all.Nau Na aaaaari1=aura Int l raalla/u.. u.Na ■aa. ar/fal • u %11•1\u..11u.•11111u MI .. .usuJsU Im u:Nt■■■ NI E. ra NIMBI NO ■at ii. ■alaallal 1r11tlutw.uurs aauail. AMAMIAllK. iui • aamaa asarltal a la ■ aalalllm R11taIaaa:Nmm l ■aYUaarral l mmulattl •aia�i a�rara ar::■ NO WY :Y NO Mk MOM infiatit saaw ■attar: iu uu. invilumm • I • - � , F �► - - ! - '- ---. _. t - • November 1968 WA State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 - 136th S.E. Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 96006 Subject: SeaTac Incorporation Dear Boundary Review Board: It is in your power to give us the opportunity to make a marvelous little city - the City' Of SeaTac. It will improve the quality of life of everyone in our community - regardless'of how long they are here - here or only passing through on the way to the airport. We believe that the Georgette Study shows that there is sufficient revenue to make a viable city even with the boundary as suggested by the SeaTac proponents - behind the commercial zoned on the east side of Highway 99 and other boundary adjustments. This would still enable one jurisdiction to control the highway and its related problems using the money generated in part by the airport. It would also allow the annexation proponents (residents) the opportunity to be part of Tukwila. We believe Cascade Crest is part of the plateau with the airport problems and not on the valley floor with their problems. SeaTac incorporation has been a grass roots effort from its inception. Dozens of SeaTac residents were involved in the decision to go for incorporation and hundreds have participated since in sucn activities' as signature getting, casn donations, yard sale donations,:and work on the yard sales. Please.do not oeny.our incorporation petition and forever divide our community among. the neighboring cities. Last week: Des .Moines said "there is.no way Des Moines will let Tukwila take all of SeaTac" and Kent wants a of Militiary Road which is on the plateau and has always been served from the plateau. We are pleased'with the compromise we reached with Des Moines and wish the same good feelings will be established with Tukwila and the • annexation residents. We feel it is time to put away the swords and start acquainting the SeaTac area residents with the benefits of the incorporation so they will make an informed decision when they are given the right to vote on this vital issue. Sincerely, Joe D. Brennan K.C.B.R.B. FILE # 156),3 Exhibit #LLLLL /1/ Betty J. Brennan - 4= S- Cal- '... SeCar4 /CJ'f 9fi9f CITY . OF NORMANDY PARK Clte as 717 P.2d 769 relevancy beyond mere propensity. 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Evidence 11404[12], at 404 -92 (1985). See, e.g., State v. Laureano, 101 Wash.2d 745, 682 P.2d 889 (1984), wherein the additional relevancy that warranted admission of prior convic- tions was a quality of sameness between the two crimes that tended to prove identi- ty. Since we have concluded it was error to admit the two prior juvenile convictions, we need not reach the second issue on appeal. Remanded for a new trial. GREEN, C.J., and. MUNSON, J., concur. 43 Wash.App. 435 CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, a Wash- ington Municipal Corporation, Respondent, v. ING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 2, a Washington Municipal Corporation, Appellant, and the Port of Seattle, a Washington Municipal Corporation, Respondent. No. 15296 —I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. April 14, 1986. Review Denied July 8, 1986. City brought a declaratory judgment action against fire district and Port of Se- attle, seeking portion of fire district's as- sets following annexation of territory. City's motion for summary judgment was granted by the Superior Court, King Coun- ty, George T. Mattson, J., and the fire district appealed. The Court of Appeals, Coleman, J., held that: (1) airport property Reversed. Wash. 769 v. KING CTY. FIRE DIST. (Wuah.App. 1986) within the boundary of the fire district was part of the fire district, and (2) the city was not entitled to compensation for the annex- ation because less than five percent of the area of the fire district was affected by the annexation. 1. Counties 818 Statute providing that incorporation of any previously unincorporated land lying within a fire protection district shall oper- ate to automatically withdraw such lands from the fire protection district, applies to incorporation of a city or town, not incorpo- ration of port districts. West's RCWA 52. 08.021, 52.08.025, 53.04.060. 2. Counties «18 A municipal corporation is removed from the fire district boundaries by express action of the legislature, and not simply because it is empowered to create and use its own fire protection service. West's RCWA 14.08.120, 52.30.020, 52.08.025. 3. Municipal Corporations «36(2) The fact that Port of Seattle exercised exclusive jurisdiction over its airport prop- erty did not automatically remove_the prop- erty from fire district, for purposes of de- termining whether percentage of fire dis- trict later annexed by city was sufficient to entitle city to compensation from fire dis- trict in form of a percentage of its assets. West's RCWA 14.08.330, 35.13.248. Snure & Fleck, P.S.C., Clark B. Snure, Des Moines, for King. County Fire Dist. No. 2. Simmons & Viall, Wilton S. Viall, Seattle, for City of Normandy Park. Carrie Schnelker, Seattle, for The Port of Seattle. COLEMAN, Judge. On February 21, 1983, the City of Nor- mandy Park annexed a previously unincor- porated area of King County. Prior to 770 Wash. 717 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES annexation, the annexed area, hereinafter referred to as "Manhatten," was within the boundaries of, and was served by King County Fire District 2 (Fire District). Following the annexation, pursuant to RCW 35.13.248,' the City of Normandy Park asked King County Fire Protection District 2 to pay 6.97 percent of the value of its assets to the City. The City's re- quest was based on their calculation that Manhatten comprised 6.97 percent of the assessed valuation of all property within the ° fire protection district and also com- prised more than 5 percent of the area within the Fire District. Therefore, the City determined that it was entitled to com- pensation from the Fire District under RCW. 35.13.248. However, the Fire Dis- trict refused to pay because it believed that less than 5 percent of the area of the Fire District was affected by the annexation, and therefore, no compensation was re- quired under the statute. . The Fire Dis- trict's calculations showed that if Port of Seattle property was . included in the Fire District's total area, then the area affected by annexation comprised only 3.94 percent of the property in the Fire District. On the other hand, if Port of Seattle property was not included in the Fire District's total area then the area affected by annexation comprised 5.27 percent of the property in the Fire District. The City subsequently brought a declara- tory judgment action against the Fire Dis- trict and the Port of . Seattle and later moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and ruled in part as follows: 1. RCW 35.13.248 provides: "Annexation of fire districts— Ownership of assets of fire protection district —When less than sixty percent. If a portion of a fire protec- tion district including less than sixty percent of the assessed value of the real property of the . district is annexed to or incorporated into a city or town, the ownership of all assets of the district shall remain in the district and the dis- trict shall pay to the city or town within one year or within such period of time as the district continues to collect taxes in such incorporated or annexed areas, in cash, properties, or con - tracts for fire protection services, a percentage 2.5) RCW .14.08.330 gives the Port ex- clusive police jurisdiction over its Sea -Tac Airport properties. RCW 14.08.120(2) gives the Port the right to provide fire protection services for its .. Sea -Tac , Air - port property or to contract for such services, which right is exercised by the Port. RCW 53.08.010 and RCW 14.08.- 030(2) give the Port the power to con- demn and acquire property. Nothing in Chapters RCW 52.04 and 52.22 pertain- ing to fire districts speaks to the issue of removal of the Port's airport property from a fire protection district. Read to- gether, these statutes operate to remove the . Port of Seattle property at Sea -Tac Airport from the territorial or other jur- isdiction of King County Fire Protection District No. 2. The land area of "Man- hattan" exceeds 5% of the area of King County Fire Protection District No. 2 and pursuant to RCW 35.13.248 more than 5% of the area of the District is affected. 2.6) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 2.7) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. • • The Fire District appeals from this order: ISSUE I: Did the trial court err in ruling that RCW .14.08 operates to remove the Port of Seattle property at Seattle - Taccma airport from the territorial or other juris- diction of the Fire District? Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in its interpretation of RCW 14.08 because certain 'statutes contained in RCW chapters 52.04. and 52.08 (formerly 52.22) contain the exclusive methods for of the value of said assets equal to the percent- age of the value of . the real property in the entire district lying within the area so incorpo- rated or annexed: Provided, That if less than five percent of the area of the district is affect- ed, no payment shall be made to the city or town. The fire protection district shall provide fire protection to the incorporated or annexed area for such period as the district continues to collect taxes levied in such annexed or incorpo- rated area." The parties have not asked this court to inter- pret this statute, and they do not contest its application to these facts. CITY OF NORMANDY PARK CM u 717 P.2d 769 removing real property from the jurisdic- tion of a fire district, and none of these statutes provide for removal of property by a municipal corporation's acquisition of real property for airport purposes. On the oth- er hand, respondents argue that RCW 52.- 08.021' controls this case. The statute states: Withdrawal by incorporation of part of district. The incorporation of any previously unincorporated land lying within a fire protection district shall op- erate to automatically withdraw such lands from the fire protection district. According to respondents, the term "incor- poration" clearly refers to the incorpo- ration of any municipal corporation; and since the Port is a municipal corporation, RCW 53.04.060, Auto Drivers v. Retire- ment Sys., 92 Wash.2d 415, 419, 598 P.2d 379 (1979), the condemnation and incorpo- ration of the airport property by the Port automatically removed that property from the Fire District. (11 Though the statute is ambiguous with respect to the meaning of "incorpo- ration," a careful reading of RCW 52.08.- 021, the section immediately following 52.- 08.021, i.e., 52.08.025, and the relevant leg- islative history indicates that "incorpo- ration of any previously unincorporated land ..." in RCW 52.08.021 refers to the "incorporation" of a city or town. The title of the act that created RCW 52.08.021 (for- merly 5222.020) states in pertinent part: "AN ACT relating to fire protection dis- tricts; providing for the exclusion of terri- tory within the district upon incorporation of such territory as a city or town . ." (Emphasis added.) Laws of 1955, ch. 111, p. 522. It is well settled that where "the language of an act is ambiguous, the title may be resorted to as an aid to con- struction." Bellevue v. Acrey, 37 Wash. App. 57, 62, 678 P.2d 1289, rev'd on other grounds, 103 Wash.2d 203, 691 P.2d 957 (1984). The title quoted above establishes that the Legislature intended the word "in- corporation," as used in RCW 52.08.021, to include only the incorporation of cities and 2. Former RCW 52.22.020 has been recodified as v. KING CTY. FIRE DIST. Wash. (Wuh.App. 1986) towns, not the incorporation of port dis- tricts. Respondents contend, however, that RCW 14.08.120 establishes, by implication, the Legislature's intent to remove munici- pal airport property from county fire dis- trict boundaries. RCW 14.08.120 states in pertinent part: Specific powers of municipalities op- erating airports. In addition to the gen- eral powers conferred in this chapter, and without limitation thereof, a munici- pality that has established or may here- after establish airports, restricted land- ing areas, or other air navigation facili- ties, or that has acquired or set apart or may hereafter acquire or set apart real property for that purpose or purposes is authorized: 771 • • (2) To adopt and amend all needed rules, regulations, and ordinances for the management, government, and use of any properties under its control, whether within or outside the territorial limits of the municipality; to provide fire protec- tion for the airport, including the acqui- sition and operation of fire protection equipment and facilities, and the right to contract with any private body or polit- ical subdivision of the state for the fur- nishing of such fire protection; to ap- point airport guards or police, with full police powers; ... (Emphasis added.) This statute clearly em- powers a municipal corporation operating an airport to provide its own fire protection services. Though the statute does not ex- pressly remove a municipal corporation's airport property from the territorial bound- aries of a county fire district, respondent argues: (1) that as a practical matter, if the municipal corporation provides its own air- port fire protection, there is no need for county fire protection and, therefore, the airport properties should be considered re- moved from the fire district; and (2) a careful reading of related statutes, includ- ing RCW 52.30.020 and 14.08.330, supports RCW 52.08.021. • • 772 Wash. a conclusion that the Legislature intended to give municipal corporations exclusive po- lice power jurisdiction over airport proper- ties. While . there is logic to these arguments, the fact remains that none of the statutes cited by respondents provides for removal of airport property from the territorial jur- isdiction of a fire district. In fact, RCW 52.30.020 and RCW 14.08 arguably recog- nize that a municipal corporation such as the Port may be within the territorial juris- diction of a fire district even though such municipal corporation provides its own fire protection and has not contracted with the fire district for fire protection. The anoma- lous result, of course, is that such a munici- pal corporation is part of the fire district territory, and yet it receives no fire protec- tion services from the district. However, regardless of how peculiar this result may seem, appellant correctly points out that a similar situation once existed with respect to cities and towns. ill As appellant notes, cities and towns historically had the power to operate their own fire departments even though they were part of a county fire district. How- ever, in 1960, by amendment of Title 52 RCW, the Legislature specifically and ex- pressly removed cities and towns from the territorial boundaries of the fire districts in which they were located. RCW 52.08: 025 (formerly 52.22.030). Thus, it would appear that a municipal corporation is not removed from the boundaries of a fire district simply because it is empowered to create and use its own fire protection ser- vice. Rather, a municipal corporation is removed from the fire district boundaries only . by express action of the Legislature. 13) Respondents, however, claim that such express legislative action is found in the portion of . RCW 14.08.330 which states that airports shall "be under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the municipality ... controlling and operating it.... No other municipality ... shall have any police jurisdiction of the same ..." ' This argu- ment is not persuasive. In King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, 37 Wash.2d 338, 223 P.2d 717 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES 834 (1950), our Supreme Court held that the phrase "'exclusive jurisdiction and con- trol' " only precludes other entities "from interfering with respect to the operation of the Seattle - Tacoma airport ... King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, supra at 348, 223 P.2d 834. In so holding, the court rejected the County's argument that the words "exclu- sive jurisdiction" effectively removed the airport from the territory of King County. It follows then that the court's interpreta- tion of the language "exclusive jurisdiction and control" defeats respondents' argu- ment in the instant case, i.e., that the "ex- clusive jurisdiction" language in RCW 14.- 08 effectively removes the airport property from the Fire District. Respondents ask us to limit the scope of King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, supra, because the court there was faced with a constitutional restriction providing that no territory could be strick- en from any county . unless a majority of the voters residing in the affected territory had petitioned therefor. However, because the "exclusive jurisdiction" language did not have the effect of removing territory in King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, supra, there was no violation, and the constitutional pro- vision did not in any way bear upon the scope or definition of "exclusive jurisdic- tion." Therefore, Ring Cy. v: Port of Se- attle, supra, is controlling here. The fact that the Port of Seattle has exclusive juris- diction over its airport property does not automatically remove that property from the Fire District. The same analysis is applicable to the language in the statute giving the airport exclusive "police jurisdiction." Again, this language, when read in the context of the rest of RCW 14.08.330, only speaks to op- erational jurisdiction, not territorial juris- diction or boundaries. This analysis argu- ably gains support from a 1985 amendment to RCW 14.08.330, which is underlined here: No other municipality in which the air- port or air navigation facility is located shall have any police jurisdiction of the PEDERSEN v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. Wash. 773 Cite u 717 P.2d 773 (Wuh.App. 196) same or any authority to charge or exact any license fees or occupation taxes for the operations. However, by agreement with the municipality operating and controlling the airport or air naviga- tion facility, a municipality in which an airport or air navigation facility is located may be responsible for the ad- ministration and enforcentent of the uniform fire code, as adopted by that municipality under RCW 19.27.040, .on that portion of any airport or air navi- gation facility located within its juris- dictional boundaries. (Emphasis added.) Amended by Laws 1985, ch. 246, § 1. This new language indicates that an air- port's exclusive "police jurisdiction" does not remove the airport froml the "jurisdic- tional boundaries" (emphasis added) of other municipal corporations. Rather, it appears that exclusive "police jurisdic- tion" (emphasis added) merely means that the airport is "responsible" for police oper- ations at the airport, and no other munici- pality may interfere with those operations. Thus, it is apparent that none of the relevant statutes discloses a legislative in- tent to remove airport property from the territory of county fire districts. It is also apparent that, in the past., the Legislature has expressed its intent to remove property from fire districts by passing additions or amendments to RCW 52.22 (such as those relating to cities and towns) which clearly and unequivocally remove such property from the territorial jurisdictions of coun- ty fire districts. If the Legislature wishes to accomplish the result urged by respon- dent, it' may clearly do so by enactment of legislation. For the reasons indicated in our analysis, the airport property remains a part of King County Fire District 2. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. SCHOLFIELD, C2., and GROSSE, J., concur. 43 Wash.App. 413 Raymond E. PEDERSEN and Denese S. Pedersen,' husband and wife; Raymond D. Elkins; William C. Goetzinger; Jer- ry Leonard; Willits Huisingh; E.R. Mei- nert; Mike Farley; Charles F. Sikorra; Robert W. McConkey; Robert S. Searle; Gary' D. Norman; Elmer R. Jones; David Turner; James Van Fredenberg; Mrs. Tillie Viken; and Steven A. McDo- well, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a State agen- cy; City of Normandy Park, a munici- pal corporation; King County, a mu- nicipal corporation, Respondents. No. 13467-1-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. April 14, 1986. Owners of lake property sought to re- cover damages in inverse condemnation against city and state by reason of installa- tion of drainage system. Summary judg- ment in favor of city was reversed, 25 Wash.App. 281, 611 P.2d 1299,, and case was remanded. On remand, the Superior Court, King County, Francis E. Holman, J., dismissed claim for inverse condemnation, after determining that the city and state were entitled to a prescriptive easement, and the owners appealed. The Court of Appeals, Swanson, J., held that pumping of drainage waters into lake, otherwise ad- verse because neither city nor state sought permission to pump into lake, gave rise to a prescriptive easement in that pumping was not, only open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted for entire prescriptive peri- od, but was of such common knowledge as to justify imputation of constructive knowl- edge to servient owners at a time when they were able in law to assert and enforce their rights. Affirmed. S outh Central 4640 SOUTH 144th STREET • Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County - 3600.;136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006. Dear Board. Members: SCHOOL DISTRICT 406 KING COUNTY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 -4196 November 29, 1988 Phone:244 -2100 The purpose of this letter is to summarize the main reasons why the South Central School. District endorses the. annexation proposals p ending before the King County Boundary Review Board. The School District is in favor of the annexation proposals with the'City of'TukWila, effecting Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke, and supportsthe proposed Cascade annexation petition for the area West of Pacific Highway to Military Road. South Central School District is a unique, small school district with an area of approximately 7.5 square miles and has schools located in both the City of Tukwila and unincorporated King County. With only one high school, Foster High School, the district has been able to provide an identity for both the City of Tukwila and the unincorporated King County communities located within the school district boundaries. It would be highly desirable to preserve these natural neighborhoods and communities so they are part of one city government unit and one school district. Another. main reason for the school district's endorsement for the annexation petitions'is`°because it would be desirable for the boundaries of the school district, as a unit, to be aligned with that of the City of Tukwila, as a local government unit. This alignment between the school district and the City of Tukwila would be preferable compared to continued fragmentation of the school district between the City of Tukwila and unincorporated King County. The areas to be annexed would create and preserve a logical service area for the City of Tukwila, aligning the. South Central School District with the - boundaries of the city. The current arrangement of having South Central School District split between Tukwila and unincorporated King County makes it difficult and impractical to conduct business with two local governments. Annexation provides the opportunity to combine abnormally irregular boundaries and adjust impractical boundaries by aligning the school district and the City of Tukwila. The third main reason for endorsing the annexation petitions is that annexation would allow a cooperative arrangement of school programs between the City of Tukwila and South Central Schools to be expanded to all five schools in South Central School District. Rather than splitting programs, annexation would allow Tukwila programs in the areas of drug prevention, fire prevention, parks and recreation programs and career education programs to be part of each school in the South Central School District. If the school WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY . November 29, ,1988 Page two district were contained in . the City of Tukwila a beneficial, cooperative relationship would continue and be further expanded. On behalf of the South Central School District, I" urge the King County Boundary Review Board. to approve the election methods annexations requested in the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade annexation petitions. These proposed annexations will enhance the school district and the City of Tukwila as 'communities Thank you for your consideration. Michael Silver, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools and Secretary to the Board ..Sincerely, City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 November 29, 1988 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Board Members: K.C.B.R.B. FILE # Exhibit # PPP" Introduction is an urban area needing urban service levels provided by a fiscally capable mid -sized city. This final submittal focuses on the viability of the City of Sea -Tac in comparison with Tukwila and the validity of the proposed annexation boundaries. Fiscal Viability of the City of Sea -Tac All data regarding incorporation revenues and costs has been drawn from the Georgette study and every effort has been made to ensure comparability of numbers when contrasted with other cities. Annexation costs have been drawn from the Tukwila annexation study. Incorporation and Tukwila annexation costs are approximately comparable; but with much lower service levels being provided with incorporation. Lower incorporation service levels are especially serious in: 1. its provision of only two professional planners compared to Tukwila's. six to deal with all airport, land use, and traffic issues; 2. no provision for hazardous materials, fire code or fire event investigations; 3. assuming that the $1 million of County road maintenance now done in the area can be contracted for an equivalent sum. 4. estimated incorporation staff (150 + 31 volunteers) being 62 to 200 persons low when contrasted to Georgette study Comparable Cities; BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 2 City Total Staff Equivalent Staff Sea -Tac 150 +31 vol. 150 +31 vol. Renton 457 300- -350 Kent 459 320- -350 Auburn.. 285 212 • staffing assumptions rely upon volunteers for over 70 percent of fire fighters; a situation found nowhere else in Washington State. All other cities of 33,000 have full- time fire protection. ▪ the maximum basic budget reserve of $600,000 is possible only under the following optimistic assumptions the maximum $3.60/$1,000 tax is levied (higher than any other comparable cities in Attachment C), fees collected exceed Tukwila estimates by over 20 percent, and no additional staff will be needed. The City of Tukwila concludes that Sea -Tac could be a marginally viable city under the above assumptions. However, such assumptions reflect very optimistic circumstances with little reserves for unanticipated costs and capital demands. No flexibility exists to absorb . changes in these assumptions. The Tukwila and Kirkland budget experiences have shown planning cost estimates to be uniformly low. Reserves of $600,000 are unlikely to be sufficient for probable incorporation costs. The City of Tukwila recommends Board denial of the proposed incorporation as being fiscally unsound, and misleading to area residents whose expectations of quality urban services will be unsatisfied. REBUTTAL TO SEA -TAC AMENDED BOUNDARY At the November 22, 1988 Boundary Review Board meeting, representatives from Sea -Tac recommended two modifications to the Sea -Tac boundary. The following is the City's response to these modifications: • BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 3 Orillia Road The proposal is to move the eastern boundary from the Green River to Orillia Road. Both the cities of Kent and Tukwila have stated a more logical boundary would be I -5. The proposal should NOT be considered for the following reasons: 1. It would create abnormally irregular boundaries between Kent, Tukwila and Sea-Tac. 2. It would not provide logical service areas for the area between I -5 and Orillia Road. For development to occur west of Orillia Road, sewer, water, storm drainage and road improvements would be provided by Tukwila or. Kent. 3. It would not provide as good a physical boundary as I -5 currently does. East Side of Commercial Properties Along Highway 99 The proposal is to reduce the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke annexation boundaries from Highway 99 to behind commercial properties along Highway 99. The proposal would also deny the opportunity for the residence in Cascade View to annex to Tukwila. The proposal should not be considered for the following reasons: 1. It would break up natural neighborhoods. 2. It would create abnormal irregular boundaries. Many of the commercial zoned properties also have portions of their property which are zoned residential. Under the current proposal, properties under one ownership could be split between two cities. 3. It would create illogical service boundaries, particularly for Fire and Police. As stated by the public comments, criminal activities do not stop at Highway 99. They occur in the residential neighborhoods. 4. It would prevent the Cascade View Annexation petition with 210 signatures from the opportunity to be part of Tukwila. 5. It would prevent the consideration of the community identity with the South Central School District and Tukwila. BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 4 Tukwila continues to support a boundary which preserves the Cascade View annexation and a logical boundary west of I -5 in the McMicken neighborhood south of SR -518. Conclusion Based upon this .information and our knowledge of the SeaTac rea and municipal government, we do not find the city of SeaTac to be in reality a fiscally viable alternative to annexation. Sufficient money won't be available after the incorporation. We also do not find that Orillia. Road and the east side of Highway 99 to be a logical or reasonable compromise boundary. A more logical boundary is Military Road in the north area and west of I -5 in the south area of SeaTac. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Planning Director LRB /jj Si a' �ik�SYITY ]U.'eriutiNPf %�winiu�w.r Boundary Review Board 3600 13th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear MRB Members: NOV 28 1888 cc: Tukwila Planning Commission/ Attn: Mrs. Gunbjorg Sandvik Noyember 23, 1988 I realize progress brings change, and it is natural for people to resent change. I have been satisfied with being a part of King County, but realize it can't stay that way, and with the way crime is increasing, something has to be done. In March 1988 when I first heard of the Tukwila annexation plans, I was shocked. Later, I found out that this originated by petitions, and not by Tukwila. After attending 3 of their public meetings, I came away convinced that they can do an excellent job, and I am in favor of being annexed into Tukwila. Sea -Tac did not even come into our neighborhoods and let us know about their petitions, their plans, or invited us to their meetings. Since I seldom see a newspaper, the only way I found out about it was thru the public meetings at Tukwila. I resent Sea -Tac's "take- over" attitude, hut their incorporation probably has to be done, but I feel that they should not involve Thorndyke, Foster or Riverton. I also feel that the annexation boundry line should be Military Road, instead of 99 or 42nd. I appreciate the patience of all the BRB members. This has been a real learning experience. Sincerely, Mrs. uby J. Mathis 3804 S. 150th St. Seattle, WA 98188 %`a{�:i4ivi`.idis:'a:Y / if�T(. f :�:•t1L6:ax <V.u.iaR:�. „p- !a�.ru CITY OF TUKWILA. PEOPLE. GOOD EVENING. I'M RICK REELER, PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE I'M THE THIRD TUKWILA PLANNING STAFF MEMBER TO APPEAR .BEFORE YOU IN THIS HEARING. ATHIS IS 31E. M0�3, PROFESS I ONAL PLANNER THAN WHAT SEA -TAC PROPOSES FOR A CITY OF 33,000 OUR REBUTTAL IS ORGANIZED INTO 5 MAJOR SUBJECTS: ® THE VIABILITY OF SEA -TAC ® THE ABILITY OF TUKWILA TO SERVE THE ANNEXATIONS THE TRANSITION FROM COUNTY TO CITY SERVICE ® THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF KENT AND OP PRE- ANNEXATION Z O�Iy.Q. BY TUKWILA 1. VIABILITY OF SEA-TAC 8S A FULLY FUNCTIONAL CITY. INCORPORATION WAS INITIATED FOR THE VERY REASON OF ADDRESSING CRIMF, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS IN THE AREA. THAT MOTIVE. IS NO T THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IA CFA _ THE NEW CITY 'OF SEA -TAC SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS ? OUR ANANLYSIS OF THE GEORGETTE STUDY NUMBERS, SHOWS THAT IT' CANNOT. WE CONCUR WITH KING COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL THAT UPON INCORPORATION, FIRE DISTRICT 24 MUST DISSOLVE. iN FACT, THE STUDY'S COMPARABLE CITIES AND ALL OTHER CITIES OF 33,000 PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON, HAVE FULL-TIME, mUNICIPAL. FIRE DEPARTMENTS. FULL-TIME FIRE SERVICE ASIDE; BALANCING THE COSTS OF EVEN A VQLUNTEER DEPARTMENT AND ASSUMED LIBRARY COSTS WITH GEORGEETE REVENUES, SHOWS A CITY OF EXTREMELY MARGINAL FINANCIAL YIABILITY. THE PURPOSE OF THE INCORPORATION, TO PROVIDE MUNICIPAL SERVICES, WOULD NOT BE MET. THE OPPORTUNITY TO FINANCE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WOULD ALSO BE LIMITED. ONLY BY TAXING THE MAXIMUM AUTHORIZED TAX RATE CAN SEA TAC HAVE $600,000 IN RESERVE, NOT THE GEORGETTE STUDY 'S $1.2 MILLION. IF TUKWILA SERVES ITS 4800 RESIDENTS AND 20,000 WORKERS WITH 150 EMPLOYEES, HOW CAN SEA-TAC EXPECT WITH 150 EMPLOYEES TO SOLVE THE CRIME , LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS FOR 33,000 RESIDENTS AND 20,000 WORKERS? 2. TUKWILA'S ABILITY TO SERVE THE ANNEXATION TUKWILA IS no JUST 4800 PEOPLE. THE DAYTIME POPULATION CAN REACH 50,000 PEOPLE USING AND DEMANDING MEDIUM SIZE CITY SERVICES. WE PROVIDE THAT SERVICE WITH A STAFF OF 150 PEOPLE. OUR POLICE, FIRE AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES BEYOND OUR BORDERS. WE ARE A FULLY FUNCTIONING CITY WITH ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADJACENT CITIES, SERVICE PROVIDERS AND KING COUNTY GOVERNMENT. TO SERVE THE RIVERTON, FOSTER AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS OF 6,580 PEOPLE WE ESTIMATE A NEED FOR A 20 PERCENLT INCREASE IN STAFF. THIS IS BASED ON OUR ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF RUNNING A CITY AND OUR COMMM T Th1EI I TO PROVIDING ENHANCEQ SERVICE. AS AN EXAMPLE, OUR ANNUAL REVUNUES ARE ABOUT $15 MI WHICH IS $4 MILLION MORE THAN PROJECTED FOR THE ENT ple CITY OF SEATAC. 3. THE TRANSITION FROM COUNTY TO CITY SERVICES KING COUNTY ASKED FOR OUR PLAN TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS FOR ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS WITH COUNTY STAFF DEPARTMENTS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION AREAS. THE CITY HISTORICALLY COORDINATES SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AND PROJECTS WITH THE COUNTY, AS NOTED BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, AND AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING A SURFACE WATER PLAN. OUR PLAN IS TO MANAGE STORM WATER THROUGH OUR OWN MUNICIPAL PROGRAM. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS RECONFIGURED THE POLICE DISTRICTS. WE HAVE ASSEMBLED A TEAM TO ACTIVELY RECRUIT ENTRY LEVEL AND EXPERIENCED POLICE OFFICERS. WE WILL HIRE FULL-TIME FIREFIGHTERS AND OTHER STAFF TO SERVE THE ANNEXATION AREA. OUR PLAN IS TO STAFF THE EXISTING FOSTER FIRE STATION ONCE THE ANNEXATIONS ARE APPROVED. THIS WILL INCREASE TUKWILA'S FIRE SERVICE TO THE ANNEXATIONS. WE WILL NEGOTIATE WITH THE COUNTY ON PERMITTING AND OTHER NORMAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH ANNEXATION. WE HAVE EVALUATED THE NECESSARY BUDGET AND Imp,INgs TO ABSORB THE ANNEXATIONS. THE MAYOR HAS DIRECTED STAFF TO CONCLUDE OUR PLAN FOR THESE ISSUES BEFORE THE ELECTION. WE WILL DO SO. .uwapk. m n. THE COUNTY'S COMMENTS REGARDING A TRANSITIONAL SERVICE PLAN FROM TUKWILA IS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR S I�L,01,CE,,ON A SIMILAR PLAN FOR INCORPORATION. THE SAME PUBLIC SERVICE QUESTIONS EXIST AND TO A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER DEGREE WHEN SEA-TAC'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES IS ECONOMICALLY WIN QUESTION. 4. CITY OF KENT COMMENTS IN THE PAST IT HAS SEEN AGREED BY THE POLICY MAKERS OF THESE TWO CITIES THAT THIS AREA BELONGS WITHIN TUKWILA'S SPHERE OF PLANNING. WE AGREE WITH KENT THAT SEA -TAC SAtiNDLREASONABLY SERVE THE AREA EAST OF I-5. WE kGREE_ WITH THE SEGALE BOUNDARY COMPROMISE PROPOSAL. WE CAN, PROVI ALL OF THE SERVICES TO THAT AREA. WE ARE ACTI9E4 DISCUSSI G ANNEXATION WITH THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. CC THAT AREA IiS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF TUKWILA. 5. PREANNEXATION ZONING UPON RECEIVING THE ANNEXATION PETITIONS WE FORMED VOLUNTEER CITIZEN, PROPERTY OWNER AND BUSINESS TASK FORCES. PREANNEXATION ZONING AND ^COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEGAN WITH THE TASK FORCES AND PROCEEDED THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. 111116- THAT * CITIZEN PROCESS WM 1 I CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT AND EFFORT TO ENSURE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTINUITY AND CIT IZEN DESIRES. xbOJu t►■J.T 1167 T-tu>!wtLc, IS Nor 1k-TO tN ) E ►J 1b.x, oVertt-t 0 \k11Y2.11.14 ID IS , C.)1,1b9 `44not.$ N►JeV Mit VAw - emus e c PsNuvi Xa,Tt o o . V ocl - pr ItROWKW,W5P T ds-r f& UPor,1 sogSZ T11- Y»l�tDrvi r' c % Y r��t... a�C ✓ vcuc.-i ex {z: CONCLUSIONS THE FISCAL VIABILITY OF SEA —TAC I8 SERIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE. SEA —TAC CAT PROVIDE THE SERVICES OR LEVEL OF SERVICES WITH HALF THE STAFF OF COMPARABLE CITIES. TUKWILA CAN ABSORB THE ANNEXATIONS. OUR BUDGET AND FISCAL PLANNING IS S,tNA. WE HAVE AN S1 TRACK RECORD OF RUNNING A CITY. WE CAN DO THE J0B. WE ARE QRGANIZED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE ANNEXATIONS. THE REQUIRED BUDGET AND TIMETABLE HAVE BEEN ANALYZED. OUR PLAN HAS ALREADY BEGUN IN PREPARING FOR THESE ANNEXATIONS. WE ARE AN ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY VIABLE COMMUNITY THAT HAS GROm AND WILL CONTINUE TO GROW IN ITS STATURE AS A CAPABLE AND RESPECTABLE PROVIDER OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. IN THAT VAIN, OUR DOOR REMAINS OPEN TO ANNEXATION OF THE ,SEA —TAC AREA. FOR RIGHT NOW, WE URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATIONS DF RIVVERTON, FOSTER AND THORNDYKE AND LEAV E THE WAY OPEN TO ANNEXATION OF THE CASCADE VIEW AREA. TO RESPOND TO SOME FINAL POINTS MAYOR VAN DUSEN SPEAK NEXT. CITY OF TUKWILA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, SETTING FORTH THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CITY OF TUK- WILA TO CONSIDER ANNEXATIONS FROM THE SEA -TAC INCORPORATION AREA. WHEREAS, Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade View areas have filed petitions for annexation to the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, the Boundary Review Board is now reviewing the Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke annexations within the Sea -Tac incorporation area, and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously expressed a willingness to consider progressive and orderly annexation of the Sea -Tac incorporation area to the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has analyzed the impacts of annexation of the Sea -Tac incorporation area and found that the City of Tukwila can provide urban level services most efficiently, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is vitally interested in good, sound gov- ernment that is in the best interest of the affected citizens, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila most logically and reasonably should and can grow westward into the Sea -Tac incorporation area to provide efficient and experienced city services to solve existing problems in the incorporation area. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE to: 1. Formally express to the residents of the Sea -Tac incorporation area and the Boundary Review Board that the City of Tukwila will positively consider timely, orderly, and progressive annexation petitions of the Sea -Tac incorporation area to the City of Tukwila, and 2. Pursue an interlocal agreement with King County for this annexa- tion and for the purpose of resolving problems associated with the annexation. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH- INGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this oZ day of % Z #- c'- ,1988. Approved as to Form: WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. le 7'5 Office of the City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: /1- .Z /- rr Passed by the City Council: /1 - 2 /- PP Resolution Number / ? r Mabel J. Harris ouncil President Attest /Authenticated: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk Exhibit No. Item Description A • SEA -TAC INCORPORATION STUDY B SEA -TAC AREA ANNEXATION STUDY • C LETTER DATED 11-15 -88 RO BRB FROM GREGORY CURWEN, ATTORNEY, K.C.F.P.D. #24 D RESOLUTION - SO. CENTRAL SCHOOLS ADVISORY COUNCIL E LETTER DATED 11-15 -88 TO BRB FROM SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT . F LETTER DATED 11 -11 -88 TO BRB FROM NANCY LAMB C. G LETTER DATED 11 -11 -88 TO BRB FROM HOMEOWNERS IN THORNDYKE AREA . H LETTER DATED 11 -15 -88 TO BRB FROM SRO I CITY OF TUKWILA PRESENTATION J CASCADE VIEW PETITION K . FISCAL IMPACT OF RIVERTON, FOSTER & THORNDYKE FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incorporation FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKHII?4A c Thoxndyke Annexation FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexati OF HEARING EXHIBITS Hearing Date: November 22, 1988 7.00 Exhibit No. Item Description L MAP OF ANNEXATION AREAS M MAP OF FIRE AND WATER DISTRICTS . N MAP OF DRAINAGE BASINS 0 MAP OF SEWER DISTRICTS P MAP OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SCHOOL DISTRICT ' ' Q LETTER OF11 -3 -88 TO COUNCILMAN GARY GRANT FROM K.C. EXECUTIVE TIM HILL R LETTER OF 11 -15 TO BRB FROM SUSAN HUSSEY S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES DATED 11 -15 -88 T LETTER TO BRB FROM DONNA MEAGHER U K.C.F.P.D. #24 RESPONSE TO SEA TAC INCORPORATION PROPOSAL • V . MAP OF TARGET AREAS FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incorporation FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NQ. 1538 CITY OF TUKWTAA r Thogndyke Annexation FILE N0. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster AnnexatiDDIST OF HEARING EXHIBITS LETTER OF 11 -15 -88 TO BRB FROM 1NDY GRANDE dedilug udte: iuesudy, November 1V138 /: WI Thursday, November 17, 1988 7:0C Tuesday, November 22, 1988 7.00 Exhibit No. Item Description X SLIDES . Y PETITION OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION Z PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR ANNEXATION AA DRAFT PROPOSAL K.C. 88 -855 . BB NEWS ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES & CONTROLLED TAXATION CC 11 11 11 II It 11 11 II II II 11 It 11 II 11 1/ 11 // DD "UNINCORPORATED CITY OF SEA -TAC" EE LETTER OF 10 -21 -88 TO PROPONENTS OF THE ANNEXATION FROM PROPONENTS OF THE CITY OF SEA TAC FF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. CARY GG. STATEMENTS IN FAVOR OF INCORPORATION SUBMITTED BY 29 LOCAL BUSINESSES FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incorporation FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKSITJAA ^ Thozndyke Annexation FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexati OF HEARING EXHIBITS Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1988 7:OO11 Thursday, November 17, 1988 7:OC Tuesday, November 22, 1988 7.00 HH LETTER OF 11 -9 -88 TO BRB FROM CITIZENS FOR SEA TAC INCORPORATION AND CITY OF DES MOINES Exhibit No. Item Description II LETTER OF 11 -12 -88 TO BRB FROM RENA SHAWVER . JJ LETTER OF 11 -15 -88 TO BRB FROM DOROTHY tKRPER, PRESIDENT, GREATER HIGHLINE COMMUNITY PARKS BOARD KK RESUME OF RONALD L. McCONNELL, AICP LL K.C. MOTION #7350 MM LETTER OF 11 -15 -88 TO BRB FROM CITY OF DES MOINES AND ANGLE LAKE FIRE DEPT. NN LETTER OF 11 -15 -88 TO BRB FROM CITIZENS OF SEA TAC INCORPORATION & CITY OF DES MOINES 00 LETTER OF 11 -17 TO BRB FROM MYRTLE ROBERTSON PP LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM MELVIN ROBERTSON _ OQ LETTER OF 11 -16 -88 TO BRB FROM RUBY McGIBBON RR LETTER TO BRB FROM JOAN MERYLEW FILE N0. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incorporation bearing uate: Tuesday, November 1, 1 d i:UUlt Thursday, November 17,:1988 7:00 FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation Tuesday, November 22, 1988 7.00 FILE NO, 1538 CITY OF =KM c Thozndyke Annexation FILE NO. 1544 . CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexati OF HEARING EXHIBITS SS PHOTO OF SEGALE PROPERTY Exhibit No. Item Description TT LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM PETE BUCK UU LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM VINCENT COLUCCIO . VV LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM JACK STEVENS WW LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM MR. & MRS. YANTIS XX LETTER TO BRB FROM GAIL JORGENSEN . YY LETTER TO RB FROM WILLIAM STANLEY ZZ LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM KATHERYN STETSON AAA LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM ROBERT & JANELLE SCARBER BBB LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM HELEN PEKIE CCC CITY OF TUKWILA ADOPTED BUDGET - 1988 ADD 1989 PROPOSED BUDGET - CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incorporation Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1988 7:00 Thursday, November 17, 1988 7:00 FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation Tuesday, November 22, 1988 7.00 FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKW LA r Thprndyke Annexation FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster AnnexatitI S OF HEARING EXHIBITS LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO RICH BEELER FROM CITY ATTORNEY Exhibit No Item Description FFF LETTER TO BRB FROM DAN & PAM BRUNDAGE GGG LETTER TO BRB FROM RICHELLE & LETTER RIVERS HHH LETTER TO BRB FROM SINDY MILNER III LETTER TO BRB FROM JENNIFER LaRUE JJJ LETTER TO BRB FROM PAUL WALKLEY KKK LETTER TO BRB FROM LINDA WALKLEY LLL COPY OF VIEWFOIL - "SEA -TAC INCORPORATION . MMM LETTER TO BRB FROM BILL & JANIE SCHEFFLER NNN LETTER FROM PATRICIAL ECKBERG 000 LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM LINDA STANLEY PPP LETTER TO BRB FROM PHILIP HEMENWAY FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incorporation FILE NO. 1537 C]TY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY QF TDKWII,A r Thoxndyke Annexation FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexatit ST OF HEARING EXHIBITS LETTER OF 11-12 -88 TO BRB FROM WALTER K, SCHMIDT Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1988 l:UUH Thursday, November 17, 1988 7:00 Tuesday, November 22, 1988 7.00 Exhibit No. Item Description RRR LETTER TO BRB FROM DORIS BROWN, ET AL . SSS LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM OREN HADALLER TTT LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM LYLE SNEIDER UUU SUMMARY OF HEARING PROCEDINGS VW STATEMENT OF JAMES ADSLEY, CHIEF K.C.•F:P:D.#24 WWW LETTER OF 11 -21 -88 TO BRB FROM THE GEORGETTE GROUP . XXX LETTER OF 11 -18 -88 TO BRB FROM ALLAN ECKBERG YYY LETTER TO BRB FROM HAROLD SCOONES ZZZ LETTER OF 11 -21 -88 TO BRB FROM SEA TAC OFFICE CENTER AAAA AFFIDAVID OF PUBLICATION FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incorporation Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1988 7:0UY FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation Thursday, November 17, 1988 7:00 FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKWU.A c Th9 ndyke Annexation Tuesday, November 22, 1988 7.00 FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexati OF HEARING EXHIBITS BBBB LETTER TO BRB FROM EDWIN JACKSON Exhibit No. Item Description CCCC CITY OF TUKWILA RESOLUTION #1094 DDDD MAP OF ANNEXATIONS EEEE LETTER OF 11 -22 -88 TO BRB FROM CLARK SNURE FFFF LETTER OF 11 -21 -88 TO BRB FROM ROBERT CARY GGGG LETTER TO BRB FROM BARBARA BLAKE HHHH LETTER TO BRB FROM GENE TONNEMAKER IIII LETTER TO BRB FROM BARBARA BLAKE WITH MAP JJJJ KING COUNTY BUDGET ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT OF SEA TAC KKKK LETTER OF 11 -22 -88 TO BRB FROM PETE BUCK LLLL PHOTO OF SOUTH TUKWILA WITH RED TAPE Hearing Date: Tuesday, -November 15 1988 7:001 FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC Incprporation T ursay, November 17, 1988 7:001 FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKWILA - Thorndyke Annextion FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster. Annexation LIST OF HEARING EXHIBITS MAP OF SOUTH TUKWILA Exhibit No. Item Description NNNN LETTER FROM SHEILA RANDALL • 0000 LETTER TO BRB FROM STEVE LAWRENCE • PPPP LETTER TO BRB FROM NANCY LAMB QQQQ • THE COMMUNITY VOICE • RRRR 1 LETTER OF 11 -22 -88 TO BRB FROM JEANIE BOHALL SSSS LETTER OF 11 -17 -88 TO BRB FROM MANAGING DIRECTOR, RIVERTON HOSPITAL • TTTT MAP ENTITLED "BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BY SEA TAC' UUUU COLOR CODED MAP OF SEA TAC AREA VVVV SLIDES SUBMITTED BY CHIEF ADSLEY, K.C.F.P.D. #24 WWWW LETTER OF 11 -22 -88 TO BRB FROM JEAN NEWMAN FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC Incprporation FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA -Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKWILA - Thorndyke Annextion FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexation LIST OF HEARING EXHIBITS Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1988 7:00: Thursay, November 17, 1988 7:00 Exhibit No. , Item Description XXXX SEA TAC INCORPORATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION #1 YYYY SEA TAC LEGAL DESCRIPTION #2 ZZZZ LETTER OF 11 -25 -88 TO BRB FROM BONNIE MULLET AAAAA LETTER of 11 -26 -88 TO BRB FROM VERN AND JOAN MERYHEW BBBBB. 1 LETTER OF 11 -18 -88 TO BRB FROM DOUG FOX SERVICES CCCCC LETTER OF 11 -23 -88 TO BRB FROM RUBY MATHIS DDDDD LETTER TO BRB FROM PAM CARTER EEEEE LETTER OF 11 -26 -88 TO BRB FROM JOAN MERYHEW FFFFF LETTER OF 11 -24 TO BRB FROM MARGARET LANE, BOARD MEMBER GGGGG LETTER OF 11-25-88 TO BRB FROM MARG ANDERSON Hearings Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1988 7 :01 FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC Incprporation Thursay, November 17, 1988 7 :0f FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKWILA - Thorndyke Annextion FILE N0. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexation LIST OF HEARING EXHIBITS November 17, 1988 7:01 FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKWILA - Thorndyke Annextion FILE NO. 1.544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexation LIST OF HEARING EXHIBITS Exhibit No. HHHHH JJJJJ Item Description LETTER OF 11 -26 -88 TO BRB FROM OLA MAE CRAWFORD LETTER OF 11-27 -88 TO BRB FROM WINNEFRED SPEAS LETTER OF 11 -27 -88 TO BRB FROM MR. & MRS. CURTISS ROBINSON SURE 203 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 984033319 BRADFORD M. GIERKE EDWIN R. JOHNSON GREGORY B. CURWEN TACOMA (206) 353+7761 (1911 -15/9) SANDRA S. BOBRICK SEATTLE (206) 535JOt0 . OF COUNSEL LEIGH D. ERIE FAX (206) 2724765 HUGO METZLER MICHAEL. W. JORDAN November 15, 1988 Honorable Gunbjorg Sandvik Chairperson Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 -136th Place S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: City of Tukwila proposed annexation: Thorndyke area BRB File No. 1538 Our File No. 88 -2708 Dear •Honorable `Chairperson: On behalf of King County Fire Protection District #24 enclosed please find nine originals of District #24's memorandum of authorities in opposition to the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area. Separate copies have been delivered to Mr. Kaufman, the s.-cial assistant attorney general for the Boundary Review Bo and counsel for the City. of Tukwila. GBC:m Enclosures cc: Robert C. Kaufman John Colgrove, Esq. LAW OFFICES GIERKE,CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK truly you GR URWEN K.C.B.R.B. FILE # 17), Exhiblt# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON .STATE In Re: City of Tukwila Proposed Annexation of 469 acres South King County [Thorndyke area] KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -1- BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY FILE No. 1538 ORIGINAL KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #24'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO CITY OF TUKWILA'S PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE THORNDYKE AREA COMES NOW King County Fire Protection District #24, herein - after referred to as KCFPD #24, by and through its undersigned attorneys of record, GIERKE, CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK, and respectfully submits the following memorandum of authorities on the issues raised by the proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area by the City of Tukwila. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila initiated review by the Washington State Boundary Review Board on July 19, 1988 by filing a notice of intention to annex the Thorndyke area of South King County pursuant to R.C.W. 36.93. On August 25, 1988, within 45 days of the filing of the City of Tukwila's notice of intention to annex, the King County Council passed a motion and filed with the Washington State Boundary Review Board a request for review pursuant to R.C.W. 36.93.100[2]. On August 24, 1988 the Washington State Boundary Review Board issued a notice of hearing scheduling a public hearing on the proposed annexation LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER at BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3318 TACOMA (206I383.3761 SEATTLE t2O6)838.3040 FAX ( 206) 272.2766 1 for Tuesday and Thursday, November 15 and 17, 1988 commencing 2 at 7:30 P.M. at the Red Lion Inn Conference Room, 18740 Pacific 3 Highway South, Seattle, Washington. On the 1st of October, 4 1988 the Washington State Boundary Review Board amended its 5 notice of hearing scheduling the matter to commence at 7:00 6 P.M. on the same dates and in the same location. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II. LEGAL ISSUES In making a decision upon the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area, the Boundary Review Board must consider those factors set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.170, and in particular subsections [2] dealing with municipal services and subsection [3] involving the effect of the proposal or alternate proposals might have on adjacent areas, mutual economic and social interests, and the local governmental• structure of the county. Similarly, the statutory objectives of the Bound- ary Review Board set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.180 must be evaluated in order to determine whether or not the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area in fact is consistent with the Board's statutory objectives as the City of Tukwila has suggested. The question before the Boundary Review Board is really whether or not the proposed annexation will further the stated statutory objectives involving the preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities, the creation and preservation of logical service areas, the prevention of abnor- mally irregular boundaries, and the adjustment of impractical boundaries. R.C.W. 36.93.180[1], [3], [4] and [7]. KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -2- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA( 206)383-3761 SEATTLE (206) 838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 III. FACTUAL STATEMENT KCFPD #24 appears before the Boundary Review Board in connection with the City of Tukwila's proposed Thorndyke annexa- tion as an interested governmental unit which may potentially be affected by the proposal. Although KCFPD #24 did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board as did the King County Council, they nonetheless have standing to present evi- dence to the Board dealing with the potentially adverse affects that this and other related annexations may have upon District 24. (R.C.W. 36.93.070, .160, and Boundary Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure). Although the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area does not presently encroach upon KCFPD #24's geographical area, a review of Attachment "H" to Tukwila's notice of intent to annex indicates a portion of the proposed Thorndyke annexation area does abut the northerly boundary of KCFPD #24 in the vicinity of the McMicken Heigh +s Area along South 160th Street. Moreover, Tukwila's "planning area - sphere of influence" is said to extend throughout substantially all of KCFPD #24's geographical area. (November 1988 Sea -Tac Incor- poration Study, The Georgette Group, at page IV -48.) The most obvious and potentially adverse affect on KCFPD #24 deals with the City of Tukwila's apparent desire to engage in multiple piecemeal annexation without regard for any compre- hensive community plan. While the affect of one isolated proposed annexation might arguably not be considered by the Board to KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -3- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 88403 -3319 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)636.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 have any significant impact on adjoining districts or govern- mental units, multiple uncoordinated proposed annexations repre- sent a danger both to the community and to other governmental units because they fail to take into consideration the best interests of the community as a whole. The piecemeal annexation process throughout a municipality's planning area and "sphere of influence" by its very nature tends to be self- serving and frequently results in the haphazard extension of municipal boundaries, and the creation of illogical service areas. These are the very purposes and objectives which the Boundary Review Board was designed to deal with under R.C.W. 36.93.010, .170 and .180. Because of the inherent conflicts between the proponents and competing jurisdictions to claim territories for municipal growth and the need to resolve these claims based upon the merits of what is in the best interests of the community as a whole, the, Boundary Review Board should not c ^ysider the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of Thorndyke in a vacuum. Rather, the Board should evaluate it in terms of the overall scheme and plan for South King County growth and development. In order to properly fulfill its objectives and to consider the factors mandated by statute, the Boundary Review Board must consider not only the affect of this but other proposals or alternatives on Thorndyke and adjacent areas in order to assure citizens and the governmental units in the South King County area that the action taken by the Board benefit the KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -4- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA(206)363.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX ( 206) 272.2766 1 greatest number of people with due consideration to long term 2 community growth and development. R.C.W. 36.93.170[3]. 3 . It should be noted by the Boundary Review Board that both 4 the .Thorndyke as well as the Riverton and Foster proposed annex - 5 ations by the City of Tukwila substantially overlap the proposed 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Sea-Tac incorporation area. Additionally, ninety -nine per cent (99%) of KCFPD #24's geographical area lies within the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation area. (The Georgette Group Study, supra. at 1 -14). For the foregoing reasons, the Boundary Review Board should evaluate any potential benefits and the detriments of Tukwila's proposed annexations as they may affect not only Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke areas, but should also gauge their affect upon the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation area and adjacent governmental units and special purpose districts. IV. BASIS FOR DENIAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION A. Tukwila's proposal is in reality contrary to R.C.W. 36.93,.180[1], [3], [4], and [71. By attempting to utilize Highway 99 as the westerly boundary for the proposed Thorndyke annexation area, the City of Tukwila is suggesting that the Highway 99 commercial district be split in half and fragmented which will neither serve to preserve the natural neighborhoods and commer- cial community, nor will it preserve a logical municipal service area or promote any reasonable type of regular boundary. The overriding influence of the Sea -Tac Airport and the Port of Seattle serves as the basis for one of the largest hotel /motel populations in the State of Washington, in excess KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -5- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & HOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 - 3319 TACOMA(206)383 -3761 SEATTLE(206)830.3040 FAX ( 206 ) 272.2766 KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -6- • of 4,000 rooms. This produces a high volume of transient popu- 2 lation and makes this area one of the largest 24 hour per day 3 communities within the State of Washington. [The Georgette 4 Study, supra. at page III -77.] The complexities of the problems 5 facing this community demand a unified and coordinated response 6 to municipal services in order to properly serve the needs 7 of this community. The answer to this problem does not lie 8 in multi- jurisdictional administration of municipal services 9 between competing municipalities. It makes virtually no sense 10 whatsoever to split the Sea -Tac community area with all its 11 associated crime, traffic, transportation, and service - related 12 problems into a fragmented area governed by multiple munici- 13 palities competing for tax dollars. The 24 hour community 14 activity in the area due to the airport alone militates against 15 multiple jurisdictional splitting of services. 16 B. The proposed annexation in the Thorndyke area will 17 isolate a small peninsula between Highway 99 and the Pot of 16 Seattle which will remain to be served by the King County Depart- 19 ment of Public Safety. This is bound to create significant 20 overlapping law enforcement problems. Fragmentation of the 21 area by piecemeal annexation will result in differential law 22 enforcement authorities along Highway 99 and will pose problems 23 of consistency in administration, and will require significant 24 interlocal cooperation and coordination among multiple police 25 jurisdictions. The coordination and exchange of criminal 26 information will be much more time consuming and critical if LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE( 2061838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the present King County Department of Public Safety police jurisdiction surrounding the airport is fragmented between four or more separate jurisdictions. [The Georgette Study, supra, at page I -15.] The continuity of law enforcement and criminal investigative activities alone will be impaired by the number of jurisdictions attempting to service the "airport strip" on the east and the south ends. Since Highway 99's criminal activities pose signif- icant law enforcement problems not only in the field of simple traffic control and enforcement, more importantly in the areas of drug control, vice enforcement activities, and organized crime task force suppression of gang activities, the effective solution to these problems is obviously not to fragment the community into multiple law enforcement jurisdictions. Issues of public safety, traffic and crime are not only of paramount interest to the community, but are the types of considerations which unfortunately do not necessarily confine themselves to neat geographical or jurisdictional boundaries. C. The division of the Sea -Tac community into several jurisdictions may be thought to create some logical service boundaries for the areas that are being annexed, but in reality may leave the remaining unincorporated areas of South King County with far less logical service boundaries. The cohesive planning and administration which the highly urban nature of this hampered by multiple annexations KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -7- are necessary to deal with 24 hour community would be which do nothing more than LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3318 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX ( 206) 272 -2766 1 divide the community "pie" between several jurisdictions. [The 2 Georgette Study, supra. at page I -15.] 3 D. Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area 4 will further reduce the local control of taxation and will 5 not serve to ensure that Port related tax revenues remain in 6 the area to provide improvements in local service commensurate 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 with the degree of impact created by the presence of an inter- national airport with its 24 hour community activity. By dividing the Sae -Tac area into multiple annexations to adjacent cities, the community benefits that flow from taxation would be dissipated between multiple jurisdictions rather than con- centrated in an area where they are badly needed. [The Georgette Study, supra, at page I -15.] E. If Tukwila and related municipalities continue to extend their respective "planning areas ", or "spheres of influence ", and continue in their haphazard an uncontrolled quest for additional municipal ter'itory, KCFPD #24 would ulti--• mately be fragmented and be unable to provide adequate fire protection services for residences and businesses in the areas remaining in unincorporated King County. The multiple piecemeal annexation philosophy which seems to be prevalent among small municipalities in South King County is many times counterproduc- tive because there is an incentive for competing jurisdictions to claim adjacent territories for municipal growth through the use of annexation procedures. These competing municipalities frequently fail to consider what is in the best interest of KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -8- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3318 TACOMA (206) 383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the general community as a whole and how their attempts at expansion will adversely affect adjacent governmental entities and their ability to provide services to the community. The only proposal presently before the Boundary Review Board which would serve to maintain the continuity of the special purpose district services including municipal fire protection services, is the proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation. While KCFPD #24 is technically independent of the Sea -Tac Incorporation Citizens Activist Group, the District feels that its constituents would be better served in terms of emergency fire protection services, enforcement, and related fire department activities if the district were not fragmented and sliced off piecemeal to adjacent municipalities. KCFPD is opposed to any proposed annexation which will have the net effect of fragmenting and reducing its ability to provide adequate fire protection, inspection and code services to the constituents of its district. In order to fulfill this statutory obligation and need, logical service areas for fire protection services must be maintained. The proposed Tukwila - Thorndyke annexation is contrary to the objectives of the Boundary Review Board as set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.180 in that it will not serve to promote the preservation of a natural neighborhood and community, and it will create an illog- ical service area with both an impractical and irregular bound- ary. Moreover, the Thorndyke proposed annexation will have a significantly adverse impact on the level of municipal services KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -9- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA 1206) 383.3761 SEATTLE (206) 838.3040 FAX ( 206 ) 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -10- available and to be provided in the future by KCFPD #24. The repeated reduction and elimination of District 24's peripheral areas by competing municipal jurisdictions through statutory annexation procedures will ultimately leave the District in a position unable to provide adequate fire protection and code inspection services for the remaining constituents of the Dis- trict. Since approximately 99% of KCFPD #24's geographical area lies within the proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation area, it seems logical that the best methodology for preserving the integrity of the special purpose district and thereby maximizing its benefits to the businesses and residences within the District would be to refuse to approve any proposed annexations which would diminish the effectiveness of the District. These factors have been specifically outlined by the legislature in R.C.W. 36.93.170[2][3] as matters to be considered by the Board in resolving these questions among competing municipalities. Not only should the Board consider the rights of all affect- ed governmental units such as District 24, and how the proposal might affect their abilities to render municipal services, but further the Board must consider the affect of the proposed annexation or the alternatives, such as the. Sea -Tac proposed incorporation and the effects it may have upon adjacent areas, mutual economic and social interests, and the local government structure of the County. LAW OFFICES GIERKE, CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 -3318 TACOMA ( 206)383 -3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 V. CONCLUSION The Washington State Boundary Review. Board pursuant to those factors and objectives set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.170 and .180, should disapprove the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area in its entirety pursuant to R.C.W. 36.93.160[5]. DATED this 15th day of Novem.er, 988. , ,,f,'UkWEN, METZ Attorneys r King County Fire Protection Dist... #24 KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -11- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX ( 206) 272.2766 RESOLUTION South Central Schools Advisory Council WHEREAS, residents of unincorporated areas within the South Central School District known as Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, Cascade View and King County Fire District No. I have petitioned for annexation to the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, City of Tukwila policies are receptive to annexation, and WHEREAS, the South Central School District benefits from services and programs provided by the City of Tukwila in the schools, including schools that are not currently within the Tukwila city limits, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the South Central School District supports efforts to bring the boundaries of the City of Tukwila more closely into alignment with the boundaries of the South Central School District, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the South Central Schools Advisory Council endorses the annexation of the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, Cascade View and King County Fire District No. 1 communities into the City of Tukwila. Passed this 10th day of November, 1988, by the South Central Schools Advisory Council. - Wia.414t, kloiA) Vice President Secretary Treasurer • Ilaraikkia) Representative ti L712, TitkOLA.. Representative fi 7 aL rasee.le 60 Representative er)(41/164A4t4Te&al (:obiteix a Representative Representative Representative K.C.B.R.B. FILE ita Exhibit # S outh (9 entral 4640 SOUTH 144th STREET Dear Board Members: SCHOOL. DISTRICT 406 KING COUNTY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168.4196 November 15, 1988 Phone: 244 -2100 Waahington,.State;Boundary Review Board for King County .1600 136th S.B., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 I am writing on..behalf of the South Central School District on the proposed annexations and on the propoaed:City of Sea -Tao Incorporation pending before the King.County Boundary' Review Board. The South Central School District-comprises' an area of approximately 7.5 equare miles and has schools located in both the City of Tukwila and unin corporated King County.: Over 1,600 students attend eohoola in the district and approximately 11,000 people reside in the district. The Board. of Directors of the South Central District endorses the annexation.proposala with:the City of Tukwila affecting Foater,.Riverton and Thorndyke,..and•eupports the proposed Cascade annexation petition for ` the area Meat of Paoifio :flighway. to Military Road. It is the belief of the South Central School District that it would be desirable for the boundaries of the school district, as ,a unit, to; be aligned with that of a local government unit.. The proposed annexation petitions would achieve this objective. If the 'Foster, Thorndyke,. Riverton and Cascade areas'were annexed into the City of Tukwila, the entire South 'Central School District would be oontained in the City of Tukwila:-:-This alignment between the school district and the City of Tukwila.would be preferable. compared to continued fragmentation of the school district by two governmental unite. The South Central School District has provided some identity,to the unincorporated King County communities oontained within the. district boundaries.• It would be desirable to preserve these natural neighborhooda.and oommunitiea eo that they are part of one government unit and one aohool The : strong - identity between South Central and Tukwila. point to the City of Tukwila as the logical ohoice. A main reason for the school district's endorsement for the annexation petitions, is because the City of Tukwila has a record of successful programs supporting the South Central School District. The Tukwila Police Department has initiated a drug prevention program called DARE whioh has been used in all elementary achools and the middle school. In addition, the MoGruff program has successfully educated young children about public aafety'and protection. The Tukwila Fire Department has initiated a fire prevention program called "Learn Not to Burn" into the elementary curriculum. The Tukwila Parka and Recreation Department has also worked closely with the South Central Schools, most recently introducing an after school youth basketball program. . These programs demonstrate a commitment by the City of Tukwila, to work together with all of the aohoola in the South Central Sohool District, .Abington State Boundary .eview Board King, County November ,15, 1988 Page two ' both schools: within: and outside the Cityof Tukwila. If the achool diatriot were contained in the`City'of Tukwila,.thia.benefioially • cooperative relation - ship.already 'established could be even further. expanded. The school diatriot believes that these :annexation proposals meet the 'standards and.objeotivee which guide Boundary Review Board decisions. First, • the proposed annexationa would preserve natural neighborhoods and •oomiunitiea• within one eohool district•and one city government.. Second,. the areas to be annexed would.create and preserve-logical :service:areas for the City of Tukwila... Third,, annexation would prevent. abnormally irregular boundaries and . adjuat_impraetioal boundaries :by.aligning the school diatriot :and the of Tukwila. And fourth, the City of Tukwila which has a demonstrated record of .high quality•munioipalcervices, has provided- :reasonable assurance that it will.extend ita servioeiinto the newly annexed areas. - This would. be.espeoially :.iaportant the area of'polioe protection along Paoitio Highway:-. which.runs'through the school diatriot. We'urge the King. County, Boundary Review :Board to approve :the election method • annexations requested in.the.Riverton,.Foater, Thorndyke and Caeoade •annexation petitions. Theae•propoeed annexations .will enhanoe.,both the comm and the school district. Thank you for :your consideration. Jearaile Baldwin,•Chairpereon Board of Directors Michael Silver, Ph.D. Superintendent of Sohoola and Seoretary to the Board Copy - King County Council Tukwila City Council Boundary Review. Board 3600 7.136th SE., Suite 122 Bellevue 98006 Gentlepeople.: 4251 South 139th Seattle, WA November 1 K.C.B.R.B. FIL Exhibit I wish, to.advise you of. my feelings as one of many Tukwila annexation area citizens concerned about King . 0 delaying tactics, the quality and timeliness of'city s the.potential boundaries of Tukwila, and the unity of o South Central School District. The County.Council's recommendation.to delay or d annexation to Tukwila is preposterous. The County wants to disenfranchise our community and force us to their neglect even longer. Although the CountyCounci ire to help ,its constituents, they're betraying us just they've.betrayed the people in Fire District *1 by del that annexation vote until' February. In our area we t anxious to begin enjoying the advantages of living in - services including decent police protection, appropr such as those designed to bring the arts into our comm and a local, participatory government. The County tim again works against what is good for families in our a Let me discuss city services. The Sea -Tac Incorp budget naturally includes an allowance for more police officers in the area than the county is able to provid unknown when those officers would begin helping us. S envisions other necessities which would also begin fun at some future date. An unknown quantity of bonds wou sold to provide some basic equipment and facilities. Hut Tukwila's various departments, codes, plans a personnel are already functioning and can quickly be e to serve our area. .Their budget predictions are based experiences. Not only do they have a proven record: t a known entity - .Tukwila ie already part of our coumun The proposed City of See -Tac in comparison is lik black hole in space. We don't know who or what we'd b dealing with, and the very formation of a Sea -Tac City negative reaction by certain citizens to airport -relat problems. If. Sea -Tac citizens opt to form their own city, f But our community would be better served by our near n in Tukwila - police officers whose children are attend same schools as ours, representatives whom we've been with already through the annexation process, and resid we know share similar goals. The positive attitudes of the Tukwila police and departments in operating from the standpoint of emerge prevention get my support, whereas I foresee that Sea- Street 98168 1988 unty's vices, ny our ffect ndure 's job as ying o are ukwila ations pity, and ea. ration it is a -Tac tioning d be a tended on past ey are ty. was a d ne. ighbors ng the orking nts who ire cy ac's duties will primarily, be abatement of existing problems. Moreover, I,feel that, in a comprehensive way, Tukwila deals With the'residents' Quality of life from a positive point of view.. For inetance,..they support programs bringing in artists and performers for the benefit of all our community. An example that comes to mind. occurred during our school district's arts enrichment summer school 1987. Tukwila provided;an all the students (kindergarten through middle - school age) to learn from and enjoy profesBional musicians who then later performed at a.free lunchtime concert in Tukwila Park sponsored by the Tukwila Arts Commission.. When would Sea -Tac be able to offer such cultural enrichment to their citizens..:.let. alone to our school children? Such programa are nowhere to be seen in their budget. As,to.South Central, there is an incredibly strong desire among the, patrons for this to remain a viable school district, as evidenced by last week's vote to rebuild Foster High` School..: To maintain :this affinity, the BR8's wisest decision would be making Military'Road the Sea- Tac /Tukwila boundary because anything- further east would split our community. Although.they.',re: too modest.to:say it, some 'of the hardest working benefactors of the South Central School District live in the:.area.Sea -Tac covets, and we simply don't want them to be cut off by an arbitrary And capricious city boundary such is 42nd Avenue South.. In this light, our motivation ,(unlike presumably Sea -Tac'a and the County Council's) has little to -do with assessed value of the property in Cascade View or anywhere along Highway 99. It is the value of having e unified school district that ie.paramount. I. urge you to focus on Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, and Cascade View as a community working together already: - A ,small and unique school district which should not be. divided. • Individuals with .a common desire to join forces not.juat :to counter a crime epidemic, but to'control their own destinies and embrace a quality of life exemplified. by the type of programs already established in : the City of Tukwila. - Thousands of people.who have every right to choose their own local government, many of whom are third or fourth generation residents here, realizing it's time to make a.change because they've. had their fill of second- class-treatment by King County. I'm trusting in your good judgment that Sea -Tac's borders should not cut through the South Central School District and that the vote for annexation should take place in February. Sincerely, 441.)Lt4t-44 Nanc Sandine Lamb( . • November 11, 1988 To: Boundary Review Board Fran: Homeowners in Proposed Tukwila Annexation' Area - Thorndyke Subject: Readiness for Annexation The undersigned have numerous concerns regarding the subject annexation. We are landowners on and adjacent to 51st Avenue South between 144th Avenue South and 152nd Avenue South. Our property has been zoned for medium density housing (RM2400) for twenty or more years. This zoning is required to make development in this area economically feasible. Builders will be required to provide improvements including better streets and sidewalks, a sewer system and an enlarged water line. The City of Tukwila will be hard pressed to provide these improvements for many years to come. The proposed Tukwila zoning, R -3, will not encourage this type of costly development. Further, we are concerned that: 1. The Tukwila City Council's majority vote to downzone our area is based more on political ; expediency for re- election than on the physical attributes of the area concerned and the effect upon the landowners, many of whom have lived . in the area for many years. • . A .Tukwila public relation piece on annexation stated that down- zoning , would not take place. . The aownzoning was recommended by the Tukwila Planning Commission despite our understanding and assurance by the Advisory Committee that the zoning would remain the same as our current zoning. In addition, R -4 was shown for our property in Tukwila's original proposal. ▪ The only immediate value of annexation would be police and fire protection. Many other county services are not available in Tukwila. . , The annexation petition was signed by about 85 of the 1100,residents in the proposed annexation area not a mandate, even though within the petition rules. Boundary Review Board - 2 - 6. A cooperative transition and contingency plan between King County and the City of Tukwila is not evident. ' The City Council voted against continuance and cooperation with King County. 7 . At the present time, there is confusion regarding the proposed boundaries between the proposed annexations of Tukwila and Sea -Tac City. B. We do not feel that. many, if not the majority of those living in the Thorndyke annexation area, with to be annexed, especially under . the current conditions. If annexation is to be considered, more time and effort is needed to assure a smooth transition with King County and a positive increase in services. We, therefore, wish to express our opposition to annexation to the City of Tukwila. NAME � u4 k_ c fehi • 6cLx1 ■ ADDRESS 426 .Ah.e ! ' 8'5 (-5' a3 - . les j/ /y‘ q f / 46.3 7 cy,Q , ,. Co t �ir4 2- /VI 9 - �/ T� 4 v/6 November 15. 1988 King County Boundary Review Board ,Eastpointe•Plaza • 3600 136th Place •S.E. .Bellevue;.WA• 9800• Dear Honorable Members of the Boundary Review Board: - We are property owners of a 26 -acre holding located east of Highway 99, north of 160th and south of SR 518, as outlined in blue on the attached map. Some of the 26 acres is developed and much of it is not. Military Road, to the east of Highway 99, runs through the middle of our property. It has been vacated to us and therefore is not a thoroughfare through the property. If Military Road, to the east of Highway 99 and as extended through our property, were to become the boundary for the Tukwila . annexations and the City of Sea -Tac, it would split our property in half, leaving us vulnerable to the jurisdiction of two separate municipalities. With Military Road as the boundary, we are subject to being doomed to living with two sets of rules. Further, it divides our police and fire protection. We submit to you that such a. boundary would create a situation that any property owner would find'difficult to accept. We welcome, your further inquiries to our concer• ns. ruly yours, Cher 1 Brown Fr•�� erty Manager Real Estate Division Rick Beeler. 6. Brice Martin David Schooler STERLING RECREATION ORGANIZATION 08th Bellevue; WA, fiatnver Bare Plaza. Suvte 1600 Mai! To P.O. tlor. 91723. Bellevue, WA 98004.1721 :206 X155 -&100 . '.C.B.R.B. FILE # / �� r l bit # A..s Theatres . Sports 5roaccastinc Viceo PO OM. NaPYf}. • Emfg m 'S 3 1 � 1 p Y pp C p N p t � i " 111111111111111111 P *** Y11 11111111 11111iilI ;IN 1M1111Kir :111111 ' 11111 ifflkol Emma ilium= an ME= KAMM =ME MEM - 'Nor .. vurr, r n..l 11 1.1 I ■.slltllM..nv 1.II.liO11 111111110 lvia•.n11p.U... ■..slur 1 ■. uIu.am unn 1 .uaou■■uuunIuuu...nnluun o 11.1'i M..11... ■ 01111 t 1 �'i+ 111111•110•1111111•••• ■•.al.IU•..11111•u1.•i•11.1 �-�• I {� uasronl.l urin iuuu ..on1..U•NIUllL1. NMI u 1 nw1 u.l.u� }� 111•1•1111111111111 l.Il.li..011....11 Ia.■ u1 ....I /.WVi.l•. H.0 . ■0[:.1 . --_ 1..1 �1 lu..�1.11.1 nusuu 011w1..IN1.1•• INS •�1..a1.�.■ "'Milli s aliuiis MI" me ■.11.UQ musts. muumuu Wlt�.ia'.. ■alla C /.l.11 -- - 11.1 i I ` . �. 'S 3AV 11190 . t 1A/r 71 •■■■•■•■■••••6 • . 7 ......P1 9 ... :44.7... -. g � = r..,•-- " �inn rj - I r' '! , i .: } —Y ..... • !• .. :, a1 ei1'; 1 r� Annexation logical service. areas, • Fire District No. 1 Irregular boundary Fire /school district Cascade View Annexation Identifiable boundaries Puzzles interim boundaries Annexation removes irregular boundaries Discourage multiple small cities • City's capacity Surface Water Management Plan Fiscal impacf Study ng to the future - Benefits to Residents lower taxes Better services Immediate. services. Benefits to Tukwila Balance between: residential /commercial Residential involvement Impact /area planning/ service POPULATION LAND AREA (SQ. MILES) W/O SEA -TAC AIRPORT POPULATION DENSITY (PERSONS /SQ. MILE) NUMBER OF CITY EMPLOYEES W/O UTILITIES & (RENTONS) : REVENUE SUPPORTED RECREATION STAFF GENERAL PUBUC WORKS ROADS FIRE TOTAL TAX RATE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION ASSESSED VALUATION PER CAPITA GENERAL COMPARISONS EXISTING TUKWILA 105 INCL IN GENERAL 144 2.996 0.882 BILL. $185,294 O INCLUDES COST OF $3.60/1,000 TUKWILA SEA -TAC W /SEA -TAC INCORPORATION 37,700 13.4 Z813 175 INCL IN GENERAL 106 281 2.996 2.489 mu. $66,021 33,000 8:9 3,700 $48,700 RENTON 36,260 16.3 2,225 128 300 -350 1 MILL CONTRACT BUD INCL ABOVE 22 +31 vol. INCL ABOVE 300 -350 150 +31 vol. 3.68 1.607 BILL: 3.48 2.030 mu.. $55,000 Exhibit No. Item Description • HHHHH LETTER OF 11 -26 -88 TO BRB FROM OLA MAE CRAWFORD IIIII LETTER OF 11 -27 -88 TO BRB FROM WINNEFRED SPEAS JJJJJ LETTER OF 11 -27 -88 TO BRB FROM MR. & MRS. CURTISS ROBINSON KKKKK LETTER OF 11 -29 -88 RO BRB FROM SRO LLLLL , LETTER OF 11 -27 -88 TO BRB FROM JOE & BETTY BRENNAN MMMMM FOUR ASSESSORS MAPS • NNNNN NORMANDY PARK APPEAL 00000 LETTER OF 11-29 -88 TO BRB FROM SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #406 PPPPP LETTER OF 11 -29 -88 TO BRB FROM CITY OF TUKWILA QQQOQ • LETTER OF 11 -29 -88 TO BRB FROM ELIZABETH SPRINGER FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC Incprporation FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKWILA - Thorndyke Annextion FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexation LIST OF HEARING EXHIBITS Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 15 , 1988 7:01 T ursay, November 17, 1988 7:01 RRRRR LETTER OF 11 -29 -88 TO BRB FROM SUSAL FINIGAN DEC 5 1988 • Exhibit No. Item Description SSSSS LETTER OF 11 -28 -88 TO BRB FROM LEE JOHNSON TTTTT LETTER TO BRB FROM DONNA LEE ET AL UUUUU FOLDER OF MATERIALS FROM SEA TAC INCORPORATIONEPROPONENTS VVVVV• FIRE DISTRICT #24 POST HEARING SUPPLEMANTAL RESPONSE WWWWW 1 LETTER OF 11 -23 -88 TO BRB FR0M LYLE SCHNEIDER, WITH MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SEA TAC - Incprporation FILE NO. 1537 CITY OF TUKWILA - Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 CITY OF TUKWILA - Thorndyke Annextion FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA - Foster Annexation OF HEARING EXHIBITS Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 15 1988 7:001 T ursay, November 17,'1988 7:001 "i, ADMINISTRATION Chief James E. Adsley Asst. Chief Wm. R. LaBore Fire Marshal Jeffrey R. Lowe Battalion Chief Ronald A. Wieland Office Manager Judy R. Evans ANGLE LAKE /McMICKEN FIRE DEPARTMENT ` ' .19 P 8 SEA TAC INCORPORATION 'Fire District #24 Post- Hearing Supplemental Response to Issues Raised During the Public Testimony Process' EXHIBIT # ExhbR . K.C.B.R.B. FILE r#jj Z3 thifilt 'Fire Prevention• is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression" FIRE STATIONS HEADQUARTERS STATION 2929 So. 200th Seattle, WA 98198 Business Phone: 824-2726 STATION 2 3521 So. 170th Seattle, WA 98188 Question of Community Problem /Need for Incorporation Public testimony supports the general philosophy that current levels of service from King County are not adequately dealing with the unique needs of the Sea Tac community. The two most glaring concerns are the large crime problem and lack of cohesive community planning to mitigate many impacts which are threatening the future viability of the Sea Tac community. The independent study provided for the Boundary Review Board clearly states that the current revenue available in the Sea Tac area makes the operation of a new city viable. It also demonstrates a significant part of the current revenue is being spent in other communities. Cityhood would bring much of the misplaced revenue back into this community to resolve problems. It would provide for doubling the police presence in the area. King County response to the Georgette Study shows that of the six patrol districts in the Sea Tac region, the NORA (3) three patrol district in the Riverton area accounts for over 30 per cent of the police calls for servicein the Sea Tac area. This appears to be the worst crime area in unincorporated King County. Twenty nine percent of the most serious (Part I) crimes also occur in that patrol district. In fact, nearly 17 percent of all the Part I crime in unincorporated King County occur in the Sea Tac area. The Sea Tac area is also impacted by twice the preponderance of multi - family housing as compared to total unincorporated King County. In addition to crime and other problems, multi - family housing consists of large wood frame buildings which represent a larger fire problem. Question of Logical Service Boundary The proposed boundaries for Sea Tac encircle the airport. There are a number of reasons why that is important, such as, utilization of four percent of the leasehold tax generated on the airport and better coordination of services to both the airport and the Sea Tac community. The Port would really be a city within the Sea Tac city. The Port already provides urban levels of service to the airport with a 65 person fire department and a 99 person police department. There are existing interlocal agreements between the Port and area fire districts. It goes without saying that there would likely be even stronger joint operations between Port and Sea Tac services after incorporation. Port police response in the Georgette Study suggests that a common boundary between the Port and the jurisdictions around the Port would best attack area problems such as the high crime rate. It is in the community's and the airport's best interest to clean up the crime problem. 2 "Fire Prevention is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression" The predominance of serious (Part I) crime and the number of large structures in the Sea Tac area often dictate multiple unit police and fire response. The topography maps clearly indicate that the proposed boundaries of Sea Tac encompass the area on top of the plateau. The exception was the area of Fire District 24 in the valley which we recommend logically be removed from the proposed city. The severe grades make the use of emergency response from the existing services in the valley for back -up resources rather difficult. We believe the emergency fire and medical first response to the Crestview area, due to differences in the method of dispatching and the severe grade between the valley floor and plateau, have caused a degradation of service to that hillside area. The Lewis and Clark complex located along South 160th Street and Pacific Highway South indicated a logical desire to have their property remain intact. This property houses a large entertainment population. It is located six blocks north of our manned McMicken Heights fire station. The proximity to our station and the probability of our impending improvement to a class 3 insurance rating could be of advantage of them. Question of Incorporation /Annexation Impact on Existing Fire Districts The Georgette Study did not include existing fire district levies ($1.50 per thousand land value) in the revenue side of the budget since the proponents for incorporation have intended to leave fire district boundaries and levies intact. The feeling has been that the existing fire district services are good. The fact they are all class 4 rated fire districts exemplifies their abilities. There is concern with the division of assets question. We believe it is possible to develop an innovative approach to division of assets by developing automatic first response agreements rather than the existing mutual aid agreements and thereby eliminate any direct exchange of assets. We also believe the R.C.W's should be clarified to allow a city to annex portions of the city into . multiple fire districts to maintain the best services to the community and mitigate impacts to areas remaining outside a new city boundary. We understand the court has ruled that territory now within the airport boundary and no longer on a fire district's tax rolls can be used as part of a fire district's total area served. This is actually an advantage in terms of the question of division of assets. We disagree that the value of Port acquired areas would add to the District 2 total asset since Port property no longer contributes a tax levy for fire district services. The purpose and intent of the division of asset statutes is to ensure that assets acquired through tax levies stay with a departing 3 "Fire Prevention is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression" community. There is no fire district tax accrued from airport acquired lands, and that territory within Port boundaries will not become part of the new city. In terms of Fire District 11 in the cityhood proposal, it is recommended that the fire district continue to serve its existing territory and receive the levy through contract. Again, ultimately annexing that area of the city into Fire District 11 would better solidify the future fire service to that area. If the three Riverton annexations to Tukwila occur, then Fire District 11 will lose the revenue from the recently merged fire District 18 area but will also no longer have the responsibility to provide service to the area. If those annexations were to include the west side of Pacific Highway South and the Cascade View area, ultimately then there would be a fiscal impact on Fire District 11 levels of funding prior to the merger of District 18 into District 11 since the City of Tukwila has indicated they would intend to take over the fire service in areas of annexation. It should also be noted that the residential area between 24th Avenue South and Des Moines Way South as far north as South 128th Street is slated for airport noise abatement acquisition. This is planned to be the new north Sea Tac Park. This action will also have some negative impact on Fire District 11 revenue and service area. Question of Impact on Sea Tac Incorporation by Proposed Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke Annexations Most of the testimony from the Riverton communities has evolved around school district and community identity. These issues have little to do with some of the serious problems of crime and safety which obviously affect the citizens and children of those areas. A majority of business owners on Pacific Highway South have asked to be included in the Sea Tac area. Considering that Pacific Highway South appears to be the crime corridor and since it parallels the airport there appears to be a logical alignment of service area along Pacific Highway South. The studies and an analysis of the type of business in Sea Tac would suggest the . majority of revenue comes from the central Sea Tac area. Removal of the three annexation areas should therefore actually enhance the per capita revenue available to Sea Tac for local services. Furthermore, when the proposed billion dollars in development southeast of the airport is considered, the revenue producing ability of Sea Tac becomes even more apparent. Question of Sea Tac Incorporation Versus Annexation The neighborhoods in the Sea Tac area are caught between the tremendous growth in the valley and Sea Tac airport. Lack of cohesive planning in the community has allowed the quality of life to seriously degredate in our residential and business 4 "Fire Prevention is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression" communities. Respectfully submitted James E. Adsley Chief Executive Officer King County Fire District #24 JEA /je cc: Fire District #24 Commission Greg Curwen, District Attorney 5 Our community suffers from the national and local publicity of the largest unsolved serial murder case in the history of the nation. We will see national television coverage on this issue again in December. There are plans to relieve problems in the valley which will further degredate safety in our community. We understand Tukwila has recently resolved to serve the entire Sea Tac area. We find it extremely doubtful that they would be able to successfully penetrate the City of Des Moines or Kent spheres of interest. This leads us back to a piecemeal division of the Sea Tac area. It will surely eliminate any true solutions to our area problems. Furthermore, it will detract from existing levels of service in the community or cause a need to increase taxes in the area to maintain existing level of service in unannexed areas of Sea Tac. The citizens who live in the Sea Tac community best understand the unique problems we are confronted with. The Georgette study indicates the viability of a City of Sea Tac. It is obvious that incorporation is the best long term solution to the problems and needs of the Sea Tac community. Those who live in this community want to see solutions available to the entire community now. Not piecemeal over many years. The balance of power in Tukwila and Des Moines is not germane to Sea Tac area interests. A local government which lives in the community will be most responsive to the needs of this community. The residents of the proposed annexation areas in Riverton seem to prefer alignment with Tukwila, for the most part. The population in those areas would also increase the stature of the City of Tukwila beyond the recommended 10,000 population threshhold. To include that population in the proposed boundaries of Sea Tac could greatly jeopardize the effort of incorporation of Sea Tac. We respectfully appreciate the unbiased public pr.ocess afforded. by the efforts of the Boundary Review Board members. If we have overlooked any questions or information the Board desires, please let us know. "Fire Prevention is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression" THE GEORGETTE GROUP (206) 232 -4194 DATE: November 21st, 1988. TO: All Boundary Review Board Members. FROM: Madeleine Georgette Response: MEMORANDUM 2737 77th Ave S.E. Suite #111 Mercer Island, Wa 98040. Public Involvement for Public Works Socioeconomic Impact Assessment K.C.E3. . i. FIE: Iii ...3 I Fre 0,!‘). P .``,"-A, gi'' • U i RE: Sea -Tac Incorporation Study: Response to Comments made at Public Hearing, Nov. 17th. Comments made by Clark Snure on behalf of Fire Districts #2 and # 26 . In preparing this response 1 spoke with Clark Snure regarding his testimony on November 17th to the BRB. His main points include: 1. The BRB's charge is to look at the affect of incorporation on local government units and this should include an evaluation of a district's assets and not Just their assessed valuation. The analysis in the TGG report only addresses assessed valuation. Response: The analysis of Fire Districts discussed in section III -2 -A, Table I I I -2 -A -2 ( page 111 -76) shows a summary of the assessed valuation status of all the fire districts serving the Sea -Tac area and on page 1 1 1 -77 fourth bullet from the top states: "This Table does not reflect the value of assets of each fire district that would have to be paid to the new city. An assessment of asset values is beyond the scope of this study." Ac ording the Mr. Snure the scope should include such an assessment in order to understand the true impact incorporation could have. 1 explained that this would require an exact accounting done by certified public accountants in order for it to have any validity and this was not required as part of the study. 2. Mr. Snure stated that the assessed value for Fire District #2 provided in the TGG report shows 20% of the district in the study area; however the district does include the assessed valuation of the Port property which should be included in the estimate. If the Port property is included then the amount of Fire District 0 '2 within the incorporation area would be 40 %. Mr. Snure cited a case brought by the City of Normandy Park against Fire District 0 2 over this issue of including Port property in the assessed valuation of the District. In discussing this issue with Mr. Snure he said the Court of Appeals rendered a decision a copy of which he is sending to me. My understanding at this point in time, Having not read the decision, is that the Port property contained within the district should only be included in estimating its assessed valuation when a situation arises in which the district's assets are in question. (Although the Port is within the district it is NOT served by the district since the Port has its own fire Department. )1 would recommend the BRB have Bob Kaufman research this point for full clarification of the case and it's implications for this incorporation. In addition, Mr. Snure explained that there is another issue as to whether the,RCW's are to the value of real property vs. the value of taxable real property. Port property is not taxable; The issue to be decided in the courts is whether the airport is considered part of real property of the Fire District. Mr. Snure told me it is his position that this decision should be made by the court BEFORE the BRB makes any decision about the incorporation. I asked him if he had submitted this opinion in writing to the Board. He said he made this point in his testimony and I told him 1 would reiterate it in my written comments to the Board. 3. Mr. Snure said that a city can only annex into one Fire District at a time and that an entire city had.to annex into a district and NOT just a portion of a city. Response: In talking with Mr. Snure about this point he told me it was his professional opinion he was expressing and that this is what is "generally allowable in the law" and that there was no instance in Washington Lew where a city has annexed into more than one Fire District at a time. The T0O report contains a very detailed discussion of options and issues which we understand are available to a new city and based upon our understanding of the relevant RCW's. ( please see pages 111 -74 to 111- 79 for discussion of options, issues and impacts) 1 recommend the BRB also have Bob Kaufman research this point for further clarification. 4. Mr. Snure alleged that the estimate of cost of Service for Fire District 0 26 was incorrect since it contained costs for capital improvement items in the estimate of total expenditures. He also alleged that TOO did not follow up as per our original letter to them. Response: In talking with Mr. Snure we reviewed the original letter he sent us, a copy of which is enclosed. He identified on the budget sheet that element 50 on line 6 and element 80 on line 8 referred to capital improvements and should be deducted from the total. (Please note that the total expenses shown on this budget sheet is the same number provided in their response to our questionnaire on the previous page Le, they made no attempt to deduct these capital expenditures from the total). In addition, their letter did not indicate they had any questions regarding completing our questionnaire. Using this new information the following was derived: • Fire District 026 per capita cost of service is: $39.89 • Cost to service the area within the proposed boundary is: $31,915 • Cost as a X of total fire district budget is: 3.5X Our records (copy enclosed) show that we spoke with the Fire District on 8/22 at which time they said the response was on its way. Their response was received on 8/24. Additional followup was made on 9/14 when 1 spoke to Lance who gave me some additional data that had not been submitted with their response to our questionnaire. Comments made on the comparability of the budget for the new city and the budoet for the City of Renton The testimony showed how TGO report compared the City of. Sea -Tac with the City of Renton: The individual then wanted"to know why he couldn't then compare the budget of the City of Renton with the budget for the first year of operations: He quoted from page IV -23 paragraph 2. Response: The reader obviously quoted this paragraph out of context; please refer to page IY -22 item 4, Budoet Format and Comparability where we explicity caution the reader not to compare the budget for a variety of reasons which are clearly stated. Comments made on the validity of the survey results. We refer you to chapter 5, Community Identity on page 11- 24. the Introduction we explain how the survey was conducted and whet its limitations are. It is clear that both sides are using the findings of the survey to either bolster their point of view or to detract from the validity of their opponents arguments. In addition, we would like to comment that the testimony at the public hearings also does not represent a random, scientific sampling of opinion on the . issues and does comprise a self selected group of people wno are interested in the issues of incorporation and annexation facing the Sea -Tac area. Finn of Xing Wowitty e.e I4t 26 .1�:•k':y:'M.-. l..ii+ rL' • tir: .. ,:! ^ -7 J... `•r: -, The Georgette Group 2737 77th Ave.S.E. Suite #111 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Attn: Ms. Madelaine S. Georgette Re: King County Fire Protection District No. 26 - Proposed City of SeaTac Dear Ms. Georgette In accordance with your letter dated August 3, 1988, you will find enclosed the completed questionnaire transmitted to the District. As a result of the lack of accurate statistical information relating to the proposed incorporation of the City or the possible annexations by other cities, an accurate analysis of the potential adverse impacts of such proposals on the Fire Protection District cannot be conducted at this time. Since the Fire Protection District is a consulted and affected governmental entity, we request that we be advised when additional data becomes available and be given adequate opportunity to provide additional information and comments on the potential impact of such proposals on the Fire Protection District and possible mitigating measures that could be taken. Very truly yours, KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 26 Clark B. Snure Secretary CBS:asg Enclosures KG26L8/2388 2238 SOUTH 223rd STREET DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 August 23,1988 1 BUS. PHONE: 878.22101ti: i** EMERGENCY: I'i• ni ; d?VI.NG " °� �.,.. ?!` �µ Y;' HEARINGISPEECH IMPAIRED i i PHONE (TTY): 878.2113 , .� . .,. �.r- 1�t-j• d �.!`�a ADDRESS 'EQUIPMENT FIRE DISTRICT x 26 HEADQUARTERS STATION* STAFFING EIE VOLUNTEERS SEE ATTACHED FIRE KING COUNTY PIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 26 Fire District Questionnaire Attachment Personnel. The District has two chief officers, one fire marshal, eleven paid fire fighters and 25 volunteer fire fighters. The clerical staff consists of one full -time secretary. 'interlocal Agreements. » .The District currently has interlocal agreements with the following municipal corporations: City of Des Moines City of Normandy Park King County Emergency Medical Services Division King County Fire Protection District No. 2 Port of Seattle King County Mutual Aid Agreement 'District Facilities. The District has one station located at 2238 South 223rd Street, Des Moines, Washington, 98198. The mobile equipment located at the station consists of the following 1982 Chevrolet Malibu, Chiefs Car 1983 Chevrolet Pick-up C -10, Utility Truck 1987 Jeep Cherokee, 4 door 1985 Ford Aid and Ambulance Vehicle 1979 1500 GPM Class A Pumper 1964 1250 GPM Class A Pumper 1976 1250 GPM Class A Pumper 1971 Mack 75 foot Aerial Platform 1985 Ford Rescue Truck 1987 Workboat, 26 foot, Fire - Rescue Boat 'Insurance Rating. The District currently holds a Class 4 insurance rating issued by the Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau. /1987 Statistics. Total calls in 1987 - 1,459. Average response time for EMS calls - 2.91 minutes. Average response time for fire calls - 2.93 minutes. Average response time for service calls - 2.58 minutes. 1988 ASSESSED VALUATION $551,135,346 BUDGET: TOTAL 1988 $1, 4 93 , 83 9 EXPENSE FUND RESERVE FUND 0.0. BOND FUND MISCELLANEOUS OTHER TOTAL REVENUES 1,047,339 1,047,339 FIRE DISTRICT QUESTIONNAIRE continued TOTAL 1987 LEVY /S 1.000 $1.5 0 usrmig. .1.50 RV 0 REVENUES (actual $ or X of total revenues) EXPENDITURES (actual $ or X of total expenditures) SEE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATION ELla FIRE SUPPRESSION TRAINING FIRE PREVENTION OTHER TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,493,839 ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION Yr. r. Yr. B A SUB ELE OBJ f( • ^^l 1988 522 FIRE CONTROL 10 Administration i 279,880.00 20 Fire Suppression 114,070.00 30 Fire Prevention & Investigation 232,055.00 40 Training 140,805.00 50 Facilities 557,239.00 60 Other Municipal Services 80 Alarm a /or Emerg. Communications 25,000.00 522 00 00 TOTAL FIRE CONTROL 3 1,349,049.00 526 AMBULANCE, RESCUE, & EMERG. AID 10 Administartion 45,475.00 20 Ambulance 30 Rescue & Emergency Aid 62,500.00 40 Training 36,815.00 50 Facilities 80 Alarm a /or Emerg. Communications 526 00 00 TOTAL AMBULANCE, RESCUE a EMERGENCY AID 144,790.00 s ?n no 00 TOTAL SECURITY TO PERSONS a PROPERTY 500 00 . 00 TOTAL SERVICES (520 & 510) • 1,493,839.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 REVISED OCTOBER 1980 CURRENT EXPENSE (000) Fam KING #26 Year 1988 Page 6 KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 26 1 • KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 26 FIRE .DISTRICT QUESTIONNAIRE ATTACHMENT .. ITEMS 1, 2 AND 3 The District is located in a relatively stable area that is . not subject to major developmental changes. Although the District- will •- •continue.-to- experience . increased -mnitipiru nirrestdetttar bitstrm!tien, because of its geographical size and the location of its station, it is not-anticipated -that•additional-station facilities will-be'-needed. The District tlSes * have swritten'capitelirimprvvement- programrvr- equipment7replacement-plairand does - tht trequisiti6n of "new' fatuities-befare The District maintains a' reserve'-fund--for equipment-replacement and its plans for such replacement are based on its usage of existing equipment as well as developments that occur in the design, construction and technology of new products and equipment. The District also attempts to plan its equipment replacements to insure compliance with the ever changing NFPA standards and WISHA requirements. The- Districrretefitly completed-a'capitalimprovement program which included the installation of an Opticom traffic control system, the acquisition of the fire- rescue boat, the acquisition and installation of a network computer system, hose replacement, an 4 1 addition to the headquarters station, the refitting of all fire hydrants in the t District to standardized hose coupling requirements, protective clothing a replacement, modification of the aerial platform and miscellaneous equipment improvements and replacements. ITEM 4 The entire City of Des Moines has been annexed to the Fire Protection Dist ict and the annexation of any unincorporated areas of the District by the City r ip d not have an affect on the jurisdictional boundaries of the District. • The loss of any geographical area now located within the District by the incorporation of a new city or by annexation to an existing city, other than the City of Des Moines, will have the following adverse impacts on the District: 1. Interruption of planned service area resulting in loss of full utilization of the District headquarters station, equipment and personnel. The District's station was constructed in its present location to provide service to all areas within the boundaries of the District. The removal of an area of the District from the jurisdiction of the District will reduce the effectiveness of the station facilities. Loss of annual tax revenue. Since we have not been provided with figures showing the assessed value of the real property now located within the District that would be removed by the incorporation of a city or the annexation to another city or cities, it is impossible to estimate the adverse impact on the District's operation by the loss of such annual tax revenue. The impact could result in a forced reduction of paid fire fighter personnel. The impact could also result in a lowering of the level of services currently provided within the entire Fire Protection District, including the City of Des Moines. Possible loss of assets of the District. If the geographical area and assessed valuation of the area that would be removed from the District by the incorporation of a city or the annexation to an existing city, would require a transfer of assets under RCW 35A.14.380 and .400, there would be a significant adverse impact on the operation and functioning of the District. The loss of assets would adversely affect the ability of the District to provide the current level of services within the entire District, including the City of Des Moines.. The Washington Surveying and . Rating Bureau has recently lowered the District's insurance rating to a class 4. The loss of assets and tax revenue could result in a rerating of the District and a possible increase of its insurance rate. An increase in the insurance rating would have an adverse impact on commercial and possibly residential insurance premiums charged for insurance coverage of structures within the entire Fire Protection District including the City of Des Moines. -2- ' • L ���t-.e e r. cL 1 C C ..4Att5 t� F. • • •, .. • • • • Setzvice, ino F p, *Ili - *or ifv-tft. ta...A-41 tv3,5):#-a.cax am m o , I 46,/ (4i i4 6 Ce 7.44 WA' q . L .W. 1 • 605 • ; 41A ad SLAIN. 1- • 1 1 : 1. i I 7 • ` .. 3 '. . . . • • • •••••;.-.; .%; • • • „ • • Urb‘ct SD • O 5. 1>t • eutit g *met ( 01 ?/3 6 33 • iN"t 1414 els 9 •Ba.4 gtt ava - 204 01/41A _tstio_e a_Lc0 431 9 1 s- a:a.t. 0 - 11( 14,51co I • t 4.41s s s-s3s PrAdtA.k. feci-fosik ,c.,,c/1 at- 49 J , l'Cl2q at4.7 1 4461 . • 1;1101 craL Cc . 1 a Z° ‘ 4?-11tru 44e Ftt r * t . A — I st Lit ( 744,0 t-IS , bie .8 3 1g q • • 1 4/ kkg)044_ D. "e iqi g4l - V1i4.04 •-• tit-taA Htle 'SP Olga 24 - L (..-7,1-.••■,7•• . . • . rtr yr •. " Washington State Boundary Review For King County Care Of: Carole A. Korelin. Staff Associate 3600 136th S.E. , Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Allan Ekberg Riverton Annexation Proponent 4123 S. 130th Seattle, WA 98168 241 -6904 November 18, 1988 Here goes: Board tv tiOV22 211 R f C N ST4 Q BOARD FOR KI G,VC CO Dear Boundary Review Board Members, I would like to thank you for hearing our community's reasons for annexing to the City of Tukwila at Tuesday's and Thursday's meeting. Since I will not be able to attend next Tuesday, November 22, I thought I would communicate my thoughts to you in writing. There are many reasons why I feel we should be given the opportunity to annex to the City of Tukwila. I have attempted to break down my reasoning in a logical manner based on your Boundary Review Board objectives. BRB objective 1: Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities: - My community is a residential community. It is a community of people with strong grass root support for annexation. - I do not consider my community anything related to a "natural commercial community" as mentioned in King County motion 88 -855. When I thing of preserving natural neighborhoods and communities I think of people and their interests, the human elements of a community. Upon graduation from Foster High- school in 1977, I received a City of Tukwila scholarship for Law Enforcement studies. The City of Tukwila was active, then in our school district as it is now. Tukwila provides consistency to our neighborhood schools by sponsoring activities such as: annual scholarships for band, scholastic achievement, and student of the month. The City of Tukwila is an intricate part of our community. - It is important to me that the South Central School District #406 is supported by the City of Tukwila because it is a small district that needs representation. Tukwila and the SCSD have a relationship that extends back for years. They are natural neighbors in our community. • I have been actively involved with . issues in our community. This issue of annexing to the city of Tukwila has overwhelming support from the community. It is an issue of people.speaking out for people.. The community identifies with Tukwila, .as Exhibit Y (Petition of Support for Annexation to the City of Tukwila) represents, our community. does not identify with Sea -Tac.• - My community is made up of a broad range of people, but they have come together to show support for annexation to the City of Tukwila. BRB objective 2: Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways and land contours. - Because our community identifies 'strongly with the City of Tukwila and the South Central School District, I belive that the Western boundary of our annexation effort should be to the West of Highway 99. I believe the Western boundary should be extended to Military Road. My Cascade View neighbors have shown overwhelming support for our annexation effort and support for the City of Tukwila as their own annexation petition proves. I believe that the Western boundary should be Military Road so that my community's school district has the opportunity to be completely enclosed in one city. - I strongly support the position that Highway 99 be contained in a single jurisdiction so that one police force patrols my whole community. - The proposal to use 42nd Avenue is unacceptable because it splits my community in half. I extend to you the offer to drive down this street and see for yourself. - The Sea -Tac north boundary is drawn at 125th Avenue South. This is a non - existent street which cuts individual's property in half. It is not a logical boundary. - I worked for annexation to Tukwila because of industrial encroachment creeping south of 125th Ave. Tukwila has addressed this issue through Pre - Annexation Zoning meetings I attended. Sea- Tac has not. BRB objective #3: Creation and preservation of logical service areas: - The City of Tukwila provides service to my community's schools. - The City of Tukwila provides services to my community through their community center. 60% of instructional class participants are non - residents of Tukwila. 70% of Senior Citizen participants are non- residents of Tukwila. These "non- residents" are residents of my community which Tukwila serves. My community's senior citizens are provided transportation services; this is a vital service that senior citizens need. This service is provided by the City of Tukwila. - The City of Tukwila has worked with my community to handle pre - annexation zoning issues. This is a service that they provided on the request of annexation proponents. The City of Tukwila responds to my community's service needs. BRB objective #4: Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries I feel the use of Military Road as the Western boundary prevents abnormally irregular boundaries. It is my hope that boundaries are not just considered lines on a map, but take the human element of community into perspective. - Military Road is readily identifiable by my community as a realistic boundary between the City of Tukwila and the City of Sea -Tac. - Though the use of a Military Road boundary, my community would not be split in half as the proposed 42nd Avenue boundary does. 42nd would be an abnormally irregular boundary if the human element remains in perspective. Sea -Tac's use of 125th Avenue South is an abnormally irregular boundary because it uses an non - existent street and splits neighbors from neighbors in my community. BRB objective #5: Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encourage of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas. - Since the City of Tukwila is less than 10,000 in a heavily populated urban area, they should be allowed to expand to meet this objective. The City of Tukwila has proven through their studies that this is obtainable. BRB objective #6: Is not applicable to this issue. `BRB objective Adjustment of impractical boundaries. Lets prevent impractical boundaries before, they: are created - Sea -Tac's use of.,.125th Avenue.Sou.th presents an impractical: northern boundary because of its use of. an non- existent street. - Sea -Tac's proposal to. use 42nd Avenue presents.an.impractical boundary as it relates to the human element,of my community:. The use of ,Highway 99 as a boundary,is impractical because.it splits the school district and the neighborhood I identify with between potential cities. - BRB objective # 8: Incorporation as cities or -towns or annexation to cities or towns.of 'unincorporated areas which are urban in•character. -•My community is urban in character, and has shown determined support for annexing to City .of Tukwila. - My community has urban problemsTthat.need solutions on an immediate basis. I feel that the City of Tukwila can serve..my needs sooner that an incorporation effort. could because. of. their. established• infrastructure. BRB objective . # 9 & 10 - Are not applicable to this issue. In closing, Ihave attempted to define my reasons why , my community should be given the opportunity to annex to the City of Tukwila and to define some issues as I see them releting to your objectives. Thank you for the opportunity to express; myself. Sincerely, Allan Ekberg Riverton Annexation roponent 4710 So. 144 Seattle,98168 Boundry. Review Board Dear Sirs: As a resident of the Poster area I would like to vdice my objection to Tukwila taking us over. The area along 53 Ave So has at one time voted down being annexed to Tukwila. As the area between Tukwila and 42 Ave So is all single family residences and I an sure most home owners do not want to be in Tukwila, Tukwila's strategy is to include the area west of 42 Ave So which is mostly large apartments, in the area there are enough voters inthis area to out poll us home owners. We do not feel that apartment dwellers, who are here to -day and gone tommrrow , should have the opportunity of annexing us home owners to Tukwila. Respectfully; Harold R. S000nes E xhIbit K .C.B.R.B.'FILE # j-�3 #/ff SeaTac Office Center November 21, 1988 Post Office Box 68069 18000 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98188 • (206) 242-8970 . FAX 242 -9654 Washington State Boundary Review Board 3600 - 136th Place S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Meeting - November 22, 1988 Madame Chair and Fellow Board Members: I am writing this letter in lieu of giving verbal comments regarding Sea Tac Incorporation, as suggested at your previous two meetings. My name is Steve Emery. I am the General Manager of the SeaTac Office Center, owned and operated by Kilroy Industries, located at 18000 Pacific Highway South. First, let me thank you for this manner since I am unable Tuesday, November 22nd. I am before making those requests, We who either do business and/or reside in this ?rca are experiencing the development of a sense of community. The . inception has been both painful and wonderful. The pain has come from a lack of self identity and lack of self control over issues affecting the surrounding neighborhoods on an ever - increasing basis. However, from this pain, as you heard from Gene Tonnemaker at last Tuesday night's meeting, a dream is emerging. The dream is to bring people together to focus on local problems. This has come about by identifying those neighborhoods which have experienced many of the same concerns. Once it was realized that many, if not all, of these neighborhoods which were geographi- cally connected were being influenced by the same issues, a sense of identity began. The next natural step was for this group to address its concerns to the form of government it had available to them (King County) which is headquartered some 15 miles away. What the people heard from the King County Executive was that this area is identified in the Communities Plan as an urban activity center (a city by definition), and has its own local issues and its own local K.C.B.R.B. FILE # ICI the opportunity to address you in to attend the meeting scheduled for asking for two requests. However, I have a few brief comments. A PROJECT OF KILROY INDUSTRIES problems which can be property addressed by becoming a: city. Ring County government can no longer adequately service this area. Somewhat bewildered, the group went to surrounding cities to ask . them if they saw the same dream to make this area part of their community. The answer at that time was "No, but they might be interested in parts of their area. The group realized this would fractionalize that which currently is faced with the same issues and concerns. They saw the area would be split and immersed into other communities which don't have the same goals and perhaps are not prepared to handle the issues facing an area that operates 24: hours .a day, 7 days a week. Therefore, the group's only other option was to come to you with the proper signatures, et cetera, to place this issue on the ballot, whereby they can a) determine their own fate; b) decide if they want to become a city; and c) see if they can realize their dream. My two requests are these: Please don't delay the process of incorporation. These are citizens using every bit of their own spare time, taking them away from their family and friends, to create a grass, roots effort of cityhood. This community does not have the backing which is available to existing cities to withstand hiring attorneys or handling delays. This community has shown their willingness to compromise, as with the boundary issue with Des Moines, as long as they can still achieve their dream. Please help this community establish: a compromise with Tukwila that will not destroy the continuity of the city, and the ability to control crime and provide safety. Steven A. Emery, General Manage SAE:7p 11- 21LTR.BRB(4.2) K.C.B.R.B. FILE # Exhibit # pat, To: Boundary Review Board Subject:. ' Tukwila Annexation Boundary 4727 South 144th Seattle, WA 98168 November 21, 1988 I am in the Thorndyke Annexation Area. Originally, I planned only to listen to the testimony of the witnesses as they spoke to the Boundary Review Board. As I listened to the proponents of Tukwila annexation versus Sea -Tac incorporation, I began to, feel that this was more than a decision as to where a boundary should be.. Rather, it was•a struggle between a community that has been identified with the South Central School District and the City of Tukwila for years and a group of people (mostly business- oriented) that want to build a new Bellevue. The annexation area is full of people like myself. I first moved into the school district in 1952. I attended Showalter and graduated from Foster High School. My daughter also attended Showalter and graduated from Foster.. I find pride in our small community and will be proud to say that I am from Tukwila. I have no community identity with the airport or Sea -Tac City. No one ever asked me if I wanted to be part of . Sea -Tac City, nor asked me to attend a meeting on a Sea -Tac City, nor even.sign'a petition for such a city. Let's not forget that the Sea -Tap City video did not show any of my neighborhood, but only the portions of the Sea -Tac area that concern the incorporation proponents. The video did show two spots on Highway 99 in my.community that they want to change (Dandy's and the Ben Carrol). It never showed any other area. As for the -Cascade View annexation area, nothing:was shown. This area is part of the South Central School District and part of my community. It is a very important part of the district. I do not know what Sea - Tac wants this area for. Sea -Tac says 40th and 42nd Avenues make a logical boundary. I say bull! Military Road is the only choice for the school district and the community. The boundary should not exclude any of our small community. It was our community, not Sea - Tac, that just voted to build a new Foster High School. A lot has been made of the number of people who signed the Thorndyke annexation petition. Let me assure you that this community wants to be part of Tukwila and has no desire to be in Sea -Tac City. I would like to know how many people .signed the annexation petition for Sea -Tac (which has 33,000 residents)? Then I would like to know how many people in the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, or Cascade View area signed that petition or were even asked to sign? 'here .is no doubt .;. that the city of Tukwila ha$; the interest .comaunity.at heart. There :. is no doubt either that Tukwila •.' can organize the resources to support our annexation. Sea - .ty has no concern for us nor do they have the resources -ed to develop a new city. 'lease review these comments: thoroughly and preserve our South Central Schoo]. District and Tukwila Community. t a Military Road Boundary. CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO /0 r5/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,, SETTING FORTH THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CITY OF TUK- WILA TO CONSIDER ANNEXATIONS FROM THE SEA -TAC INCORPORATION AREA. WHEREAS, Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade View areas have filed petitions for annexation to the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, the Boundary Review Board is now reviewing the Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke annexations within the Sea -Tac incorporation area, and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously expressed a willingness to consider progressive and orderly annexation of the Sea -Tac incorporation area to the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has analyzed the impacts of annexation of the Sea -Tac incorporation area and found that the City of Tukwila can provide urban level services most efficiently, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is vitally interested in good, sound gov- ernment that is in the best interest of the affected citizens, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila most logically and reasonably should and can grow westward into the Sea -Tac incorporation area to provide efficient and experienced city services to solve existing problems in the incorporation area. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE to: 1. Formally express to . the residents of the Sea -Tac incorporation area and the Boundary Review Board that the City of Tukwila will positively consider timely, orderly, and progressive annexation petitions of the Sea -Tac incorporation area to the City of Tukwila, and 9 2. Pursue an interlocal agreement with King County for this annexa- tion and for the purpose of resolving problems associated with the annexation. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH- INGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this a / _ day of ; -w. ,1988. Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: /1- .2 / - P r Passed by t h e City Council: // - . / - PP Resolution Number /o j K.C.B.R.B FE Exhibit # 53 Attest /Authenticated: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk November 22, 1988 King County Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S.E. Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 LAW OFFICES CLARK B. SNURE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION 22513 MARINE VIEW DRIVE DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 (206) 624 -5630 Re: Proposed Incorporaton of the City of Sea -Tac File No. 1523 K.C.B.R:$, File # ISa3 Exhibit #EE Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to supplement the testimony presented on behalf of King County Fire Protection District No 2 at the hearing held on November 17, 1988, regarding the proposed incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac. A major area of concern relates to the impact of RCW 35.02.200 on. the District in respect to the potential loss of assets of the District. While the proposed boundaries of the. City . include approximately 20% of assessed value of taxable real property of the District, they actually include approximately 40% of the assessed value of all real property located in the District. RCW 35.02.200 provides in part as follows: "If a portion of a fire protection district including less than sixty percent of the assessed value of the real property of the district. is annexed to or 'incorporated into a city or town, the ownership of all assets of the district shall remain in the _ district and the district shall pay to the city or town within one year or within such period of time as the district continues to collect taxes in such incorporated or annexed areas, in cash, properties or contracts for fire protection services, a percentage of the value of said assets equal to the . percentage of the value of the real property in the entire district lying within the area so incorporated or annexed." (emphasis added) The statutory language, by the use of the word "shall" appears to be mandatory. RCW 35A.14.400 contains identical language relative to the incorporation of a code city. The Court of Appeals held in City of Normandy Park v. King County Fire District No. /et al, 717 P.2d 769, 43 Wn. App. 435 (1986), (copy enclosed) that the Port of Seattle property operated as the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport is located in and constitutes a part of King County Fire Protection District No. 2. King County Boundary Review Board November 22, 1988 Page - 2 Very truly yours, CLARK B. SNURE, P. S. C. G?d/A Clark B. Snure CBS :asg cc: King County FPD No. 2 KG2L11 /2188 •We have found no court decision specifically .interpreting the emphasized . statutory language quoted above: While it : is possible that a court : may interpret the statutory language to refer only to "taxable real property" it would appear, based on the enclosed `court decision, that the court would more likely construe the reference to "real 'property" to include all real property located within the District whether or not subject to taxation. If the City of Sea -Tac should incorporate and remove the area from King County Fire Protection District No 2 that . is currently included .within the proposed boundaries of the City, it would result in the removal of approximately 40% • of the valuation of real property located the District from the District rather than the 20% figure used in the Georgette Group analysis and report The result would be that the District would be required to transfer assets or pay funds to the City equivalent to 40% of the value of the assets of the District within the time period specified in the statute. Obviously, this would have a much greater impact on the . ability of the District to continue to provide services "within the remaining area of the District and to the City of Normandy Park with which it now contracts.: The combination of the loss of assets with the loss of future tax revenue is a significant impact on the Fire. Protection District. Since the District does not provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the Airport, other than under a mutual aid agreement, . the removal of the. Airport would not correspondingly reduce the District's primary service area. To mitigate this potential impact, the Fire Protection District has recommended . to the Boundary Review Board that the Seattle Tacoma. Intcs naic;►al: Airport property and all property lying West of the Airport be omitted from, the proposed City limits' and that the limits be restructured to follow South 148th Street, Pacific Highway South and South 188th Street. We wish to thank the members of the Boundary Review ` Board for the consideration of this request CITY OF NORMANDY PARK Cate as 717 P.2d 769 relevancy beyond mere propensity: 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Evidence 11 404[12], at 404 -92 (1985). See, e.g., State v. Laureano, 101 Wash.2d 745, 682 P.2d 889 (1984), wherein the additional relevancy that warranted admission of prior convic- tions was . a quality of sameness between the two crimes that tended to prove identi- ty. Since we have concluded it was error to admit the two prior juvenile convictions, we need not reach the second issue on appeal. Remanded for a new trial. GREEN, C.J., and MUNSON, J., concur. 43 Wash.App. 435 CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, a Wash- ington Municipal Corporation, Respondent, v . KING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 2, a Washington Municipal Corporation, Appellant, and the Port of Seattle, a Washington Municipal: Corporation, Respondent. No. 15296 -3-1. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. April 14, 1986. Review Denied July 8, 1986. City brought a declaratory judgment action against fire district and Port of Se- attle, seeking portion of fire district's as- sets following . annexation of territory. City's motion for summary judgment was granted by the Superior Court, King Coun- ty, George T. Mattson, J., and the fire district appealed. The Court of Appeals, Coleman, J., held that: (1) airport property v. KING CTY. FIRE DIST. Wash. 769 (Wuh.App. 1956) within the boundary of the fire district was part of the fire district, and (2) the city was not entitled to compensation for the annex- ation, because less than five percent of the area of the fire district was affected by the annexation. Reversed. 1. Counties 4=18 Statute providing that incorporation of any previously unincorporated land lying within a fire protection district shall oper- ate to automatically withdraw such lands from the fire protection district, applies to incorporation of a city or town, not incorpo- ration of port districts. West's RCWA 52.- 08.021, 52.08.025, 53.04.060. 2. Counties 518 A municipal corporation is removed from the fire district boundaries by express action of the legislature, and not simply because it is empowered to create and use its own fire protection service. West's RCWA 14.08.120, 52.30.020, 52.08.025. 3. Municipal Corporations «36(2) The fact that Port of Seattle exercised exclusive jurisdiction over its airport prop- erty did not automatically remove the prop- erty from fire district, for purposes of de- termining whether percentage of fire dis- trict later annexed by city was sufficient to entitle city to compensation from fire dis- trict in form of a percentage of its assets. West's RCWA 14.08.330, 35.13.248. Snure & Fleck, P.S.C., Clark B. Snure, Des Moines, for King County Fire Dist. No. 2. Simmons & Viall, Wilton S. Viall, Seattle, for City of Normandy Park. Carrie Schnelker, Seattle, for The Port of Seattle. COLEMAN, Judge. On February 21, 1983, the City of Nor- mandy Park annexed a previously unincor- porated area of King County. Prior to 4.1 770 Wash. 717 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES annexation, the annexed area, hereinafter referred to as "Manhatten," was within the boundaries of, and was served . by King County Fire. District 2 (Fire District). Following the annexation, pursuant to RCW 35.13.248,' the City of Normandy Park asked King County Fire Protection District 2 to pay 6.97 percent of the value of its assets to the City. The City's re- quest was based on their calculation that Manhatten comprised 6.97 percent of the assessed valuation of all property within the fire protection district and also com , prised more than 5 percent of the area within the Fire District. Therefore, the City determined that it was entitled to com- pensation from the Fire District under RCW 35.13.248. However, the Fire Dis- trict refused to pay because it believed that less than 5 percent of the area of the Fire District was affected by the annexation, and therefore, no compensation was re- quired under the statute. The Fire Dis- trict's calculations showed that if Port of Seattle property . was included in the Fire District's total area, then the area affected by annexation comprised only 3.94 percent of the property in the Fire District. On the other hand, if Port of Seattle property was not included in the Fire District's total area then the area affected by annexation comprised 5.27 percent of the property in the Fire District. The City subsequently brought a declara- tory judgment action against the Fire Dis- trict and the Port of Seattle and later moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and ruled in part as follows: 1. RCW 35.13.248 provides: "Annexation of fire districts- Ownership of assets of fire protection district —When less than sixty percent. If a portion of a fire protec- tion district including less than sixty percent of the assessed value of the real property of the district is annexed to or incorporated into a city or town, the ownership of all assets of the district shall remain in the district and the dis- trict shall pay to the city or town within one year or within such period of time as the district continues to collect taxes in such incorporated or .annexed areas, in cash, properties, or con - tracts for fire protection services, a percentage 2.5) RCW 14.08.330 gives the Port ex- clusive police jurisdiction over its Sea -Tac Airport properties. RCW 14.08.120(2) gives the Port the right to provide fire protection services for its Sea -Tac Air- port property or to contract for such services, which right is exercised by the Port. RCW 53.08.010 and RCW 14.08.- 030(2) give the Port the power to con- demn and acquire property. Nothing in Chapters RCW 52.04 and 52.22 pertain- ing to fire districts speaks to the .issue of removal of the Port's airport property from a fire protection district. Read to- gether, these statutes operate to remove the Port of Seattle property at Sea -Tac Airport from the territorial or other jur- isdiction of King County Fire Protection District No. 2. The land area of "Man- hattan" exceeds 5% of the area of King County Fire Protection District No. 2 and pursuant to RCW 35.13.248 more than 5% of the area of the District is affected. 2.6) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 2.7) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. • • The Fire District appeals from this order. ISSUE I: Did the trial court err in ruling that RCW .14.08 operates to remove the Port of Seattle property at Seattle- Taccnia airport from the territorial or other juris- diction of the Fire District? Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in its interpretation of RCW 14.08 because certain statutes contained in RCW chapters 52.04 and. 52.08 (formerly 52.22) contain the exclusive methods for of the value of said assets equal to the percent- age of the value of the real property in the entire district lying within the area so incorpo- rated or annexed: Provided, That if less than five percent of the area of the district is affect- ed, no payment shall be made to the city or town. The fire protection district shall provide fire protection to the incorporated or annexed area for such period as the district continues to collect taxes levied in such annexed or incorpo- rated arca." The parties have not asked this court to inter- pret this statute, and they do not contest its application to these facts. 1 CITY OF NORMANDY PARK v. KING CTY. FIRE DIST. Wash. 771 Clts as 717 P.2d 769 (Wash.App. 1986) removing real property from the jurisdic- tion of a fire district, and none of these statutes provide for removal of property by a municipal corporation's acquisition of real property for airport purposes. On the oth- er hand, respondents argue that RCW 52.- 08.021 z controls this case. The statute states: Withdrawal by incorporation of part of district. The incorporation of any previously unincorporated land lying within a fire protection district shall op- erate to automatically withdraw such lands from the fire protection district. According to respondents, the term "incor- poration" clearly refers to the incorpo- ration of any municipal corporation; and since the Port is a municipal corporation, RCW 53.04.060, Auto Drivers v. Retire- ment Sys., 92 Wash.2d 415, 419, 598 P.2d 379 (1979), the condemnation and incorpo- ration of the airport property by the Port automatically removed that property from the Fire District. [ 11 Though the statute is ambiguous with respect to the meaning of "incorpo- ration," a careful reading of RCW 52.08: 021, the section immediately following 52: 08.021, i.e., 52.08.025, and the relevant leg- islative history indicates that "incorpo- ration of any previously unincorporated land ..." in RCW 52.08.021 refers to the "incorporation" of a city or town. The title of the act that created RCW 52.08.021 (for- merly 52.22.020) states in pertinent part: "AN ACT relating to fire protection dis- tricts; providing for the exclusion of terri- tory within the district upon incorporation of such territory as a city or town ..." (Emphasis added.) Laws of 1955, ch. 111, ... p. 522. It is well settled that where "the language of an act is ambiguous, the title may be resorted to as an aid to con- struction." Bellevue v. Acrey, 37 Wash. App. 57, 62, 678 P.2d 1289, rev'd on other grounds, 103 Wash.2d 203, 691 P.2d 957 (1984). The title quoted above establishes that the Legislature intended the word "in- corporation," as used in RCW 52.08.021, to include only the incorporation of cities and 2. Former RCW 52.22.020 has been recodified as RCW 52.08.021. towns, not the incorporation of port dis- tricts. Respondents contend, however, that RCW 14.08.120 establishes, by implication, the Legislature's intent to remove munici- pal airport property from county fire dis- trict boundaries. RCW 14.08:120 states in pertinent part: Specific powers of municipalities op- erating airports. In addition to the gen- eral powers conferred in this chapter, and without limitation thereof, a munici- pality that has established or may here- after establish airports, restricted land- ing areas, or other air navigation facili- ties, or that has acquired or set apart or may hereafter acquire or set apart real property for that purpose or purposes is authorized: (2) To adopt and amend all needed rules, regulations, and ordinances for the management, government, and use of any properties under its control, whether within or outside the territorial limits of the municipality; to provide fire protec- tion for the airport, including the acqui- sition and operation of fire protection equipment and facilities, and the right to contract with any private body or polit- ical subdivision of the state for the fur- nishing of such fire protection; to ap- point airport guards or police, with full police powers; ... (Emphasis added.) This statute clearly em- powers a municipal corporation operating an airport to provide its own fire protection services. Though the statute does not ex- pressly remove a municipal corporation's airport property from the territorial bound- aries of a county fire district, respondent argues: (1) that as a practical matter, if the municipal corporation provides its own air- port fire protection, there is no need for county fire protection and, therefore, the airport properties should be considered re- moved from the fire district; and (2) a careful reading of related statutes, includ- ing RCW 52.30.020 and 14.08.330, supports 1 772 Wash. 717 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES a conclusion that the Legislature intended to give municipal corporations exclusive po- lice power jurisdiction over airport proper- ties. While there is logic to these arguments, the fact remains that none of the statutes cited by respondents provides for removal of airport property from the territorial jur- isdiction of a fire district. In fact, RCW 52.30.020 and RCW 14.08 arguably recog- nize that a municipal corporation . such as the Port may be within the territorial juris- diction of a fire district even though such municipal corporation provides its own fire protection and has not contracted with the fire district for fire protection. The anoma- lous result, of course, is that such a munici- pal corporation is part of the fire district territory, and yet it receives no fire protec- tion services from the district. However, regardless of how peculiar this result may seem, appellant correctly points out that a similar situation once existed with respect to cities and towns. [2] As appellant notes, cities and towns historically had the power to operate their own fire departments even though they were part of a county fire district. How- ever, in 1960, by amendment of Title 52 RCW, the Legislature specifically and ex- pressly removed cities and towns from the territorial boundaries of the fire districts in which they were located. RCW 52.08.- 025 (formerly 52.22.030). Thus, it would appear that a municipal corporation is not removed from the boundaries of a fire district simply because it is empowered to create and use its own fire protection ser- vice. Rather, a municipal corporation is removed from the fire district boundaries only by express action of the Legislature. (3] Respondents, however, claim that such express legislative action is found in the portion of RCW 14.08.330 which states that airports shall "be under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the municipality ... controlling and operating it.... No other municipality ... shall have any police jurisdiction of the same ..." This argu- ment is not persuasive. In King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, 37 Wash.2d 338, 223 P.2d 834 (1950), our Supreme Court held that the phrase "'exclusive jurisdiction and con- trol' " only precludes other entities "from interfering with respect to the operation of the Seattle- Tacoma airport ..." King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, supra at 348, 223 P.2d 834. In so holding, the court rejected the County's argument that the words "exclu- sive jurisdiction" effectively removed the airport from the territory of King County. It follows then that the court's interpreta- tion of the language "exclusive jurisdiction and control" defeats respondents' argu- ment in the instant case, i.e., that the "ex- clusive jurisdiction" language in RCW 14.- 08 effectively removes the airport property from the Fire District. Respondents ask us to limit the scope of King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, supra, because the court there was faced with a constitutional restriction providing that no territory could be strick- en from any county unless a majority of the voters residing in the affected territory had petitioned therefor. However, because the "exclusive jurisdiction" language did not have the effect of removing territory in King Cy. v. Port of Seattle, supra, there was no violation, and the constitutional pro- vision did not in any way bear upon the scope or definition of "exclusive jurisdic- tion." Therefore, King Cy. v. Port of Se- attle, supra, is controlling here. The fact that the Port of Seattle has exclusive juris- diction over its airport property does not automatically remove that property from the Fire District. The same analysis is applicable to the language in the statute giving the airport exclusive "police jurisdiction." Again, this language, when read in the context of the rest of RCW 14.08.330, only speaks ' to op- erational jurisdiction, not territorial juris- diction or boundaries. This analysis argu- ably gains support from a 1985 amendment to RCW 14.08.330, which is underlined here: No other municipality in which the air- port or , air navigation facility is located shall have any police jurisdiction of the PEDERSEN v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. Wash. ?73 Cite as 717 P.2d 773 (Wuh.App. 1936) same or any authority to charge or exact any license fees or occupation taxes for the operations. However, by agreement with the municipality operating and controlling the airport or air naviga- tion facility, a municipality in which an airport or air navigation facility is located may be responsible for the ad- ministration and enforcement of the uniform fire code, as adopted by that municipality under RCW 19.27.040, .on that portion of any airport or air navi- gation facility located within its juris- dictional boundaries. (Emphasis added.) Amended by Laws 1985, ch. 246, § 1. This new language indicates that an air - port's exclusive : "police jurisdiction" does not remove the airport from the "jurisdic- tional boundaries" (emphasis added) of other municipal corporations. . Rather, it appears that exclusive "police jurisdic- tion" (emphasis added) merely means that the airport is "responsible" for police oper- ations at the airport, and no other munici- pality may interfere with those operations. Thus, it is apparent that none of the relevant statutes discloses a legislative in- tent to remove airport property from the territory of county fire districts. It is also apparent that, in the past, the Legislature has expressed its intent to remove property from fire districts by passing additions or amendments to RCW 52.22 (such as those relating to cities and towns) which clearly and unequivocally remove such property from the territorial jurisdictions of coun- ty fire districts. If the Legislature wishes to accomplish the result urged by respon- dent, it may clearly do so by enactment of legislation. For the reasons indicated in our analysis, the airport property remains a part of King County Fire District 2. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. SCHOLFIELD, C.J., and GROSSE, J., concur. 43 Wash.App. 413 Raymond E. PEDERSEN and Denese S. Pedersen, husband and wife; Raymond D. Elkins; William C. Goetzinger; Jer- ry Leonard; Willis Huisingh; E.R. Mei- nert; Mike Farley; Charles F. Sikorra; Robert W. McConkey; Robert S. Searle; Gary D. Norman; Elmer R. Jones; David Turner; James Van Fredenberg; Mrs. Tillie Viken; and Steven A. McDo- well, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a State agen- cy; City of Normandy Park, a munici- pal corporation; King County, a mu- nicipal corporation, Respondents. No. 13467 -1 -I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. April 14, 1986. Owners of lake property sought to re- cover damages in inverse condemnation against city and state by reason of installa- tion of drainage system. Summary judg- ment in favor of city was reversed, 25 Wash.App. 781, 611 P.2d 1293, and case was remanded. On remand, the Superior Court, King County, Francis E. Holman, J., dismissed claim for inverse condemnation, after determining that the city and state were entitled to a prescriptive easement, and the owners appealed. The Court of Appeals, Swanson, J., held that pumping of drainage waters into lake, otherwise ad- verse because neither city nor state sought permission to pump into lake, gave rise to a prescriptive easement in that pumping was not only open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted for entire prescriptive peri- od, but was of such common knowledge as to justify imputation of constructive knowl- edge to servient owners at a time when they were able in law to assert and enforce their rights. Affirmed. r SUBMITTED BY: CITIZENS. FOR .:IMPROVED: SERVICES AND CONTROLLED TAXATION IN. THE MATTER OF PROPOSED CITY OF SEA TAC Members of the Board; .. Nov 21, 1988 My name is' Robert Cary I. live at 1205 . S. 196th.. I was born and raised. in this area I watched .them build the SeaTac Airport. My family and I have lived in the same house on Des Moines Way for 20 years. We have experienced the effects of living near the airport, both good, and bad. Here are some conclusions we have drawn from this experience: 1. The airport is here . to stay. It is the 27th largest airport in the world and has national and international significance. It is going to grow. By the year 2000 its activity is expected to almost double. 2. It is almost impossible to overestimate the effect of the airport and its surrounding activities on the people who live nearby. Economic activities are caused or dominated by the airport. Attending problems including crime, dope, vice, traffic and pollution radiate out in all directions. The port and the surrounding area are the only 24 hour active communities in the state. How can we, people who live in the shadow of such a giant, expect to have any control over our own destiny? How can we have any assurance that our homes, neighborhoods and communities will remain livable, safe, secure and beautiful? There is only one solution which provides a realistic answer. We, the people living around the airport, must build for ourselves a city. The City of SeaTac will be populous and well financed. It will surround the airport and be positioned to participate with the Airport as an equal partner in future planning and in solving present problems. Only such a city can command the clout needed to be a real equal to the port. If the community is fragmented, the leverage is lost. The Airport and the supporting industry create a tremendous existing tax base. This tax base, if kept within the community, could be used to solve the community's problems. For example the airport leashold tax is unique to this area and would be an extra tax not available to typical cities. As the Georgette Study indicated, we could double the number of police on our streets without raising taxes. Most people think of the Airport as runways,: planes and noise.' In fact, the: Airport, ' which is the core of our proposed, city, '. is' a city in itself ; It has: its own police fire .and public : safety, organizations:: As indicated s ini, the Georgette. Study there have been for some years, Interlocal. agreements between the Port and surrounding . fire • districts. We:should maintain and , strengthen :th 'agreements, and extend..them .to all areas of fire, police and public safety To summarize, as the Geogette Study indicated, the, best way to :provide. coordinated effort in solving the community's problems is to: have a single ,jurisdiction sharing the' entire boundry of the SUBMITTED BY: CITIZENS FOR .IMPROVED : SERVICES AND CONTROLLED TAXATION IN THE . MATTER OF PROPOSED CITY OF SEA TAC Madam Chair and Members of the Board I am Barbara Blake, 18028 51st Ave So, Seattle, Wa 98188 I live and work in the proposed City of Sea Tac I would like to discuss three points in my time with you. • First The Dibble Study • Second The Georgette Study • Third The Survey 1. The Home Rule Committee commissioned Charles Dibble in July 1987 to study whether the City of Sea Tac could improve services to the citizens and businesses without raising taxes. We agreed to stop our effort if his study revealed we would have to increase taxes. While the study was preliminary and conservative it revealed what we suspected. 2. King County required The Committee to gather petition signatures to request an in -depth study, which was filed Jan 15, 1988. The Georgette Group was selected to investigate some of the same questions we were asking and to report to the Boundary Review Board by Oct 31. Their study confirmed The Dibble Study. It concluded there is revenue from the existing tax structure to double the police service without raising taxes. Perhaps even lowering taxes, especially if the airport tax monies could be used in our community problems. Quality of life was not a factor discussed in the study but remember, you have to have a cream before it can come true. We, the Citizens for Improved Services and Controlled Taxation have committed ourselves to make this a safe, secure community to be proud to live and work in. As Samuel Adams once said "Facts are stubborn things" The facts reported in the studies support our premise and we would not be here tonight if they did not. We can make a difference with the monies already created here. 3. The Survey reported in the Georgette Study offers an indication of attitude. While it is not scientific, statistically significant, nor was it intended to be, 127 people responded: • 80Z identified Sea Tac as their community • 75% responded the boundaries were logical • When asked if they could identify the City of Sea Tac as their city only 2Sg said no. In conclusion, we would like to let the registered voters of this area decide if a local government could make their community a better place to live and work in. • We do need community identify. Perhaps I should say replace our image of Sin City with a positive image of the Gateway . City to the Northwest. • We need a sense of community. • We need our schools and residential areas. Many of our schools and neighborhoods are gone forever. • We need to be involved in regional transportation planning. We need to have . a voice in Puget Sound Government • We need to promote ecomonic development in our Dead zones, create good jobs and provide social services to our seniors, our children and our business sector. .We need a police force designed to handle our unique needs. We do not turn the lights off at 9:00 PM, we never turn the lights off. This is a community with real city needs. Thank you for listening to my evangelizing. SUBMITTED BY: IN' THE MATTER OF CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES AND CONTROLLED TAXATION PROPOSED CITY OF SEA TAC Iadame Chairman and Members of the Board ou are hearing what I hope for your sake the last arguments 'ncerning this matter. want to address three primary issues on which you have heard :stimony. These are Budget, Boundaries and Services. .sere have been throughout these hearings attempts to interpret ie Georgette Group study in a way which would be detrimental to .ir cause. You have heard that the Comparison to Renton Budget in fact a verifier of the viability of Sea Tac. When the service strict assumptions are aligned properly, we find very close )mparisons to the Sea Tac area allowing for certain differences in lake up and factors peculiar to each area. - iere have been several attempts to make vernier adjustments hich we feel are insignificant at the estimate level this far in lvance of the city actually starting up. *e feel the Georgette Group Study to be' essentially accurate and is :pported by the previous preliminary Dibble Study. the ' matter of boundaries, you have heard all the arguments ncerning their location. We feel the question of neighborhoods is ie which you will consider in your deliberations. As you member our proposal is the only one which did not further vide neighborhoods beyond the current situation. Certainly one the factors to consider is school service areas. However, it is ply one and other factors could be of equal or more importance. )u have heard that the City of Tukwila has three other schools stricts partially within their boundaries with restriction to those 3tricts. The Highline School District is partially within the , undary of at least three cities other than Unincorporated King unty. Both Highline and Southcentral School Districts have cently passed bond issues even with these complicated undaries. )wever, being realistic, we recognize and appreciate the wishes of e residents of the annexation areas. We have submitted a mpromise suggestion which we hope you will consider. This sentially leaves the Pacific Highway South business corridor in the oposed City of SeaTac while leaving the residents of the inexations areas with the ability to vote on entrance to Tukwila 1 if they wish. This is in the spirit of compromise and is not as we would have it as we had in mind improving all the neighborhoods that have suffered from some neglect in the past. And further, it is not as the annexation folks would have finalized the boundary. I think because we have had a lot of ink on this question of annexation recently, I should say a few words on that. Tukwila has recently found this new "religion" of annexation. There is • no zeal like that of a convert. We have repeatedly stated " we do not. wish to be annexed in a timely and progressive manner". We wish to address the problems of our area vigorously and address them now. I would like to address the issue of service districts. Our orginal plan was formulated about the issue of bringing within one governing body the crime, traffic and zoning issues of our community. By gaining local control of these issues, and really concentrating our dollars on local issues, we can and will improve the quality of life in our community. And we will do it at the same or less cost to our taxpayers as is currently charged. We want to establish at least twice the police presence in the high crime area as we currently have. We will work with other jurisdictions and use whatever facilities are available from other units to further this cause. We look forward to having mutual aid and assistance contracts with the other municipal bodies with our surrounding area. We would most assuredly utilize the facilities of King County in those areas that do not make sense for a smaller force to staff full time. These are such things as SWAT teams and crime labs. It is the very presence of additional forces and the backup of other municipalities that will help us do a better job of controlling crime in our community. In relation to other special service districts, we see absolutely no reason to change the current numerous service district boundaries to place those duties on a new fledgling city when all of these areas are currently doing their job without significant problems. The other public safety issue of fire should have special attention as it has been addressed as a concern by Fire Districts which have a portion of their district in the proposed Sea Tac boundary. It has •been shown that those people living within fire district boundaries are very loyal to their fire districts. There is certainly no reason to change to a full city fire district. As has been repeated several times, there is no intent to change these. However, being only a proposing body and having no contracting ability, we cannot offer documented evidence to satisfy some jurisdictions. SUBMITTED BY: CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES AND CONTROLLED TAXATION IN THE MATTER OF: PROPOSED CITY OF SEA TAC K.C.B.R.B. FILE # i Exhibit.# I November ZZ, 1966 Ms. Gunbjorg Sandvik, Chair Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S. E., Suite 122 Re: Sea Tac Incorporation /Tukwila Annexations Proposed Compromise Thereto. Dear Chair Sandvik; It Is felt that everyone has verified that the Proposed City of SeaTac will be a viable governmental unit. The county has identified the area as a Urban Activity Center. The Georgette Group study end the Dibble study have further evidenced the proper funding for a city. You have heard the testimony from adjacent cities that Sea Tac should have cityhood status. It is further felt that the citizens in the three annexation areas of Thorndyke, Foster and Riverton are adamant about their proposal to annex to Tukwila. For those reasons plus the very realistic assumption that all the annexation areas voting against Sea Tac would service to severely hamper the chances of a successful election , the Sea Tac proponents would like to suggest a compromise boundary. Referring to our Exhibit No. it can be seen that the business owners on Pacific Highway South do agree that the Sea Tac proposal has addressed the problem of crime and traffic better than other solutions. These folks mostly do not live in the area and therefore will have no official vote. These factors have led us to request you to consider adjusting the boundaries as outlined in the attachment. Several attempts to negotiate a boundary within the contested areas have not met with success with the annexation groups. We pray you will consider this and give both parties a win /win situation at the polls in February. Sincerely yours, Barbara Blake, Co -Chair Citizens for Improved Services and Controlled Taxation 18028 51st Ave South Seattle, Washington 98188 248 -2298 CITY OF SEA TAC BOUNDARY PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS • Leaves residential neighborhoods entirely in Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexations Meets Highway 99 business community preference See letters submitted to BRB on 11 -17 -88 • Allows solution to Highway 99 public safety issue Proposal moves Sea Tac City boundary from existing Tukwila boundary West to East edge of Highway 99 business properties. See map attached. Uses current Tukwila boundary at Crestview addition from 160th Street S thence North to the Southern Line of 154th S. then from 42nd S thence Westerly to the proposed business corridor line East of Pacific Highway South. (See attached maps) Uses Orillia Road as an Eastern Boundary excluding that part Identified on the maps as Kent /Tukwila Boundary Modification on the Valle yT floor. Uses the 208th S. and 210th S. streets as a Southern boundary adjacent to the City of Des Moines between Pacific Highway South and Des Moines Memorial Way South. See exhibit HH. The citizens of the Sea Tac Incorporation group feel these boundaries will serve to clean up situations noted by all surrounding jurisdictions and leave a cohesive and workable set of boundaries for The City of Sea Tac. KING COUNTY BUDGET DIVISION'S SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THE SEA -TAC INCORPORATION November 21, 1988 To assess the fiscal impact on King County from the incorporation of the Sea -Tac, the County Budget Division collected program and fiscal information from most King County departments, and estimated major central revenues generated from the area. The Budget Division compared its estimates to those of the Georgette Group and discussed with them the reasons for differences. Attached is a listing of revenues and expenditures comparing the King County and Georgette estimates and addressing reasons for the differences. As shown by the attachments, the most significant differences in expenditure estimates are in the Departments of Public Safety and Roads. The Georgette Group estimates a larger decrease in Department of Public Safety expenditures ($120,303 larger) than does King County. The differences result from Georgette's use of 26.45 FTEs and the County's use of 20.40 FTEs based on information provided to the Budget Division by the Department of Public Safety, October 26, 1988. The Georgette Group also estimates a larger decrease in Roads expenditures ($363,935) due to Georgette's inclusion of administrative, engineering,'and debt service costs which are excluded in the King County estimates. Georgette's expenditure estimates for Judicial Services, General Administrative Services and some other departments have not yet been verified by King County and the County has not yet made separate estimates for them. The most signifi- cant revenue estimate differences are in Roads, Retail Sales and Use Tax, and Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The Georgette Group estimates a larger Roads revenue loss ($125,393) than does King County because of the differences in population and assessed valuation assumptions used in estimating. King County's information was obtained from the Roads and Budget Divisions, October 26, 1958. King County estimates a larger Retail Sales and Use Tax revenue loss ($128,338) in 1990 than does the Georgette Group. This is due to the differences in level of sales estimates used, and in assumptions regarding normal growth and inflation. The 1989 difference is because of assumptions of timing in revenue loss. As with the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax, Surface Water Management, and Liquor Excise Tax and Profits, timing is a major reason for differences in estimates. The Georgette Group did not consider the effects of timing in any of their first year estimates. Instead they annualized the loss from the year after the transition period (1990). As can be seen on the attached revenue sheet, the timing for loss of each revenue is different, and a short explanation is included for each. K.C.6.R.6. FILE # exhibit # King County Budget Division's Summary of Analysis of the Fiscal Impact of the Sea -Tac Incorporation November 21, 1988 Page 2 The Georgette Group estimates a larger REET revenue loss ($109,075) than does King County because of different methodologies. The Georgette Group estimate is based on assessed valuation while that of King County is based on population. The Leasehold Excise Tax as well as Fines and Forfeitures revenues were estimated by the Georgette Group but, King County has not yet verified Georgette's estimates, and has not yet completed independent estimates. King County estimated Department of Public Health and other revenue impacts based on information obtained from the various departments. The Georgette Group, however, . did not obtain this information. For more detailed information on differences, refer to the attached list of revenues and expenditures DL /DT:db R.326.1 Attachment Dent, 92 Nnv - RR lisr.renenries between Georgette's Study ana King County's Study on S.e - 1ar. arenared.hy King County Rudder flffiCe EXPENDITIIRES KC Georgette A'!ount Amount Reason for discrepancy DPS $2,293,366 $2,413,671 Georgette used 26.45 FTF.s compared to our 20.40 FTEs KC's figure is the most current figure. PARKS $109,420 $84,41L Georgette estimated A7 cost as 1.9% of budget: therefore they estimated the RA coc as 1.9% of the budget. KC obtained information from Parks KC is the most currer RflAnS 8771,592 $1,135,527 information nhtained by KC from Oept. of Publie emrx! 'xriuoe% Administrative, Engineering, and fleht Service (whim are included in Georgette's 4inure) 'ACM 871,450 $R7,430 KC nhtained information from P&CO 114n $653,120 $629.470 KC Ano Georgette obtained information fror BALD. Georgette's figure exclunec Any costs of :moving to new Bellevue location. IPH $AOR,210 $316,600 Geornette's figure is based on comparison with Renton KC's figure was nbtAlmen from DPM flRRFCT1IlNAL SERVU:FS $169,173 $1R6,301 KC obtained information from no. ;o4 $425,000 $426,000 'URilr..: DEFENSE $45,409 Georgette's figure was derived using the Sea -Tac population and CARS per capita Unverified by KC at this time ;'IIf:IL( SFRV1f:ES ? $201,300 (.orpette used Auburn ono Kent costs and population a.5 co*pariso'+! to th t: Der capita figure Unverified by KC. at this timP (SFCIITING LTTf1RNEY $16,RRR Georgette derived figure frnm estimated prosecution cost! of $59,60(1 And toe Sea -Tar population to Southwest flistrirt Court population ratio of 7A unve•.•,e by KC at this time Fr,TS'.AT1vF' 1.INr.TtfltiS GENERAL MAIN ;METING, SUPPORT 5ERVICE.S iH R 7EC(1RDS b EIEr•Tinss '1T • Inrart MO 19119 •xDwndituroe $15,RA2 ($2,269) $ R 100rOPtte derived A' D!r CI1D't! Cot of $2 39 fnr tho uninrnrnrrrron Arox ( Df nrtem from a previous fiscal study) Unverifien hy KC ,it tn+e timo 7ONTNr, A • • SIIBDIVISIONS ? $17,137 Georgette assured a 6 OW deeheace in the workload based on @AID activity estimates Unverified by KC at thie'timw $352,770 Georgette's figure is based on the RR budder and $10 69 D.r Caoit1 rust for' uninroroorated KC. Unverified hy KC at,this ti�w KC obtained information from OHR. includes Aainq Program only: exr.ludoia YS9 ann Puhlic Defersp Programs KC obtain'r1 information from Records & F'i'ctions. Uenr ROAns . gAln • ($515,965) ($17R;R75) KC and Georgette bath used information provided by SAID KC's figure is ire meet current figure provided by RAID SALES TAX 4EET MV FUEL MOOR EXCISE TAX aan = :T; REVENUES KC Georgette . Amount Amount . Reason. for discrenancy ($2,689;696) ($2,815,089) Georgette used -an 89 population estimate of 33,185 and an estimat.d A/v n' $1,67&,591,375 ( based on an estimated incremme in employment). KC us.ti an RR Population of 33,000 and an 88 A/V of $1,6nn,nnn,nnn, both of whirh worm prnvinp ! by the.RRS 1989 -- 1989 -- Georgette figures were based on a 1990 sales esti'rarp of $140,9IR,7Rn KC flow.. ($319,2R6) $0 were based on en R$ sales estimate of $&23,215,065, and did not take normal growth or inflation into consideration 1990-- 1990 -- in addition, Georgette did not tae timing into consideration. (13,831,421) ($3,703,O8R) if election .Jan 1, 1989, loss will hpqin anywh.rp from On 31, 1989 to f'rt i' 1990, dpopndinq nn when nfficisl inrnrpormtinn takes plane and whether p.rttsn^ 1, filed KC assumeo no ppririrn fii•d and •a "ihpst 1311 -day in Hato 1990-- Georgette's figure is bases on unincorpnreted KC A/V and $1,100,000 RFFT rpv.m,. ($230,800) ($339,875) KC's figure is eased on unincornnrarpd KC Population and $8,014,nnn REFT r.v.n.,. eno doesn't take inflation or normal growth into consideration 1990 -- 1990 -- Genrq.ttp did not Consider the timing of loss, only annualised loss frnm rr. v.A- $0 ($617,10R) after the transition period. If election Jan 1, 19R9, next road log cut -off date is Dec 31, 1940, anti nn innate 1991 -- 1991 -- until .lan.1, 199 1. $n ? In addition KC figures are based on 1989 estimates, resulting in 119 57 pee canita. Georgette used a per canita rate of $1910, and inr.lun.o Travp; Tra1 ;. -e 19g2 -- 1992-- Campers Excise Tax in their figures. (1322,892) ? KC did not take normal growth or inflation into consideration, while Genrd•rt. assured ,RR$ population growth 1993 -- 1993-- .0645,179) 1990 -- 1090 -- Georgette did not cnnsider the timing of loss, only annualized loss frn- th. yam" $n ( ;:iR,9151 after the transition period If offitiai incnronratior MA State OF0-mpornved Prior to April 1, 1Q0 Kr ••.. 1 99 1 -- 199 -- negin losing rpvpnup oicrrihutions .Ian 1, 199' ($70.,OR6) ? In addition, KC figures mrp Pasoan nn 19R9 rpvpnup o tir.tps, rpa,ltinn in t' canita Gpnroettp used RR rpvenues, resulting in or per canita KC did not take nnrmml growth or inflation into consideration, while G•nrn.•t. ecru *•d .BR% population growtr • 11tH . 1090 -- .1999-- Kt and Georgette both used infwrm,tinr provided by SWM KC,.'s firniro is the most ($651,434) $n current figure prnvided by SO Georgette did not consider the timing of lost, only annuailt.n lose +rm. the vea. 1990 -- 19nn -- Ow the trancition paring ($651,434) ($6 ?9,61)3) KC did not take normal growth or inflatip- into rOnSigeratinn IFASEHnin EXCi$F TAX 1990 -- 1990 -- Georgette ohtained their information from the Port of Seattle, which ramaine ? ($211,755) unverified by KC et this tine, and assumed .RAk pnoulAtion q•nwtn (;AMRI TAX 1990- 1990 -- KC ohtained figure from the KC Finance nivisior ($137,6 ?4) ($127,10n) 6enrgetrs usd1 $2,200,000 revenue and the RR ininrorpnrated KC eon ;ilatinl t(1 dept $3 R4 per capita Using a nnnulation ecti *ate of 33,100, they deriver+ rre $'27,1 •fiqurP :1NFS b FORFFTTIIRFS 1990 -- 1990-- Georgette used the AA budget figure of $5,999,500 and the RR unincorrnrarer Kf. ( =346,451) pnpulati0n to derive $10 44 per raoita (king BRB's ,AR pnpulmtion fiqurP 0+ 33,000 and rounding the per capita rat. to 0 50, they tnen Oerivud tnP $346,451 figure for 1990 This figure is unverified by KC at this, ti' o!►('.n $21,950 Kn ohtained this information from PSCn and wag not Ohtainen from the genartment by Georgette k. $471,707 KC nhtrinen thic information from OPH ?USINFSS (:ICFNSF. FEES ($3 ?,000) ? KC obtained thin information fro$* General Services nivicion SARK; ($3n,nnn Kr, ohtained this infprmatinn frpn, Parke. :RbNCHiSE FEES ($!O 000) ? Obtained information frnr' KC . .1 "7:• Any figure not preceded by a year is eeacurinq impact for 1989. ?7- Nnv -RP 1MPACT ON RFVFNUES AND EXPENDITURES OF K1NS CO;INTY AS A RFSIIIT OF THE SFA - TA(: INCORPORATION prom/mad by this King Cnunty %daa1''fffiCa ASSUMPTION'. THE SEA -TAC INCORPORATION Mill HOLD ITS ELFCTION JANUARY 1, 1999 SEA -TAC REVENUE IMPACT 1969 1990 1991 1992 19;1 IIQUOR EXCTSF TAX (7) . 80 $0 ($19,397) ($19,392) ' ($ 1.1poR PROFTTS (7) 0 0 (50,616) (50,661) (50,6:16) ' MOTOR V6HICLF'f11F{. TAX (1) 0 0 0 (372,692)' (615 :713) REFT (4) 0 (210,911) (230,911) (730,411) (230,911) RFTAII SOS & IISE TAX (5) (319,765) (3,631,426) (3,131,6 ?6) (3,631,426) (3',131,/76) ROAD DISTRICT TAX (6). (2,669,696) (2,669,696) (2,699,696) (2,699,696) (2,614,696) PARKS PFFS (111) (30,000) (30,000) (30,00n) (10,000) (30,0001 Sio SFRVTCF CRAWS (191 (651,436) (651,131) (651,431) (651,136) (651,4341 DM,) FFF (13) $71,950 $71,950 *71,9sn 121,950 *71,45 RAI() FFFS (1h) (51 (515,965) (515,965) (515,965) (515,965) ROSINESS I:ICENSF FEES (19) (37,000). (32.000) (37,000) (37,000) (32.000) 6A09IIN(; TAXFS (19) (137,624) (137,624) (137,676) (137,674) (137,671) FRANCHTSF FFFS (19) (0,000) (40,000) (60,000) (40,000) (40,000) PURI:TC HFAITH SFRVICFS.FEF.S (17) 471,297 471,797 671,797 671,297 671,297 FINFS &`FnRFFTTIIRES (A) (346,151) (366,451) (316,451) (316,451) (316,451) 1,FASEHOLD EXCISE TAX (R) (211,755) (211,755) (711,155) (211,155) (711,755) FINES & FORFFTTURES (8) 0 (346,451) (316,451) (346,151) ' (316,451) TOTAI RFVFNUF toss (f6,1Rn;g63) (116,510,466) (*6,640,517) (53,963,431) ( *9,766,378) _ i TOT 4i EOENGTTIIRF nFCREASF • 1999 19 90 NnTF• miry nF King County to nrnvido rpm Teirrt!n ,snr,■ until 3/1,/R9 0nd entorceren servteee until 6/29/R9 Thic re00rt comhinPs King County ectiTetec arid Georgette $soup eciiTetec FXDENDTTIIRE TND4(:' : 1991 1997 199 RECORnS & ELECTIONS ($2,269) $n $0 10 $n POI.TCF SERV1CF (19) 7,293,309 ?,799,369 2,293,369 2,293,369 7,791,36P PARKS LABOR b UTILITTES (1R) 109,470 109,170 109,470 109,470 10Q 47(1 SNM SERVICE (1A) 425,000 425,000 425,000 475,000 425,00; ROADS SERVICE (9)(3)(6) 711,592 711,592 771,59? 711,597 771,547 MR SERVICF.(11)(17) 15,917 15,917 15,812 15,947 15,947 D&C.n FEES (13) 74,450 74,450 74,450 74,450 74,450 RAlO SERVICES (16) 653,120 653,170 653,170 653,170 653,170 PIIAIT( HEALTH SERVICES (17) 409,210 4011,210 4011,710 409,710 409,21n C0RRECT1f1NAt SERVICES (1R):, 1 99, 1 73 1R9,173 199,173 139,173 194,113 PURLIC DEFENSE (9) 85,409 . 85,409 05,409 85,409 86, /nq ,IU01CIAl SERVICES (R) 201,300 . 701,300 201,300 701,300 701,300 PROSFCUT.TNO ATTORNEY (R) 16,699 16,699 16,68R 16',699 16,699 IFG15114TTVF FUNCTIONS'(R) 79,970 79,970 79,970 78,970 79,979 IONINA 6 SUBOTVTSTONS (R) ' 17,137 17,137 17,137 17,137 1'037 OFN AOMIN, RII6RFTTNA, S SERVICES (R) 352,770 352,770 352,770 357,710 357,710 $5 ,6V1. 1 1' $5,699,399 $5,697,399 $5,697,399 15,697 34C NFT IMP r.T $1,201,167 ($7,1179,067) ($7,919,143) ($3,271,035) ($3,593.926) --a== __ _.._ NOTES :. (2) Annexations must be accompaniers by a census, which must he approved by OFM. As a rule of thumb, a census and OFM anrroval . will take 1 to 1 -1/2 months to approve. Incorporations must be accomnanied by an accurate estimate. These also take about 1 to 1 -1/2 months to approve. If the annexation /official incorporation is WA State OFM approved prior to April 1, 1989, King County will begin losing revenue distributions January 1, 1990. These figures were compiled using 1989 estimates. (3) The next cut -off for road log changes is December 31, 1988. These calculations for updating the Fuel Tax go into effect July 1, 1990. The next cut -oft` will be Decemher 31, 1990, and the updated calculations will go into effect July 1, 1992. 1988 dollars used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into consideration when figures were extended. (4) REET operates about the same as the Road District Tax except there is no initial distribution /diversion of taxes to the city. An annexation must occur prior. to March 1st to collect REST the following year. Effective January 1, 1989, an incorporation must occur, prior to November 30th to collect REST the next year. 1988 dollars used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into consideration when figures were extended. (5) For the purposes of this study, we assume no netitior. to reneal the ordinance is filed. 1989 estimates used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into consideration for years 1990 to 1993. Sales figures unavailable at this time for Fire District #1, Factoria, Newcastle, and Des Moines Creek East. (6) Annexations - -The county distributes unpaid taxes to the city. These include uncollected and delinquent taxes. As a rule of thumb they would begin receiving this diversion within six months, but the diversion includes taxes paid from the date of annexation. For billing and levy purposes, annexation must occur prior to March 1st to collect road district taxes the following year. Incorporations -- Effective January 1, 1989, if an incorporation takes place prior to November 30th, the city can levy taxes to be collected the next year. As with annexations, the county distributes unpaid taxes to the city. As a rule of thumb, they would begin receiving this diversion within 60 days, but the diversion includes taxes paid from the date of incorporation. KC could theoretically lose up to this amount during the initial diversion. If the optional 106% rule is enacted by KC the Road District Tax loss could be minimal if anything at all. 1988 dollars used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into consideration when figures were extended. (8). Georgette figure used because unestimated.by KC at this time. 1990 dollars ussed.• Inflation and..normal growth were taken into. consideration. when figures were extended.. (23) Sea -Tac- -1989 Transition Staffing Staffing.reauired,to.handle transition, details such as: (1) Arranging for City to adopt ordinances,consistent with County environmental protection and land was standards; (2) Coordinating development of regional services such as SWM or road maintenance; , H . (3) Identifying interim measures required for the first year; and (4) Permanent regulatory items Division would only carry out services on fee- for - service • basis. .25 ongoing`FTE would be required. If no services provided, reduction of .25 FTE could be taken; however this would be consistent with County efforts to make consistent policy County -wide. Reduction would be possible due to increased number of pass - through cities. Applications would be•referred for purposes of setting'priorities and making•recommendations. County would still be required to:do fiscal management and compliance monitoring. Division would propose fee- for - service if desired by municipality. It will be cities':responsibilities to respond. tocitizen queries.' Agency support will increase. Cities will be needing additional support. Sea -Tat figures inc]ude total amount for Foster, Riverton, and Thorndyke, as well' as Seri -Tac . 1988 dollars used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into consideration when figures were extended (17) No significant loss in existing revenue; would :gain contract revenue from city for provision of personal and environmental health services. Costs include staff, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, equipment, rent /utilities, transportation and support services to provide both personal and environmental health:services. : dollars used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into- consideration'when figures were extended. (18) 1988 dollars:used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into consideration when figures were extended. (19) Foster, Riverton, and Thorndyke figures all included under Foster. 1988 dollars used. Inflation and normal growth were not taken into consideration when figures were extended. (20) Incomplete_ analysis due to lack of expenditure data. PETER L. BUCK BRENT CARSON JAY P. DERR JOEL M. GOROONt AMY L. KOSTERLITZ King County Boundary Review Board 3600 146th Avenue S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation: Deletion of "South Tukwila" From the Proposed Incorporation Area and Location of Boundaries Dear Members: LAW OFFICES OF BUCK. 8 GORDON WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902 1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (2061 392.9540 .November 22, 1988 ALSO ADMITTED IN ALASKA t ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA K.C.B.R.E. FILE # U,2 Ex # Kk This office has submitted a photograph and a letter on behalf of M.A. Segale, Inc. (marked as Exhibits SS and TT respectively) which substantiate Segale's position that its property should be deleted from the Sea -Tac incorporation area. Your file also includes letters from neighboring property owners who likewise believe that their property should be deleted from the Sea -Tac incorporation area. (Exhibits W, VV and WW). None of these letters suggests precise boundaries for your consideration. If you agree with our position and if the incorporation goes forward, you will be faced with the task of determining the boundaries of this new city. South Tukwila property owners, specifically Segale and its neighbors, believe that your decision regarding the location of the Sea -Tac City boundaries adjacent to South Tukwila is critical. The property located north of 204th, east of Interstate 5 and west of the Green River consists of approximately 310 acres. Orillia Road extends north -south through this area. The western portion of this area, between Orillia Road and Interstate 5, consists of approximately 62 acres, which, as you can see from our photo, is mostly undevelopable hillside. The eastern portion of this area, between Orillia Road and the Green River, includes approximately 248 acres, which is owned by M.A. Segale, Inca and its neighbors. King County Boundary Review Board November 22, 1988 Page 2 The South Tukwila Valley Floor property owned by Segale is a southerly extension of Segale's Tukwila acreage and is an essential element in Segale's coordinated future use of its South Tukwila Valley Floor property. Segale has been discussing annexation of southerly portions of its property with Tukwila and hopes to coordinate annexation with the use of its property in keeping with overall development utilizing all of its contiguous parcels of land. The annexation and development of South Tukwila will require coordination of services and land uses and revised traffic controls. These issues can most efficiently and completely be addressed if all of the subject property is located in one jurisdiction. Multi- jurisdictional influences upon this area of the valley floor will only frustrate its use. We ask that you define the Sea -Tac City /South Tukwila boundaries as (1) the eastern boundary of Interstate 5 and (2) South 204th such that the South Tukwila Valley Floor may be controlled by a single jurisdiction. The provisions of RCW 36.93.180 support our request in the following respects: 1. The proposed boundaries topographically and functionally support the preservation of the South Tukwila neighborhood and community. RCW 36.93.180(1). 2. The proposed boundaries utilize physical boundaries including but not limited to bodies of water (the Green River), highways (Interstate 5) and land contours (the functional top of the hill and the valley floor extending below it). RCW 36.93.180(2). 3. The proposed boundaries both create and preserve logical service areas for South Tukwila. RCW 36.93.180(3). 4. The proposed boundaries are aligned with existing physical boundaries and ownerships and thereby prevent abnormally irregular boundaries and multi - jurisdictional controls which might otherwise be created. RCW 36.93.180(4). 5. The proposed boundaries support annexation of South Tukwila to the City of Tukwila which is increasingly urban (See Photo- Exhibit " "). RCW 36.93.180(8). In addition, as mentioned above, the proposed boundaries will facilitate coordinated future development of property and are supported by the parties whose land will be affected. segale \L11228.plb King County Boundary. Review Board November. 22, 1988 Page 3 Thank you for your consideration of these proposed boundaries. Very/. ly, yours, Lk '. Pak: O ►J9 OLIDATEQ EVERACE r SHIACH u .. GILBERT COPPER 1 NG OUNT _ ARIE P41 GUNTER Bow Lnke U 1 /\ * T:1111 ■ • c. • j tS KC ; • I LAMBUTH SILL i SPRAGUE - n O.0 !d oc ,! GOODNEWS BAY MINING CO 38.35 . ►s V a t 1 Q1P. i' 1 e a mil 7 363 1 i LAMBUTI SILL 84 -- 7 - - - °- B21 21.90 1 3101 CORP OF CATHOLIC ur " ARCHBISHOPS ► n n c: H. ADAMS le I 1 i 38 60.1 UNION 2 PACIFIC RAILROAD I 1 2700 II —47 l _ THE BOEING CO .v 1141. rnvr 17 I 45 .- .46 4/ - A- a J3 - - -- •c 1 dLte It CITY OF J R DUE If KENT ACK 33 r MA 4 W&LL A EBJ! N 4-1- s� 45 � 1:ra_ - N 61 . -Log P 5 P i L Ij1 CIIARCI • ( L W ►�LLER :iISTI N 2 011001 ASSN 1,1 ash - I�. s 1 • 7 • ON e, . •. 4 tt DC 74 ,T MEA .13 6 S ' 1EI 7 KENT SIXTY W 2198 EIGHT ~ t i.0 B. I z 1 4 Iv d l H MEAD ' HERB 41EA H MEAD j 2502 kr NtG1 V S DE L JO f t CAL ' C AIIR 111 BRA IATSU BC T • P OF A MA YI LAI S SPI WE°. ELECT —; •'I K.C.B.P..6: FILE # Xh'B bit # u c� LLt_is 1 ;Mat J4 P iff2,9 �" /�nl-Ca .. • tom'' -. J4Q_ thyo - ,.fir : 6t.c,e,4214.4iN aAtru;(ci.)1" 401 A)- c j o ` a 1,-IcJ e000 :,� , -t. 9Y /6Y King County Boundary Review Board Compromise Proposal: Steve Lawrence 4461 S. 144th St. Seattle, WA 98168 243 -9266 I urge the BRB to accept the annexation boundaries with one very important alteration. I'f theannexations go for- ward as they now exist approximately eight blocks of Pacific Highway 99 will have seperate jurisdictions on each side of the street. I propose the southwest 'corner of the Thorndike area, specifically, the business area south of 518, be excluded from the annexation and included in the Sea -Tac incorporation area. This area is nearly all owned by SRO. This deletion would leave the residents of the South Central School District in the annexation area. Route 518 would now become the boundary separating Tukwilla (if the annexations proceed) and Sea -Tac. .Only about two blocks of 99 would then have seperate jursidictions on each side of the street and that part of 99 largely is . intersections or parking lots. The 99 overpass of 518 is on an elevation rise and presents a fine visual boundary. I believe placing this valuable commercial property in the Sea -Tac incorporation area would enhance the Sea -Tac tax base. In addition, it would, to a degree., placate the Sea -Tac group while allowing the residential areas of Thorn- dike annex. as. they appear to desire. I also urge you to allow the Cascade Annexation area to remain outside the Sea -Tac incorporation so that it may vote on annexing at a later date. Sincerely, ( 444,4JAce.A.- even Lawrence K.C.B.R.B. FILE # t Ex bit Washington State Boundary Review Board for',King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue,, WA '98006 Dear Board Members: Thie'note follows my letter of November 11.:(Exhibit "F ") and my testimony at the Tukvila/Sea-Tac boundary hearing on November 17,. because..I feel some confusion lingers with regard 'to'the suggeated`Military Road dividing lin.. 4251 South 139th Street-: Seat.tle W 98168 November,,21, 1988 Unless one'were familiar With this-, area, one might take..a look at a map and think that a city boundary,. of 42nd /40th Avenue South looked. convenient. However, such a division makes no- sense when'seen from the perspective of. neighborhood .. residents;: it would needlessly split neighborhoods and not help the people one iota. We're not. anxious for Ai boundary, of Highway 99, either, and instead propose the logical_ and "clean" line of Military Road to the west of 99. 'This would give our. Cascade View,_ neighbors the chance to vote on 'annexation of their area to Tukwila when . their land -use planning is complete. That was. our inten r. tion as each annexation area developed following its forerunner. Attached is a map which I asked the. of Tukwila for and on which I have indicated the locations and enrollment of the five schools in the South Central School District. As you can clearly see if. Sea -Tac were limited to Military Road as its northwest boundary, our school district would be almost wholly contained within the City of Tukwila. The few small sections of South Central outside the proposed annexation areas (about which Sea -Tac proponents express concern) don't contai;, residences, to the best of my knowledge. Children like mine (we live in the Foster area and they attend Cascade View) wouldn't be crossing city boundaries to go to school, and administrators and parents wouldn't be juggling more than one city's regulations. As to a.six -block section of Highway 99 between South 154th and 160th Streets, where Tukwila would interface with another entity, certainly the police departments could work out adequate arrangements to serve those properties. Such "problems" seem insignificant in comparison to what's at stake for our community. K.C.B.R.B. FILE # / Exhibit # fPPP Teet'imony °plainly 'indicat.es the sense of identity engendered •by our school district." 1 hope to understand how important it. is,toAhe people who live here, represented by . quite a few pro - Tukwila speakers, that our community be united. Such a concept is foreign to .many . people in our. mobile society and seemed incomprehensible . to Sea -Tac proponents. (If they were concerned about the..people in their proposed city, why did their hired planner. not go into the residential areas? Why are so many residents unaware of the incorporation plans? Why didn't they draw their,,. western •.boundary along S.R. 509 or lst Avenue South, or use Normandy Park's city limits instead of leaving many good people in a long unincorporated peninsula ?f Sea - Tad's recent 'effort to hang on to the ,commercial tax base • along our section'of Highway 99 by proposing a 40th /42nd boundary..seems just a sorry attempt.to.keep. is not 'a. :reasonable compromise as'they assert. When you take.into, account your - first four statutory, objectives, you can clearly eec.that•the Sea - Tac incorporation propo.al makes no sense :for our community. On the other hand allowing us:to delineate ou community along with the Fire District i1 annexation sets 'up simple boundaries, protects our naturalneighborhooda, and preserves our school district. Thank you for your attention.. I hope that your. collaborative wisdom:will allots ue keep South Central intact and.yet allow Sea -Tac residenta'outside our n anexation areas to g. the urban services - they so greatly' need. / 1 t1( 1 1 tt II1Eti tP' Il Z ,II j111111t;�111 ` ' y l III , I I I 1 I 11� �I II I �t, 1 11111 1 i t1 ©�lIIII ��'. 111 111111•. It II �1..: ••' ` t , I III �►', 1 .1 ' 1111111 ' ,yI ll , tllll, t !!►11Ii11111 1. 111N �II IIId II111 II 1 111 , X11 11 11 IIIIII 111 . t 1 X 1111 1 II ��11lIII 1111111 IIIIII 11Et, t.. 1 , 1 ► �Itl 11. kip!' �tulllll ..1 1 1;' :I ,I �tlllt,. 11, t .............•. 1 1 h 1 y'' ; �t11►'1t• , I ti111ltllfint.._ ..tlll I III � i 1, I � uiiu y��;�, , l'''�pi l l i iii111 1 1 ‘ 111111111111111111111111"ii I! � 1h i ffl; ilt i t ii il,��'� 11111111111 PLIIIIII l oop l I :Iv q.. •K.. ...C. IM loop • 111 �� l G� ..Gres -- _ Enroll 111 111 'c° � y.s:..-- ........ _Q -ice . �a 3 g 1M ST r Ir .� I ' owtair -- � _ ?.._ _. 6.75' _ _ 3 (� / < � < � „ ri 1 170 S T i sT 1 7'fiornd y� K's .. 30 I /> s' �: 1 n -._ Tcck�yi /�1. _ 1 /(- c” 62.5 '�IIIIIIIIIIit...;,tlll :. - ;:r.s �� � s sT�lllll �) 1. ; : ::d _ , _ • - 111 fll i I LEGEND • z;11 ■ >_ .. TUKWILA CITY LIMITS /4111 111111i ow&emir - 1111 BO OOL DI STRICT _#G; !/uw _ loll -- - � 4 . . ../ 44.-0444^ ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES > 44110,444.0,14.4-z611/401."1141/2. •l • November 22, 1988 Washington State Boundary Review Board of. King County 3600 - 136th SE, Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Mrs. Jean Newman 5203 - 116th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 (206) 746-5756 RE: Tukwila vs. Sea Tec Annexation Plans To Whom It May Concern: Recently we attended several meetings concerning various proposals for annexation by the City of Tukwila or the new, City of See Tac. As a property owner in Foster, between 1 -5 and Interurban Avenue, we are concerned about the ramifications of these issues and your pending December 8, 1988 recommendation. For the record, we are requesting the opportunity to become a part of the City of Tukwila. 'After reviewing both proposals we have concluded that the City of Tukwila has a more reasonable plan for coping with annexation than does the proposed City of See Tac. We have more confidence in Tukwila's governmental infrastructure then can be reasonably expected from the new City of See Tec. And the service levels of Tukwila ere in place, tested end operational. We ask that you make .a boundary recommendation to allow the City of Tukwila annexation rights to Foster. Very truly.yours, Jean Newman Property Tax Number 000300- 0006- 0125101A l K. . Q. R. E3. FILE # IS II Fr ? — ,::? :� i ! , _ ; i s F � .. t ` 1 } 1 RIVERTON !A HOSPITAL TO: Boundary Review Board FROM: Philip P. Gustafson, Managing Director , , DATE: November 17, 1988 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION 1 12844 Military noaa Soutr; Seattle, WA 98168 (206) 244 -0180 Riverton Hospital is a full service, general, acute care hospital located at 12844 Military Road South, serving this region for over 35 years. We employ approximately 380 people and have a payroll of $7.5 million per year, and pay real estate, B & 0, and various other taxes at a rate of $500,000 per year. Future programming, physician recruitment to keep up with the demands of the area, and general development of the hospital is dependent on some better organization of city government in the area generally surrounding the hospital. It is graphically apparent to the hospital community that there is not enough police protection, and that the area is lacking an . infrastructure to serve a twenty -four hour city with an International Airport and airport related industry. It is vitally important to provide an adequate tax base, local representation and control, and that development occur in a cohesive manner. The proposal to establish a city of "Sea -Tac" meets all of those criteria as reflected in the report provided by the Georgette group, and would meet the needs of the development of medical programs and hospital services to this community. We also have very close relationships with the Tukwila community and surround- ing industries and wish to continue to support and be a part of this community. It is essential that any solution be one which meets the needs of both communities and promotes cooperation and teamwork for the future. Establishment of a local entity to showcase the area around the airport for future development and for the life and safety of citizens and businesses within the area is paramount and we hope your decision is based on those criteria. Whether we are annexed to the Tukwila or to the Sea -Tac community, we feel that it is imperative that the Boundary Review Board provide sufficient popu- lation area and tax support to allow the vital development of the area surround- ing the airport. . • J r • ► C ' i.� r �„ Wri In participation with physicians. serving the health care needs of our community. \ K.C.B.R.B. FiLE itt/1 Exhirt it #?a Dear Board Members, November 25, 1988 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th Place S.E. Suite 122 Bellevue , WA 98006 After attending your public hearings at the Sea -Tac Red Lion we would like to add our support and clarification for Cascade View's petition for annexation to Tukwila. We have lived at our current address, 3303 5. 132nd, for 23 years. Steve was born and raised 2 houses from here. We are involved in various activities in the South Central Schools and the City of Tukwila. Steve is currently president of the Foster High School Booster Club and Bonnie is a representative of the South Central Advisory Council. We have worked many hours to support school activities, whether passing bonds and levies, or selling popcorn at games. We have also been involved with the Tukwila Sister City Program (hosting a Japanese student), the Tukwila Days Carnival, the annual Tukwila Softball Tournament and Dance, as well as the annual Pavilion Haunted House. Our family has attended classes sponsored by Tukwila Parks and Recreation. Our oldest son received the annual Tukwila Rotary College Scholarship in 1987. We have learned to come together and be a strong community: the common bond has been the schools and the city of Tukwila. The common boundary has been the South Central School District. It is significant to note that this community runs east and west across Pacific Highway South; it is not divided by Highway 99. We already have a community in place that has developed informally over a period of years. We now have the opportunity to formalize this "community" by annexing to Tukwila with which we:share schools, churches, shopping facilities, sports and events. WE DO NOT SHARE interests with McMicken • Heights, Angle Lake or the Sea -Tac 'Airport Strip. In fact we_have so little to do with the Sea -Tac area, that incorporation proponents chose not to solicit our input or 'support for their incorporation proposal. WE DO share interests with Tukwila and the slight delay for our annexation process will be far quicker and more viable for our community than the 4 -5 year transition period envisioned by the Sea -Tac proponents. Tukwila is already a part of our lives: their police `department works in our schools; our children attend their programs, even provide artwork for their City Hall. We realize our school district will remain intact no matter which . proposal is adopted.However, we feel that Tukwila. is the obvious choice for our best interests. Sin MOSOLk :Steve Mullet 722uLlizZ Bonnie Mullet 9186 •vt+►1 :.ava $ 7186 wen 3i .11,Vat C*13 k.c vii:: vvVwc C W C'4 21 h • re OLi. V'8 4 I S cY O-J Z/ r obc. - 7-424 -# A. t`evrK1. tr 10 rV qr #(7/ L 1 " T 1 Vs/ T NY3W . c7S1 a -L 1 ' -1 }' S t :S.O N • -HU. n o S _al; .L CW a0 ° ll SCE V aw z t Ha. - _ t,�t�L5 ` OI , WW.Gc43`7 H.La as ;: :� 0 tic? 34 Cy" 'P (YT 1 S t1YV � -� CV 4 N o1 _1.'y X a N 0' -z+LL. • IN 3 n3 173S A - 1 'Nola 1S 3 rf1 Nn yo 1 t Y ka raw 3 H 1 i !r -., r ary S 1 S7 iaJ. 3►M.1_ / % RA- C - ! • - q • - ' 4 W Q(Y 4 S SCE - P S l a (Y1 311 Q d ti Q .1 I '1 der .. 3 ti t; ", Won '3 11- t 3 7c a q cv [108 • •� Nb �ZF' I3 Cv ir` ct3So '2,14 CYO 1 er-3 le( wcr? 66 Cfl ( . t- tf r.n3ltvad011 42.1 : gm O'7 corn 1 - 1 1 :11.1,r/ a Si H NI 'IV SQd 07d OPIV (Ts 1NMINUS tI 3 WW 'W-314 v W 3 cvero . .303 f 5 t v r! d X 3 trout( v511MW1.1 ana NOI...( 1 7 - _ hl by $$61 ZZ Z3BW3AON Ko S 9N1' 3H 31 9CVII 44 ' 0 0 0 8 ' ouPo 44 8861 e 1 AvN Q•ar vos a tu. -40 s7► 3 a W3 %II 7►Y.iQ ( 3 nh311a $: 21,1 311OS 3S 3�v1b '�.I -- cog 7E: Athntro 'NI - a —MOW% - DOUG FCX SERVICES November 18, 1988 Dear Chair and Members, K.C.B.R.B. FILE #,' - tsbb r i rY 11 :. ►3 t v:;. ki VJl Chairperson King County Boundary Review Board 3600 136th P1. S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 As a resident and employer in the proposed City of SeaTac, I am concerned about the deliberations the Board faces concerning boundary definition. First and foremost, the Sea -Tac area needs to be included in a city. The crime, planning and jurisdictional problems plaguing the area can only be solved by incorporation. The problems created by such an incorporation for Fire Districts in the area pales in comparison to the risk faced by residents without some action. The boundaries have been a subject of debate. Options of SeaTac incorporation with or without Tukwila and Des Moines annexation have been proposed. Residents of the entire area need the benefits that a city can provide and deserve a financially viable division of tax base as economic support. Some have claimed that neighborhood and social considerations should be the basis for boundary division. Cities are designed to provide services to its constituents not to be a social organization. Schools, by their nature, tend to provide the social fabric of a community without respect to city boundaries. Instead, cities provide services. As such, the common economic interest and functional viability are of primary concern. How to fund those services appears to have been addressed in the SeaTac proposal. The functional ability needs consideration. In that light, division down either side of Highway 99 would be like dividing Southcenter Mall down the middle and setting up separate juris- dictions. Prostitutes, drug dealers and the like could walk from one side of the street to the other to avoid any patrol is in the area. I have seen the problems of split jurisdiction. When my business suffered a theft of about $80,0000 airline tickets,.and despite promising leads, King County Police did nothing on the case. After two months, County told us to go file a new report with the Port. The Port Police claimed that King County should have handled the case and that they were too busy with dangerous criminals to give time to an airline ticket theft. The sad part here is that the loss does not occur until the tickets are used. So, while the Port and the County played the finger pointing game, my loss grew from $500 to $5000 to $20000 and up. Part of the problemm was split jurisdiction. While the tickets were stolen from 18000 Pacific Highway South (King County), the tickets were chargeable to the Airport Office across Pacific Highway South (Port). 2626 South 170th, P.O. Box 68160, Seattle , WA 98168 -0160, (206) 248 -2956 King County Boundary Review Board November 18, 1988 Page 2 Seattle Tacoma Airport creates both the economic base and the basis for the ills of this community. The attraction of the Port as a destination creates many of the regions traffic problems. The transient nature of the traveller creates a large market for prostitution. Yet, while the basis for ills, these two factors are also the reason that the economy of the region is thriving. The Port of Seattle maintains a full time staff dedicated primarily to developing a profit making airport. Unless forced, their concern for community impact ends at the Port boundaries. A full time Port staff needs to be monitored, and if need be, held in check by a full time watchdog of the community interests. That watchdog is weakened if it is represented by different voices. The economic base of Sea-Tac is the airport, the economic base of Tukwila is Southcenter and its Industrial Park. Your basis for incorporation should follow the sphere of influence these two economic engines create. I know your task is made difficult by the number of competing requests before you. Please make your selection and put the decision to a vote, we need some form of incorporation now. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, iLIM: / ck E. ' 'ichols : OUG FOX SERVICES esidevt DOUG FOX PARKING, INC. SHUTTLEPARK, INC. Residence: 19003 46th Avenue So. Seattle, Washington 98188-5034 cc: Gene Tonnemaker K.C.B.R.B. FILE # iTS3 ExNbit #cect& 'Boundary Review Board 3600 13th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear MRB Members: Attn: Mrs. Gunbjorg Sandvik November 23, 1988 I realize progress brings change, and it is natural for people to resent change. I have been satisfied with being'a part of King County, but realize it can't stay that way, and with the way crime is increasing, something has to be done. In. March. 1988 when I first heard of the Tukwila annexation plans, I was shocked. Later, I found out that this originated by petitions, and not by Tukwila. After attending 3 of their public meetings, I came away convinced that they can do an excellent job, and I an in favor of being annexed into Tukwila. Sea -Tac did not even come into our neighborhoods and let us know about their petitions, their plans, or invited us to their meetings. Since I seldom see a newspaper, the only way I found out about it was thru the public meetings at Tukwila. I resent Sea -Tac's "take- over" attitude, but their incorporation probably has to be done, but I feel that they should not involve:.Thorndyke, Foster or Riverton. I also feel,that the annexation boundry line should be Military Road, instead of 99 or 42nd. I appreciate the patience of all the BRB members. This has been a real learning experience. 4,0, 28 flf 196; NreO 90 g y R 1011/9 CO Sincerely, /f4:44414 ›,,A44.■/ Mrs. u,y J. Mathis 3804 S. 150th St. Seattle, WA 98188 a 5. �u X988 1JOV 2 ST ATI: BOO;ADARY \' JA F `lE\'d BOARD FOR E.1tiG CO R Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th Place S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: File Nos. 1523, 1537, 1538, 1544 Dear Board Members: 4115 South 139th Seattle, WA 98168 November 23,1988 K.C.B.R.B. FILE #(1 EXhibit b) In the annexation area, the South Central School District is our community focus. Roots are deep in this community; you heard Wayne Weber testify about the history of our schools. Over the years we have successfully fought consolidation of the district into larger neighboring districts. To get an accurate picture, think of us as a small rural school district plunked down in the middle of a large metropolitan area. We have only one high school; Highline has four. We take great pride in our tiny school district. The schools are the glue that holds us together and gives us our identity. Our unity is so strong that we have been supporting the Cascade View annexation in spite of the risk to our own annexations. Split our school district and you adversely affect our sense of community. It has been mentioned that Tukwila includes portions of four school districts within its current boundaries. As far as I know, there are no homes in those areas of Tukwila that belong to the Kent and Renton School Districts. There is a small area of Tukwila (in McMicken Heights) that is part of the Highline School District. In all other areas, Tukwila's school district is the South Central School District. The last minute boundary proposal from the SeaTac proponents ignores this sense of community. There is also a problem of splitting properties. There are instances of single lots that reach from Pacific Highway to 42nd South. (You might ask Tukwila to explain this.) If the boundary, as proposed by SeaTac, were not to divide any properties then it would stagger back and forth from just off of Pacific Highway over to 42nd South and back again. Why this refusal of SeaTac to let go of Pacific Highway to Tukwila? The annexations have a much better chance of voter approval than the larger incorporation does. Tukwila is • ertainly at least as able, if not more able, than SeaTac to provide city services, including police protection, to this section of Pacific Highway. SeaTac would still have Pacific Highway_ as its main street especially by its city center of Angle Lake. Why then do they cling so fiercely to the. highway? Are they really concerned about police services or the revenue the highway businesses produce? You know we are anxious to proceed with our annexations. Any expansion of the annexations would delay us. You can let both . the annexations and SeaTac proceed by setting the eastern limits of SeaTac at Military Road. Cascade View would not be an island; it would still be contiguous to unincorporated King County on the north. The Cascade View area could then continue with its annexation process. Let the annexation boundaries stand as they are now. We in the Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexations wish SeaTac well. We just want to preserve our natural community with Tukwila and a SeaTac boundary at Military Road will allow us to do that. Sincerely, Pam. Carter Foster Resident and Homeowner Tash ington State Boundary review Doard . K 3600- 136t.h Place S2 .quite 122 Bellevue, Wa. 98006 Dear Members of the .-oard After hearin7 the testimony from the ,ea-lac ..orp. the wall of resistanc_ we have come up axainst. '.e appreciate your time and attentiveness. I have to stress, A.;JYT HI_ CT L E S:: THAN THE .:CUTS? CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY CN T?E.WEST is totally unacceptable. 'le azree hiway 99 should be controlled by the same city on both sides and we have every confidence Tukwila would do a better job with their existing police force (enlarged), than a new police forge. 'Thy does SeaTac feel they are the only ones that can do the job? I feel it is more the re- venue they would loose. 'There was all their :support from residents? We hoped to show with our testimony that the majority in the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and CASCADE areas wanted to be in one community(Tukwila) and have identifies? with Tukwila and the South Central School district for years. We can't compromise and leave some of our residents out or we would be showing we aren't as united as we stated. yie would have to defeat Incorporation and go again next year for the annexations, althouxh some of our areas don't have another year -they will be eaten up. We don't feel this is a unreasonable boundary, just the only one that gives us what we want and leaves SeaTac with a viable city. I am very upset that .SeaTac cane up with a new map suggesting it carne from the annexation group. We haven't changed our position on Military. It gives them all of the revenue from business along hiway 99 and changes our southern boundary - Thorndyke people responsible for that boundary set it on the :youth Central ;school District line hoping to have the rest come in later. We can't support Incorporation in our community but would like, ifit is possible, for you to consider putting Incorporation on hold until after we vote on the annexations Feb 2nd -see if the annexations pass, then re- draw the Incorporations boundary and let them - :oce at a later election or consider deletin^ oar Annexat i.x ' Central Sshool District as the western boundary)fro:n t_l ; Incorporation and let both be voted on Feb. 2nd. We would like a Choice. We hope you can come up with a solution agreeable to all and we thank you again for your time and consideration ME 15E ON-q1 NOV 281983 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING CO Sincerely, oan C Meryhew 4431 So 148th St Seattle, Ada. 98168 244 -3659 Worked with Thorndyke Annexation November 25, 1988 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th S. E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WAshington 98006 Re: Sea Tac Incorporation and Study by the Georgette Group Dear Mr. Martin and Board Members: Due to the time limit of three minutes for citizens comments allowed at the BRB Hearing of November 22, 1988 held at the Sea Tac Red Lion, the following are continued statements from my notes and additional comments. (In regards to my protest at breaktime, to you Mr. Martin, I would like to refer you to the study, page VI -5 W4. It would have been less confusing to me had the BRB members held their questions so I could finish my testimony.) 1. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE A. For a complete survey and input by the people this questionnaire should also have gone out to all the people (33,000) within the proposed incorporation area. B. Questionnaire should have included the following: 1. Do you support incorporation in your area, your name and address? 2. Do you support annexation to an existing city in your area, your name and address? C. In my opinion this would have been a great help to the BRB in reviewing the boundary line for the proposed incorporation area. 2. SEA TAC STUDY BY GEORGETTE GROUP KL.B.R.B. FILE # Exhibft A. The estimate for the cost of fire protection seemed very low for a new city. A new city with 33,000 people should have 907. fulltime paid firefighters and 107. volunteers. B. I found the study to be repetitious and could have been more condensed. 3. Discrepancy in Tax: Base and Rate A. Regarding Option A on Page IV -10 1. After checking with King County Assessors Office (accounting service), the city would have to pay for its fire department and liborary services out of its city property taxes. 2. The total rate would be 3.68 per thousand of assessed valuation of property tax, which is more than the allowable rate of 3.375 per thousand of AV. 401, Marg Anderson 3402 So. 203rd St. . Seattle, WA. 98198 sxar"+ri; B. Regarding Option R on Page IV -10 1. The levy of $3.60 per thousand of AV is incorrect. Fire district, library'and road district levies total 3.68 per thousand of AV. (Road district levy 1.68106 per thousand AV, fire protection 1.50 per thousand AV, and Library .50 per thousand AV). This rate is over the maximum for property tax allowed by the State which is 3.375 per thousand AV. C. Regarding Option C on Page IV -11 1. The levy of $3.60 per thousand of AV is incorrect. The levy should be 3.68 as explained above in Option B. D. Revenue Sources Available to Local Government, Page 1 -33 1. Why was the property tax base and rate broken down to . represent two levies i.e. 3.375/$1,000 AV and .225/$1,000 AV, totaling 3.60/$1,000? 2. Taxes may not be the issue for some, but it is an issue for the property owners who must pay for them. 4. RESERVES, Page I -11 A. Reserve amount of 1.2 million seems rather low for a city to have a good credit rating. Incorporation is still the unknown. I do not support it. I do support annexation to an existing city which has known facts, such as local government already in place; facilities ready to serve; and adequate police and fire protection services. Thank you for your time and effort and to let me express my concern. Respectfully, 1. 3. 4. THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY PUBLIC HEARINGS: SPECIAL MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING November 15 & 17, 1988 A. FILE NO. 1523 B. FILE NO. 1537 - C. FILE NO. 1538 D. FILE NO. 1544 Red Lion Inn 18740 Pacific Highway, South Seattle, Washington A G E N D A WITNESSES SIGN IN - 6:45 P.M. Speakers will be called from this list. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTION -- 7 :00 P.M. Gunbjorg Sandvik, Chair ROLL CALL V.C. David Boerner Don Aicher Al Haylor Clair Inghram Margaret Lane Paul Mallary Richard Morrill Robert Patterson Miriam Sutermeister Jean Worthen - CITY OF SEA -TAC: Proposed Incorporation CITY OF TUKWILA: Proposed Riverton Annex. - CITY OF TUKWILA: Proposed Thorndyke Annex. - CITY OF TUKWILA: Proposed Foster Annex. Tuesday, November 15, 1988 7:10 P.M.: Introduction of Exhibits 7:15 P.M.: Swearing in of Witnesses 7 :20 P.M.: Sea -Tac Incorporation Presentation: Citizens for Controlled Taxation and Improved Services (45 Minutes) 8:05 P.M.: Recess (10 Minutes) 8:15 P.M.: Annexation Presentation - City of Tukwila (45 Minutes) 9:00 P.M.: King County Presentation (20 Min. Legislative/20 Min. Executive) 9 :40 P.M.: General Testimony shall be on the record. which shall be furnished by the appellant, but the board may, in its sole discretion. per- mit the introduction of additional evidence and argu- ment. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within ten days from the date of said action a govern- mental unit affected by the decision or any person own- ing real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. The filing of such notice of appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal shall have been ad- judicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the board. (6) The superior court may affirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the administrative find- ings, inferences. conclusions, or decisions are: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions, or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure, or (d) Affected by other error of law, or (e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. An aggrieved party may secure a review of any final judgment of the superior court by appeal to the supreme court or the court of appeals. Such appeal shall be taken in the manner provided by law for appeals from the su- perior court in other civil cases. [ 1987 c 477 § 8; 1971 c 81 § 97; 1969 ex.s. c 111 § 9; 1967 c 189 § 16.] General corporate powers— Municipal corporations of the fourth class. restrictions as to area: RCW 35.21.010. 36.93.170 Factors to be considered by board —In- corporation proceedings exempt from state environmental policy act. In reaching a decision on a proposal or an al- ternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses; comprehensive use plans and zoning; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other pop- ulated areas; the existence of prime agricultural soils and agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and un- incorporated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and ade- quacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects of governmental services from other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent (1987 Ed.) Local Gov't Boundaries— Review Boards 36.93.190 area; the effect on the finances. debt structure, and con- tractual obligations and rights of all affected govern- mental units: and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adja- cent areas. on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, State Envi- ronmental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation pro- ceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1986 c 234 § 33; 1982 c 220 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § 1; 1967 c 189 § 17.] Severability -1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.93.100. Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environmental policy act: RCW 43.21C.220. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: (1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not lim- ited to bodies of water. highways, and land contours; (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas; (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities to excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and (9) Protection of agricultural lands. (10) Provide reasonable assurance that the extension of municipal services and the additional payments to be made by the property owners of the area to be annexed in the form of taxes will remain reasonably equal to the value of the additional municipal services to be received during a period of ten years following the effective date of the proposed annexation. This objective shall apply only to cities with a population of 400,000 or more which initiates a resolution for annexation proceedings. [ 1981 c 332 § 10; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § 2; 1967 c 189 § 18.] Severalllty -1951 c 332: See note following RCW 35.13.025. 36.93.190 Decision of board not to affect existing franchises, permits, codes, ordinances, etc., for tea yeah. For a period of ten years from the date of the final de- cision, no proceeding, approval, action, or decision on a proposal or an alternative shall be deemed to cancel any franchise or permit theretofore granted by the authori- ties governing the territory to be annexed, nor shall it be deemed to supersede the application as to any territory to be annexed, of such construction codes and ordinances (including but not limited to fire, electrical, and plumb- ing codes and ordinances) as shall have been adopted by the authorities governing the territory to be annexed and in force at the time of the decision. [1967 c 189 § 19.] mess M RCW- -p 2111 AGENDA, November 15 & 17, Cont. Page Two Rebuttal Thursday, November 17, 1988 6:45 P.M.: Witnesses Sign -in (If needed) 7 :00 P.M.: Introduction by Board Chair 7:10 P.M.: Introduction of Exhibits (if needed) 7:15 P.M.: Swearing in of Witnesses (if needed) 7:20 P.M.: General Testimony S. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Resolution and Hearing Decision Instructions on above B. Other ADJOURNMENT B A C K G R O U N D S T A T E M E N T The Boundary Review Board The Boundary Review Board was created in 1967 by the legislature in part to ",,,provide a method of guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities... "(RCW 35.93.010.) There are 19 such boards in the State of Washington. The Board is a quasi - judicial, administrative body empowered to make decisions on such issues as incorporation, annexation, mergers, disincorporations, etc., by cities, towns and some special purpose districts. It can approve, deny, or modify a proposal. Its decisions are final unless appealed to the King County Superior Court. When that occurs, the appeal is on the record. That is, the Court reviews the exhibits, transcript and board decision rather than conducting a new hearing. Board members are residents of the County, appointed by the Governor. for six year terms. They are not allowed to hold other local government elected dffices or jobs. Their compensation is $25 per day for work on Board business. Members may not properly discuss proposals under their consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications). Appearance of Fairness Doctrine In general, decision - makers such as Board members must not only be fair in their actions, i.e., have no conflicts of interest) but must also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. However, the State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision -maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. __.y,w.u.u._.•• mxvuTA�(o(clY. *ymns* SUMMARY OF HEARING PROCEDURES S1gn -in To Speak A roster will be found on the speaker's podium. Those who wish to testify must sign in before witnesses a e sworn. All speakers will be called from this list. If you sign in once, it is not necesary to do so at any continuation of the hearings. Exhibits Please bring exhibits to staff for marking before the Call -to- Order. The Board must retain all exhibits until a decision is filed and the appeal period ends (10 days). Speakers Time Limits • Please state your name for the benefit of the Court Reporter prior to testifying. It is not necessary to give your address. When referring to an exhibit, please state the exhibit letter. If necessary, the Chair may employ a time limit of 3 minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for organiz d groups. Testimony The Boundary Rev,ew Board Act requires the consideration of certain factors (see RCW 36.93.170) anc specifies objectives the Board must seek to accomplsih (see RCW 36.93.180). Testimony and evidence related to these factors and objectives will be the most effective. Cross- Examination Witnesses generally may not question other witnesses or the Board. The Chair may allow cross - examination of expert witnesses under limited circumstances as described in the Board's Rules. Rebuttal The Chair may lim.t rebuttal. Rebuttal must be prefaced by a citation of the dispute evidence. , Rebuttal may not include closing statements a summary, or any new evidence 5 171: ■■. l knrr 1 1!i1 ' I -],• � 5. iri=it LIE L . . iwzzlr'sV Arrow L.M. Norma Pa I 11 I iii�1Il Ibtl I 1 III kill II�IIH �, III ,1 ; III!!i. lI I I I IIlIIIIi , I I� I� , I s• " r ,i1III�IIIIIIII�.II� �, II��i�IIIIIIIIIiIII C• ;I�,,�1,1I;�I` I1iIIIIII �II� I � 1111111p' I�I i 1,r 11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt IIIiIII . 11 11 I III! II I'IIIIIII north Kent .4,iIiv y IV -49 L. \T•a.wgNt. Group Tukwila Rent Renton 11 / Sea•Tc Incorporation Study SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Des Moines Riverton Planning Area Annexatlon(prop.) Des Moines Municipal Service Area Des Molls Annexation Thorndyke Annsxatlon(prop.) Foster Annexation (prop.) Tukwila Planning Area Kant Planning Area Figure IV -3 City of Tukwila 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 Office Of The City Attorney (206) 624 -1040 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200.Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 November 17, 1988 Dear Mr. Beeler: You have advised us that if Sea -Tac incorporates with the proposed boundaries, Fire District #24 will lie entirely within those boundaries. You have asked what impact this will have on Fire District #24, how fire protection may be provided for that portion of the new city, and how that will impact the new city's tax revenues. It is clear from RCW 35.02.190 (copy attached) that when all of a fire district is included in a newly incorporated city, all of the district's assets and liabilities are transferred to that city. Also, RCW 52.08.025 (copy attached) provides that when an incorporation includes all of a fire protection district, the district shall remain in existence only until January 1 of the year in which the property tax collections of the new city will be made. It is our opinion that if the incorporation occurs in February,. 1989, Fire District #24 will go out of existence no later than January 1, 1990. Since there are three other fire districts which will survive the incorporation, one option possibly available to the new city would be to annex to one or more of those districts pursuant to the procedures set forth in RCW 52.04. Should the city become annexed to a fire protection district the annual levies shall be imposed throughout the district, including the annexed city. The annexed city could then levy only $3.60/$1,000 of assessed valuation, less the K.C.B.R.B. FILE # Isi3 Exhibit #ce� JFC /rj, regular levy of the fire protection district or of the library district. (See RCW 52.04.081 attached.) For example, if the combined fire district levy and library district levy totaled $2:00/$1,000, the city could only directly levy $1.60/$1,000. Very truly yours, OF. THE CITY ATTORNEY have annexed the city or town during the interim period as provided in RCW 27.12.260 through 27.12:290. . [ 1986 c 234 1 17.) • • • • 'Reviser's a. RCW 32.04.160 has been deoodified. and •.RCW 52- .04.170 thraieb 52.04.200 have been recodified as RCW :52.04.061 through 52.04.101, pursuant to 1984 c`;230 ! 89. 35.02.190 Annexation of fire protection district Ownership of assets of fire protection, district When • at least sixty percent of assessed valuation is annexed or incorporated' In city or town. If a portion of a fire pro- tection district including at least sixty percent of the as- scssed valuation of the real property of the district is annexed to or incorporated into a city or town, owner- ship of all of the assets of the district shall be vested in the city or town, upon payment in cash, ; properties or for fire protection services to the district within . one year, of a percentage of the value of said assets equal to the percentage of the value of the real property in entire district remaining outside the incorporated or annexed area. The fire protection district may elect, by a vote of a majority of the persons residing outside the annexed or incorporated area who vote on the proposi- tion, to require the annexing or incorporating city or town to assume responsibility for the provision of . fire protection, and for the operation and maintenance of the district's property; facilities and equipment throughout the district and to pay the city or town a reasonable fee . for such fire protection, operation, and maintenance. If ail of a fire protection district is included in an area that incorporates • as . a city Or .town . or is, annexed to a : city or town, all of the assets and liabilities of the fire protection district shall be transferred to the newly in- corporated city or town upon its official date of incorpo- ration or.to,the city or town upon the annexation. [1986 c 234 1 18; 1981 c 332 1 5; 1965 c 7 ; 35.13.247. Prior: 1963'c 231 g 3. Formerly RCW 35.13.247.] SeeeaWity 19$1 e332: See note following' RCW 35.13.023. • 35.02.200 Annexation of fire protection district Ownerahip'_of assets of fre protection district When less than sixty percent. (1) If ::a portion of a fire protec- tion district including less than sixty percent of the as- :cued value of the real property of the district u annexed to or incorporated- into a city or town, the own- enhipof.all assets of the district shall remain in the dis- trict and the district shall pay to the city or town within one year or within such period of time as the district continues to collect taxes in such incorporated or an- nexed areas, in cash, properties or contracts for fire pro- tection services, a percentage of the value of said assets equal to the percentage of the value of the real property in the entire district lying within the area so incorpo- rated or annexed: Provided, That if the area annexed or incorporated includes .less than five percent of the as- sessed value of the real property of the district, no pay- ment shall be made to the city or town. (2) As provided in RCW 35.02.210, the fire protec- tion district from which territory is removed as a result (19117 Rt.) of an incorporation or annexation shall provide fire pro- tection to the incorporated or annexed area for such pe- riod as the district : continues to collect taxes levied in such annexed or incorporated arca. (3) For the, purposes of this section, the word "assets' shall mean the total assets of the fire district, reduced by its liabilities, including bonded indebtedness, the same to be determined by usual and accepted accounting meth- ods. The amount of said liability shall be determined by reference to the fire district's balance sheet, produced in the regular course of business, which is nearest in time to the certification of the annexation of fire district ter- ritory by the city . or town. [1986.c 2341 19 ;1967 c 146 1 :1; 1965 c; 7, 1 35.13.248: Prior: 1963 c 231 5 4.' For - merly,RCW 35.13.248.] 35.02.210 Fire protection district and library dis tract- = Continuation of services at option of city or town. At the option of the governing body of a newly in - corporated city or town, any 'fire protection district or library district serving any part of the area so incorpo- rated shall continue to provide services to such area until the city or town. receives '. distributions of property tax receipts from these special districts pursuant to RCW 35.02.140, or the city or town receives its own property tax receipts, whichever is earlier. [1986 c 234 1 21; 1967 ex.s. c 119 1 35A.03.)60. Formerly RCW 35A.03.160.) 35.02.220 Duty of county. and read, library, a.d fire districts to continue services during transition •period -- - Road maintenance and kw enforcement services. The ap-. . • proval of an incorporation by the voters of ; a proposed • city or town, and the existence of a transition period to become a city or town; shall . not.remove the responsibil- ity of any. county, road district, library district, or: fire ; .district,. within which the area is located, to continue providing services, to the area :until the. official date of the incorporation.: • A county shall continue., to •provide the following OCT- v to a .newly incorporated city or town, or that 'por- tion of the county within which the :newly incorporated .: • city. or ,town , is located, at the preincorporation level ' as follows:, • . • . • (1) Law enforcement services shall be provided fora .period not to exceed sixty days from the official. date of • the incorporation or until the city or town is receiving or . could have.begun • receiving sales tax distributions under RCW 82 :14.030(1), whichever.' is the . shortest time • period.. (2) Road maintenance shall be for a • period not to ex- c end . six ty. days from the official date of the incorpora- tion or until: any tax distribution from the road district tax levy, is made to the .newly incorporated. city or .town pursuant to RCW .35.02.140, whichever- is • the shorter time period. [ 1986 c 234 1 22;1985 c 143 1 1. Formerly. • RCW 35.21.763:) 35.02.225 County may contract to provide essential services. It is the desire of the legislature that the citi- zens of newly incorporated cities or towns receive unin- terrupted and adequate services in the period prior to the (Title 33 RCW—p 131 J county. legislative authority, within .a thirty -day period after, the adoption of the second resolution, which peti- tion has been signed by , registered voters of the area proposed to be reannexed equal in number to ten percent of the total number of the registered 'voters' residing In that area If a valid .petition signed by the requisite numberr of registered voters has been so filed, the effect of the reso- lutions shall be held in abeyance and a ballot proposition to authorize the reannexation shall be submitted to the voters of the area at the next special election date speci- fied in •RCW 29.13.020 that occurs forty -five or more days after the petitions have been validated. Approval of the ballot proposition authorizing the reannexation by a simple majority vote shall authorize the reannexation: [1987c1384 •Re'iaer's mate: As enacted by 1987 c 138 j 3, this section contained an apparently . erroneous reference to RCW 29.13.030, a section re- pealed in 1965. Pursuant to RCW 1.08.015, this reference has been changed to RCW 29.13.020, alater enactment of the section repealed. 52.04.061. Annexation of contiguous city or town Procedure. A city or town lying contiguous to a fire protection district may be annexed to such district' if at the _time .of the initiation of annexation the population of the city ;or town is 100,000 or less. The legislative au- thority of the city or town may initiate annexation by . the adoption of an ordinance stating an intent to join the fire protection district and finding that the public inter- est will be served thereby. If the board of fire commis - sioners of the fire protection district shall concur in the annexation, notification thereof shall be transmitted to the legislative authority or authorities of the counties in which the city or town and the district are situated: [ 1985 c 313 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 179 § 1. Formerly RCW 52.04.170.) 52.04.071 Annexation of contiguous city or town --- Election. The county legislative authority or authorities shall by resolution call a special election to be held in the city or town and in the fire protection . district at the next date provided in RCW 29.13.010 but not less .than forty -five days from the date of the decla- ration of the finding, and shall cause notice of the elec- tion to be given as provided for in RCW 29.27.080. The election on the annexation of the city or town into the fire protection district shall be conducted by the au- ditor of the county or counties in which the city or town and the fire protection district are located in accordance with the general election laws of the state. The results thereof shall be canvassed by the canvassing board of the county or counties. No person is entitled 10 vote at the election unless he or she is a qualified elector in the city or town or unless he or she is a qualified elector within the, boundaries of the fire protection district. The ballot proposition shall be in substantially the following form: . "Shall the city or town of be annexed to and be a part of fire protection district? YES NO (1927 Ed.) Asnauatio� 52.04.121 If. a . majority of the persons voting on the proposition in the city or town and a majority of the persons .voting on the- proposition in the fire protection district vote . in favor thereof; the city or town shall be'annexed and shall be a part of the fire protection district. [1984 c 230; 16; 1979 ex.s. c 179 3 2. Formerly RCW 52.04.180.) Elections: Title 29 RCW. 52.04.081 Annexation . of , contiguous city . or town Annual tax kvies--- Lmitatioas. The annual tax levies authorized by chapter 52.16 RCW shall : lie :. imposed throughout the fire protection district, including any city or town annexed thereto. Any city or town an- nexed to a fire protection district is entitled to levy up to three dollars and sixty cents per thousand dollars.of as- sassed valuation less any regular levy made by the fire protection district or by a library district under RCW 27.12.390 in the incorporated area: Provided That the limitations upon regularr property taxes imposed by chapter 84:55 RCW apply. [1984 c 230 1 17; 1979 ex.s. c 179 § 4. Formerly RCW 52.04.190.1 52.04.101 Withdrawal by annexed city or town ---- Election. The legislative body of such a city or town which , has annexed to such a fire protection district, may, by resolution, present to the voters of such city or town a proposition to withdraw from said fire protection district at any general election held at least three years following the annexation to the fire protection district. If the voters approve such a proposition to withdraw from said fire protection district, the city or town shall have a vested right in the capital assets of the district propor- tionate to the taxes levied within the corporate bounda- ries of the city or town and utilized by the fire district to acquire such, assets. [1979 ex.s. c 179 1 " 3. :Foeinerly RCW 52.04.200:1 52.04.111 Annexation of city or tows — Transfer of employees. When any city; code city or town is an- nexed to a fire protection district under RCW 52.04.061 and 52.04.071, any employee of the fire department of such city, code city or town who (1) was at the time of annexation employed exclusively or principally in per- forming the powers, duties, and functions which are to be performed by the fire protection district (2) will, as a direct consequence of annexation, be separated from the employ of . the city, code city or town, and (3) can per - form the duties and meet the minimum requirements of the position to be filled, then such employee May trans- fer his employment to the fire protection district as pro- vided in this section and RCW 52.04.121 and 52.04.131. For purposes of this section and RCW 52.04.121 and 52.04.131, employee means an individual whose employ - ment with a city, code city or town has been terminated because the city, code city or town was annexed by a fire protection district for purposes of fire protection. [1986 c 254 § 10.] 52.04.121 Annexation of city or tows- --Transfe r of employees Rights and benefits. (1) An eligible employee may transfer into the fire protection district tilde 52 RCW--p sl 52.01.051 Commissioners residing in territory witbdmwn+Va- ancy ersated::. . Special purpose districts expenditures to recruit job cendidates: RCW 42.24.170 52.08.011 Withdrawal authorised. Territory within a fire protection district may be withdrawn from the dis- trict in the same manner provided by law for withdrawal of territory from water districts, as provided by chapter 57.28 RCW. [1984 c 230 1 54; 1955 c 111 § 1. For - merly RCW 52.22.010.1 Withdrawal or reannaration of areas: RCW 52.04.056. 52.08.021 Withdrawal by incorporation of part of district. The incorporation of any previously unincorpo- rated land . lying within a fire protection district shall operate to automatically .withdraw such lands from the fire protection district. [1959 c 237 f 5; 1955 c 111 1 2. Formerly RCW 52.22.020.] 52.08.025 City may not be included within dis- trict Withdrawal of city. Effective. January 1, 1960, every city or. town, or portion thereof, which is situated within the boundaries of a fire protection district shall become automatically removed from such fire protection district, and no fire protection district _ shall thereafter include any city or town, or portion thereof, within its boundaries except as provided for in RCW 52.02.020, 52.04.061, 52.04.071, 52.04.081, and 52.04.101. However, if the area which incorporates or is annexed includes all of a fire protection district, the fire protec- tion district, for purposes of imposing regular property taxes, shall continue in existence until the first day of January in the year in which the initial property tax collections of the newly incorporated city or town will be made or until the first day of January in the year the annexing city or town will collect its property taxes im- posed on the newly annexed area: The members of the city or town council or commission shall act as the board of commissioners to impose, receive, and expend these property taxes. [ 1986 c 234 § 35; 1985 c 7 1 119; 1979 ex.s. c 179 f 6; 1959 c 237 1 6. Formerly RCW 52.22.0301 52.08.031 Contracts with third class cities, towns, for public facilities and services—Joint purchasing. See RCW 35.24.274 and 35.24.275. (1) Enter into contracts to . the same extent as fire . protection districts and cities and towns may enter into contracts under authority of RCW 52.12.031(3), and (2) Sell, purchase, rent, lease, or exchange property of every nature. [ 1984 c 230 g 55; 1959 c 237 1 8. For- merly RCW 52.22.040.) 52.08.041 Taxes and assessments unaffected. The provisions of RCW 57.28.110 shall apply to territory withdrawn from a fire protection district under the pro- vision of chapter 52.08 RCW. [1985 c 7 ; 120; 1959 c 237 f 7. Formerly RCW 52.22.050.) 52.08.051 Commissioners residing in territory with- drawn--- Vacancy created. Fire protection district commissioners residing in territory withdrawn from a fire protection district shall be replaced in the manner provided for the filling of vacancies in RCW 52.14.050. [1984 c 230 f ' 56; 1959 c 237 ; 9. Formerly RCW 52.22.060.] Sections 52.10.010 52.1 0.020 Chapter 52.10 DISSOLUTION Dissolution— Election method. Disinoorporation of district located in class A or AA county and inactive for fire years. 52.10.010 Dissolution — Election method. Fire pro- tection districts may be dissolved by a majority vote of the registered electors of the district at an election con- ducted by the election officials of the county in which the district is located in accordance with the general election laws of the state. The proceedings for diuolu- tion may be initiated by the adoption of a resolution by the board of commissioners of the district calling for the dissolution. The dissolution of the district shall not can- cel outstanding obligations of the district or of a local improvement district within the district, and the county legislative authority may make annual levies against the lands within the district until the obligations of the dis- tricts are paid. When the obligations are fully paid, all moneys in district funds and all collections of unpaid district taxes shall be transferred to the expense fund of the county. [ 1984 c 230 ; 15; 1939 c 34 46; RRS 1 5654 -146. Formerly RCW 52.04.155.] Dissolution of inactive spacial purpose districts: Chapter 36M96 RCW. 52.08.032 Levy for emergency medical care and ser- vices. See RCW 84.52.069. 52.08.035 City withdrawn to determine fire and emergency medical protection methods—Con- tracts—Joint operations- -Sale, lease, etc., of prop - erty. A city or town encompauing territory withdrawn under chapter 52.08 RCW shall determine the most ef- fective and feasible fire protection and emergency medi- cal protection for the withdrawn territory, or any part thereof, and the legislative authority, of the city or town and the commissioners of the fire protection district may, without limitation of any other powers provided by law: (1917 Rd.) 52.10.020 Disiacorporation of district located In class A or AA county and inactive for fire years. See chapter 57.90 RCW. Sections 52.12.011 Status. 52.12.021 Chapter 52.12 POWERS BURNING PERMITS General powers. rink 52 RCW—* !l ;�? •, 52.08.051 Commissioners residing in territory withdrawn—Va- cancy created. Special purpose districts, expenditures to recruit job candidates: RCW 42.24.170. 32.08.011 Withdrawal authorized. Territory within a fire protection district may be withdrawn from the dis- trict in the same manner provided by law for withdrawal of territory from water districts, as provided by chapter 57.28 RCW. [1984 c 230 § 54; 1955 c 111 § 1. For- merly RCW 52.22.010.] Withdrawal or reannexation of areas: RCW 52.04.056. 52.08.021 Withdrawal by incorporation of part of district. The incorporation of any previously unincorpo- rated land lying within a fire protection district shall operate to automatically withdraw such lands from the fire protection district. [1959 c 237 § 5; 1955 c 111 § 2. Formerly RCW 52.22.020.] 52.08.025 City may not be included within dis- trict Withdrawal of city. Effective January 1, 1960, every city or. town, or portion thereof, which is situated within the boundaries of a fire protection district shall become automatically removed from such fire protection district, and no fire protection district shall thereafter include any city or town, or portion thereof, within its boundaries except as provided for in RCW 52.02.020, 52.04.061, 52.04.071, 52.04.081, and 52.04.101. However, if the area which incorporates or is annexed includes all of a fire protection district, the fire protec- tion district, for purposes of imposing regular property taxes, shall continue in existence until the first day of January in the year in which the initial property tax collections of the newly incorporated city or town will be made or until the first day of January in the year the annexing city or town will collect its property taxes im- posed on the newly annexed area. The members of the city or town council or commission shall act as the board of commissioners to impose, receive. and expend these property taxes. [1986 c 234 § 35; 1985 c 7 § 119; 1979 ex.s. c 179 § 6; 1959 c 237 § 6. Formerly RCW 52.22.030.] 52.08.031 Contracts with third class cities, towns, for public facilities and services - -Joint purchasing. See RCW 35.24.274 and 35.24.275. 52.08.032 Levy for emergency medical care and ser- vices. See RCW 84.52.069. Powers — Burning Permits 52.08.035 City withdrawn to determine fire and emergency medical protection methods- --Con- tracts- -Joint operations - -vale, lease, etc., of prop- erty. A city or town encompassing territory withdrawn under chapter 52.08 RCW shall determine the most ef- fective and feasible fire protection and emergency medi- cal protection for the withdrawn territory, or any part thereof, and the legislative authority of the city or town and the commissioners of the fire protection district may, without limitation of any other powers provided by kw: (19.17 Ed.) (1) Enter into contracts to the same extent as fire protection districts and cities and towns may enter intot contracts under authority of RCW 52.12.031(3), and !` (2) Sell, purchase, rent, lease, or exchange property of every nature. 0984 c 230 § 55; 1959 c 237 § 8. For - .. ; merly RCW 52.22.040.] 52.08.041 Taxes and assessments unaffected. The provisions of RCW 57.28.110 shall apply to territory withdrawn from a fire protection district under the pro- vision of chapter 52.08 RCW. [1985 c 7 § 120; 1959 c 237 § 7. Formerly RCW 52.22.050.] 52.08.051 Commissioners residing in territory with- drawn Vacancy created. Fire protection district commissioners residing in territory withdrawn from a fire protection district shall be replaced in the manner provided for the filling of vacancies in RCW 52.14.050. [1984 c 230 § 56; 1959 c 237 § 9. Formerly RCW 52.22.060.] Sections 52.10.010 52.10.020 52.10.010 Dissolution --- Election method. Fire pro- tection districts may be dissolved by a majority vote of the registered electors of the district at an election con- ducted by the election officials of the county in which the district is located in accordance with the general election laws of the state. The proceedings for dissolu- tion may be initiated by the adoption of a resolution by the board of commissioners of the district calling for the dissolution. The dissolution of the district shall not can- cel outstanding obligations of the district or of a local improvement district within the district, and the county legislative authority may make annual levies against the lands within the district until the obligations of the dis- tricts are paid. When the obligations are fully paid, all moneys in district funds and all collections of unpaid district taxes shall be transferred to the expense fund of the county. [ 1984 c 230 § 15; 1939 c 34 § 46; RRS § 5654 -146. Formerly RCW 52.04.155.] Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts: Chapter 36.96 RCW. 52.10.020 Disincorporation of district located is class A or AA county and inactive for fire years. See chapter 57.90 RCW. Sections 52.12.011 Status. 52.12.021 General powers. Chapter 52.10 DISSOLUTION Chapter 52.12 Dissolution --- Election method. D sincorporation of district located in class A or AA county and inactive for five years. Chapter 52.12 POWERS -- BURNING PERMITS (Title 52 RCW--p S) ; «,owMaAS^•iewaamhl:4.. �.':k3fiY.Y: <8f8d1't >`3!•. r<:nr= <(+vixv., YywrPNa�l•�'S1' '•� oazo •. • • • • • t• • • '' b i.. A. to :_ 14 s1: '.f.. .. • 1 • + 3 � . . � K. , .. .TII tY1 .we frt _.{': •K F, '`' ," + � yT • ) •� - ..(,• • • • V 1 ,w a ky. . * • • ee Z-1 iaoto to--Jtee • i9 /To e_ /77 te 14t1 94Pi 61 ACe2‘-i a-vt41/lize-deee (1.1..- ../7444-2,er - 7 - ,4e.,,,-,..reA._....„J_4__=.44(.24.etrt.d___A„-"zze ___e•-e.e.,4d.0-e__ - . ,. , t. zeizti - c ze 7 - _.1 _d_,.....i) e9-e-6'__ ..)... . J. ,. %2.,...,.._, 4,...z.-_,...., • , . , f ; • :9•1'.- .0! • • ;.; S.+ 4.. •' At• •, • C4.40 7v : - • .40- .; i;: ' P,P6.14741Ps';. t. • .• • ;". • .• • • • • 4: •• lIA • • • L','S " • 1 • , • • •#"" • /142 /s7 /Pr? /wk. /n „( F0c2 7 6. 5 • '97/68 • • • , • • . .t 1.• 1 rIL YS.R cram a /3 oa3 A7 a��eCGfz . . . cg de. nA-e weAzt Tr. h,,,,4,, ,z,_„,...„._ ....,4-- fix_ a- d.,,,,-. / - ,/ u 0 iziwe_ /110 Mr a 'lC�P ( i ( /�2• L /r/ov. /5, /9 At!t-e T0c, % 1 4 ; tv r eoraw — 1; a 4; c. 441.1e4 L ao cac.. h •IVII akcNiNgis /O o,� d 0 • a • . v ` ! °' 417 rp Veit 40 "C ' 7 4 479 ^y • 14 /41) 0% 0 O /e , S 7 O B o ei 7 JANUARY 19898 .»;. , re, ^iii !'i tmtaomm iii Poz vx.^,.ear`.:Ii moo- f«k�'s'k`:i,ro A. .Z A . r §11 ='; JANUARY 1987 1 ' � m / ri IN • J1 04.0 0 cs °.JANUARY 1988 vr• '°: 'g0 ° ♦V 0 0 n rn l a cr O O O 0 0 1 z 0 0 r n N z - 0 70 70 0 rri Fri n C!) STATE BOUNDRY REVIEW BOARD OF KING COUNTY RE: The disputed Tukwila annexation, proposed City of Sea -Tac boundry. I am a memberr of the Tukwila annexation proponant group. The evening of November 9th, our group met with Barbara Blake and Gene Taunamaker of the Sea -Tac group to try and reach a compromise on the boundries. No compromise was agreed upon. The next day, November 10th, I became aware of King County Motion #88 -855 of which one of the items proposed was to move the boundry to S. 42nd. This would effectively cut our neighborhood in two. I was present at King County Council Chambers on November 14th when this motion came , .before the council. hearing testimony from our group, the council voted unanimously to extend the western edge of the Tukwila annexation area to the eastern edge of Military Road. Council Chairman Grant asked if anyone else had any comments on this subject before they passed this revision to motion #88 -855. It was at this time that King County legal council,. Steve Miller, came forward and asked the council to reconsider this decision. After much discussion, the council decided that they would reword the amendment to suggest moving the boundry West or East of Highway #99 with exact language to be worked out later. This reversal of the councils recommendation on boundries left the audience so confused that the next day, November 15th, both the Seattle Times and P.I. published the information on the boundries incorrectly. Please see the exhibits attached. Never did I hear the council take a position against Tukwila annexation proposals. Our community in Riverton has rallied time and time again to send a united message to our elected officials. EXAMPLES: 3/15/88 King County Planning staff held a community workshop on proposed Saby Plan Revision Rezone, King County Motion #87 -528. We gathered 98 signatures against this motion and defeated it. 4/11/88 Paul Burden proposed Motion #88-138, De Ruyer Rezone Plan Revision to change a large parcel from single family to multi - family. We gathered 78 signatures to defeat the rezone. 5/12/88 Hong Property, King County Hearing Examiners Meeting, held in the Tukwila Community Center. Again, our community came together and presented enough convincing testimony that the hearing examiner decided against the county's determination of non - significance, Therefore requiring an environmental impact study on a possible rezone. State Boundry Review Board of King County 11/17/88 Page Two All this was done in the last year. Our support came from both sides of S. 42nd. Now Sea -Tac and the County are here asking you to tear our neighborhood apart by selecting S. 42nd as 'a boundry. We, in Riverton, are at the southern edge . of.the Duamish River Industrial Area. It is trying to creep into our residential neighborhoods. We ask the B.R.B. not to postpone our annexation efforts. For, if you do, we may not survive another chance to Annex. We have always felt that the Cascade View Area was an extention;of our neighborhood. Our children go to pre-school and elementary school there. Our community gathers at Cascade Elementary School 'to watch our children's soccer teams play 'on the weekends. ., Setting, the boundry at S. 42nd would make it impossible to deal with these kinds of land use issues as a community. We feel that a strong single family presence in our area will also protect the future of our school district by ensuring a growing enrollment at all levels of our schools. This will also prevent increased transient' population that so often adds to our problems of crime, drug use, and prostitution. If King County is so worried about the potential zoning and police protection problems, .why didn't they take some of the excess revenue generated by this area (as per the Gennette study) and reinvest it in our community. In closing, I as an individual, and we as a community, have already indicated our conficence in Tukwila being financially able and willing to address our concerns by initiating our annexation requests. Thank you. Sincerely, BiuFand Janice Scheffler Tukwila boundary move rec Foster, Riverton, Thorndyke would be annexed by Hlmenee Gupta Tines South bureau The King County Council rec- ommended yesterday that Tukwi- la's proposed annexation . bound - ary be shift westward from Pacific Highway South to Military Road South, north of Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. Moving the boundary would slice a chunk of land from the proposed city of Sea -Tac. It also would give Tukwila a lion's share of South Central School District, which city officials would like to annex completely. That satisfies a personal an- nexation goal and our comprehen- sive plan," Tukwila Mayor Gary VanDusen said. Tukwila's proposed annexation includes the. Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke neighborhoods. The area, however. also lie within the pmrned Sea -Tac city boundaries. aiW the King County Boundary Review Board tonight win consider MI B y Dan Coughlin Pd Reporter Cascade View annexation wins support • A group of,Cascade View residents has collect- ed about 200 signatures in a drive to, annex. to Tukwila. ._ The - 'neighborhood is • between'south- west 116th and 152nd streets, Military Road and Pacific Highway South. It . touches the Foster. - Thorndyke and Riverton neighborhoods :where residents also want to annex to Tukwila. , Foster. Thorndyke and Riverton must be an- nexed before Tukwila an take in Cascade View because the boundaries do not touch current city limits. • nA four neighborhoods, however. lie in, the Ormond city of Sea-Tac.. The: King County Boundaly Review Board will begin a hearing at the Sea -Tic Red Ton Inn at 7 tonight to resolve the border dispute. . . • , Cascade View residents plan to ask the board to exclude them from.the proposed city. • "The airport city has their concerns and all. but they don't relate to us." said Richard Simpson. an nn aexation supporter. "1 think there's a lot of peo our neighborhood who'd rather be part of Tukwila." Draganov added. "I've been active in Tukwila activities for years. It makes more sense to be a part of that city' The King County , Council agreed yesterday that Tukwila should be extended farther to the west than had been proposed by either the state Boundary Review Board or the council's own staff: "We are offering a strop suggestion," said County Council Chairman Gary Grant after the council, by a 7-0 vote, approved setting the city's boundary at Military Road South between Ri- verton and Riverton Heights. The review board originally called for the new boundary to be along Pacific Highway South. sev- eral blocks east of Military Road. A council staff report called for • both petitions dmulterreauslY. The' County Council yesterday also voted ti of the Allentown � on Feb. 7 elation ballots next year. The move was surprising because the council has blocked the pro- posal for several wsehs. • . • , While council's recommen- dation on the Foster. Riverton and Tlorndyka r areu may have little SketTiCE - PL , ;f - Nov i4 EV, a's p p o ulation could soon triple • •• -..... •••••■••• bearing on the review board's derision, County Council members said they felt compelled to jump into the fray because of a concern over Tukwila's proposed annex- ation boundary. The present boundary for Fos- ter. Riverton and Thorndyke is Pacific Highway South. Sea Tac cityhood supporters contend that both sides of the commendal strip should be in one city so ponce the boundary to be along 42nd Avenue South even farther to the east. At a public hearing yesterday, annexation proponent Allan Ek- berg presented the council with two new petitions, one against setting the 42nd Avenue South boundary and the other asking for the annexation to go forward. Ekberg and his group want three neighborhoods, Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke, to be annexed by Tukwila rather than absorbed by a proposed new city expected to be incorporated around . Seattle-Tacoma Interna- tional Airport. .. Ekberg told the council Tuk- wila's boundary should be along Military Road South because it is the western boundary of the South Central School system. He and other annexation sup- porters said a 42nd Avenue South boundary would split the neigh- borhoods in half and that a Pacific Highway South boundary would complicate police efforts to battle crime in the area. Sea -Tac incorporation sup- porter Gene Tonomaker described the highway as Sea -Tae's "main street" and said Tukwila never included the area in question in its police or other planning. Cityhood for Sea -Tac could result in a . population of 33,000 surrounding the airport. But if the Boundary . Review Board accepts the new council proposal, the population would be cut to about could better clean up crime prob- lems. Brice Martin, executive secre- tary of the Boundary Review Board. also has said the highway should not be divided. The County Council had sug- gested a new boundary of . 42nd Avenue South, which cityhood pro- ponents support because it would give them jurisdiction of the high- way. 29,000. The review board has sched- uled a meeting for 7 tonight in the Sea -Tac. Red Lion Inn in an attempt to sort out the conflicting claims of Tukwila and the pro- posed city of Sea-Tac. . . . If the board is the coun- cil's new plan. Tukwila could wind up with 1000 new residents, more than double the present population of the city. which has less than 5,000 residents. , Tukwila could see its popula- tion grow by another 2,300. on Feb. 7, when residents of Fire District 1 vole on whether to annex to the city.. The election date was set by the County Coun- cil yesterday. The fire district is to the north and east of Tukwila: But Allan. Ekburg. a Riverton resident. said 42nd Avenue South as a boundary would splinter his community. He said • Tukwila would be able to handle the crime on the highway strip better than a new city. "They've (Tukwila) got a good Department partment and they're pre - pared to handle an extra bad of crime." Ekburg said. "They could on top of that a lot ' faster it would take a coup le years for a new dry to pt going. Residents of Oaaft View a neighborhood between Pacific Highway South and Military Road. also hope to join Tukwila. County Councilman Ron Sims has suggested that the boundary be shifted west to Military Road South. The council unanunously approved his motion. • "We just want to - develop a logical boundary," Sims said. . But Sea -Tac city supporters called the decision shortsighted. . "We were the first group to try to include all (of Pacific Highway South) in one jurisdiction," incor- poration supporter Gene Tonne- maker said. 'Tukwila • has • never shown any interest in the of the west side (of -Paci is High way South)." To: The t',.°.c :_.unty Boundary Review Board, K.C.B.R.B. FILE #is; Exhibit #/wv,V I would like .;o address the issue of Cccrnmunity Identity, _specially ; 'as it is defined by t`,= City of Sea Tac proponents in: the Georget study, ` as a corporate 11L: who evaluates market research reports. I raise•?ssue with the' Georgette study. In the.Seorgette study, Part II. Section 5, Daoes II -24 t:= .11 -29, the proponents of the City of Sea Tac present the .findings of a "survey" that was conducted to obtain a sense of how people living in the Saa -Tac incorporation area feel abcy!t their, community and how they identify the:- community, ie -- which geograchic.or physical location do they identify wi 1. The need to.`show community identity is necessary to prove -he viability of incorporation, but,the results of the.survey published in ;he Georgette study are both,statistically invalid and misleading. I•would like to comment on the survey and its "results." First, the sample; size of the survey (500 surveys distributed) represents only 1.5 %'of population in the incorporation area, while the number of responses (127) represents a mere 0.4% of the population. How can,the::opinions . of.127 people speak for 33,000. A correctly executed survey would have sent out 40 surveys and computed results from .a minimum number of 2 complete surveys. Also, the distribution of the surveys skewed the results c.f the survey. Surveys were distributed at rummage sales and using a proconent's mailing list.;; The area north of the airport was largely ignored in this "community identity". study. I: am very concerned that the. results. of this survey were included in the Georgette.. report. The information is misleading and is presented as community opinion for those interested in the issues of annexation and incorporation. The opinions of 127 people should not speak for 33,000. Why are people not represented in this report. This invalid, misleading survey is the only section in this report that addresses the needs and desires of the people in the incorporation area. issue here is the desire of the people. Where is the real support for the annexation? Which neighborhoods identify with the airport and which neighborhoods identify with the City of. Tukwila? Do not rely on this survey to answer: those questions. Please do not rely on the opinion of the Proponents for the City of Sea -Tac to base your judgement on what is best for our neighborhoods. We have strong pies with Tukwila and wish to annex to that city. Listen to what we as residents feel is best for our community. Sincerely .. . Ag Patricia Camozzi- Ekberg Corporate Librarian 4123 S 130th Seattle, WA 98168 a r : o 07,r, O the ''ount7 Eoundai" ' :evi .. President Reagan joked about __is diving above cre when he was a boy six years old. :Tow in :_ia ;resent _.e still _l ; e s above :pis work.. That is what I do _:ow and that . is what I would li_.e to develop further for the future. I am Phil Hemenway. i:y backgr. und is mechanical engineering and I have earned my livir.` in engineering for 25 ye4.rs. Now I operate an engraving shop and machine shop where I live in •. precinct. I have lived in this precinct since 1946. I have also been'a precinct committee officer for 12 years. My ultimate development cf • this 1.2 acres ::he:^= : live would be an industrial building' for my expanding shop topped with up to three my -141.:41v penthouses, one of which/4 would occupy. The others wo,:ld be rented to other faT This situation :could make a very short commutation for me & would' also relieve traffic by at least one car in the regular general work force commute. If, the other families had members! working in the same building, the daily traffic would be that much less. people livin above this building would tend to guard the ;remises and give good security to it lessening to a degree the need for police and fire :rotec- u1On. a regular. Monday night meeting for the 7:urpose of airing view- points, I tried to convince the Tukwila council members that the zoning of my area and its environs to a residential classification. is wrong. I believe it• should be zoned light manufacturing. There was little debate There was no cuestioning of me. There was no offer to talk this idea over directly of the "Task <- orce" studying zoning or with indivi- duals of -the • council. I did talk with one lady member of the c7:ur_cil :rho does favor living above a business: I also had a chance to briefly talk with one councilman who abruptly left me in the middle of our dis- - 'Ccussion. Myr viewpoint waa ignored and thus wiped out. The idea that Tukwila is small and is easy to talk to has to :codified. As far as I can determine, the people who make up "Task Force" are mostly interested in keeping their residences intact from industry, thus ' protecting their' value. It's is : they.rwho:'started =the procedings for this annexation. They, I.- believe, should less.about'those•propertie that have potential industrial : use and'..the: economic':loss to : owners who are unable: to fulfill the highest 'possible: because of-'their decision. In fact they have caused one owner, 'Anthony :Mola r of • U.tilities Service Company; to be unfairly down•zoned. When Mola, :about ; 1967 got • his light ta zoning; I •appeared' gat . the hearings ' and !spoke out against •it.' • No one else• that time- was •on my side.: After he won his new zoning, I switched over t� his side. Now 21 years later, during ::hi time he has run a quiet shop in harmony with'the neighborhood only about 250 i'eet from my residence and business, •the 'Task Force=' wants to down zone lhim. Tn another instance a member. of the "Task••Force ". cast aster-sic against • me 'whenr'he said "Hemenway probably uses chemicals. in his busines! and"' I • ' don't ' laiow how he disposes of them.'" : . I have watched this neighborhood ,change from pruCk gardens and a rural' atmosphere to to the present development of business and industry. We used to be able to hear the Kenworth whistle three mile's north or so and occasionally the whine of the Boeing wind tunnel four miles north but that has all disappeared by a heavy background noise. Now the "Task Force" wants to suddenly stop this force of industryfrom moving closer, even for those of us who have wanted to join it for. more than .a decade. Those members of the "Task: Force "': who have .moved here: within the last few years should have studied the neighborhood to see trend before they'bought their properties. Thom wig Qe ^si'vely.. re6"1vc1ed s/,ou K a(Sc hive- Ge tis,4 -+e 44e Orewd. The freeway 599 which came thru'this area in 1966, completely changed the nature of this area. The widening of :Last Marginal Way South about 15 years ago *contributed more to this change and allowed for heavier industries and more traffic. No new'houses.have been built 11/17/88 Sheet 2 in my area since 1968 and they •were not really new houses, they were • moved. by my brother Dan in ,order to save them from .the freeway. The. •economy has dictated.that =house ;building is _not ,.the thing to do in this - area. Likewise I .do. nat -wish •to .build houses. :on. my property because -riv it probably wouldn't pay off. Incidently : •gee houses .have been taken down since 1968 in this . same area and they have not.been replaced. .There are ou additional houses in this area that,are.in blighted condition. I told my brother John about this zoning situation. He was a •Rhodes Scholar in economics,.philosophy, and history; a naval academy graduate; a foreign service officer; an extort in German and Russian affairs • and. five years ago• finished law school, graduating with his daughter who became and. F.B.I. agent. He tells me•that zoning is never supposed to be determined by plebisite. It is.usually determined �y economics. The "Task Force" seems to be dictating the-economics that • is favorable to it •while. c•onverselyAu to. me.- A reverse decision, one that would favor light industry for - my . area, wound enhance the economics of this area by allowing the creation of perhaps 20 hood .jobs on my land alone and double or triple takt for areas contiguous to mine. Light industry on my land would be buffered by my present residen: and a building next door • that could be made into a residence. rur7:_er,• I have since 1948 successfully nurtured over 100 treeswhich must average over 25 feet high, one.of which isa douglas fir over 60 feet high started as a 3" seedling. These trees for the most part would remain and continue to add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and quality of life and air. In joining the City of Tukwila we would be losing some of our free- dom. Mobile homes are prohibited except cy special concession. If you lost your rouse by some disaster such as fire, you couldn't mae a quick 1. Barbara Davidson. 4020 South 128th Street 2. Gary Davis Same address 3. Harold Hemenway. 4036 South 128th Street 4. Jeff Hemenway Same acs dress Phil Hemenway Same address Terry Judd . 4044 South 128th Street 8, SeOVA Om( kj AL/ J s'evfr� ( a4 4w oV 04c4.4 241109 S" Mal" P 0. C. EC. u•clek . .0606t 0 4.c.14 1 1c C'4 9t Thank you for listening to my views. Philip Hemenway 4036 South 128th Street Seattle Washington 98168 24 — a 2-a 11/17/88 Sheet 3 A uto' C- e %j . 7 Ate -4 W 'replacement with a mobile home. '•!e wol;ld have to adhere to other codes that are more strict than King Oounty's. Your wiring services for electrical, telephone, and TV would have to go underground. The Tukwila code makes the claim that tiis underground type of installation enhances livability by having an unbroken sky, no unsightly wires, greater aesthetic values, (so far three different expressions for the same reason) and greater safety. Possibly it is safer but that is give and take. Cthert,ise why would there be signs that say "Caution, careful where you dig, cable below ". Note that a large pzrt of downtown Seattle was without electric for two .days recently because an underground fault proved difficult to repair. Because underground services of this type are more expensive and difficult to repair, perhaps the smaller resulting:pocket book would give less:livabilty rather than greater livability. This undergrc work would have to be accomplished within 60 months of being taken over by Tukwila with the.cost being borne by the utility or the owner, per— haps finally resting upon the owner who would also have to bring at leas part of hts wiring up to code. His wiring might have served perfectly satisfactorly if he had not be forced into changing services. I an not interested in joining Tukwila unless the zoning for my property and my brother Dan's property and the Watson property is zoned to our satisfaction. If I were to choose between Tukwila or Seatac, I' would choose Seatac because it would use King County rules & I think the type of zoning I would get from. Seatac would be satisfaobr I have listened tb the presentation by:Bill Bowlin and others and because_ I' have known Bill for over •10 years, "I would take my future with him'. He is:a clear thinking person who is very public minded. Since right now I have three choices: Join Tukwila, join Seatac, stay with King County, I choose to stay with King County and so do the following people: sLy...0 octik_d• • Mi,b air t30Zt-4P fit/r---so %(2-cLE-L-s4-) _afka--t/Ykax. pwpy_cJ Lk; ‹}...k.st r poY • eufv. on- pro — ubcatd __._ cD,rm cyJo.-ouk. AU2OuLth Rz- exwk. nut vLL 4. LL ft CQ-A-- cLaYLL (&i3. QAYI-y319-tx,,,NA,LAr Lc v\ttccow _ _f_bcr 6-6 is rickeLL vjc .1101. akirik Ct!_ "CP- SLCW7.ck_ - ±S) bp7t-)-(<\., u re-CCa {L \ - 1 \ __cmcsoity, _1(), vemil rYtc.i_ru. TYW \\. _Cikyyt vvvu, a. 411 _ • z4-k 751 ( cszet November 12, 1988 Members Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 ' Dear Members, or ger, 1 W1 . ••. • w r • • I live in the unincorporated King County community of Foster. I am one of many resident leaders actively working to annex the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, and most recently Cascade View neighborhoods to the City of Tukwila. I am writing to express my concern over the King County Council's and the Sea -Tac City proponents' request to move the Tukwila annexation areas' western boundary to 42nd Avenue South. This proposal is not acceptable to the citizens of the annexation areas because it divides our natural community in half. Our neighborhood is defined by the South Central School District. We would like to keep our options open for annexing the entire school district into the City of Tukwila. Our small area identifies strongly with Tukwila. Our children and Tukwila children attend the same schools. We share the same community and senior center. Tukwila police teach the DARE program in our schools. We go to the same churches, shop in the same grocery store, and go to the same annual community celebration, Tukwila Days. When Foster High School has a football game, annexation residents and Tukwila residents gather together in the freezing cold to watch the game in a sense of community spirit. We share many common bonds with Tukwila. We want to see our neighborhood remain intact and further improve under the leadership of the City of Tukwila, which is why we started our annexation drives in the first place. If the western boundary of our annexation areas is drawn at 42nd, it will shatter our community. Sea -Tac proponents say that Highway 99 is not an ideal boundary because it splits the highway between two police jurisdictions. We argue that 42nd should not be split for the same reason. Crime, prostitution and drug trafficking has not been limited to Highway 99. It has spilled over into our residential neighborhood. We find condoms and syringes in our front yards. We've been . burglarized repeatedly. We're tired of watching prostitutes walk our streets and use our church parking lots to conduct their business. Drawing the boundary at 42nd will not solve the jurisdiction problem. It could make crime issues even worse for residents while destroying our neighborhood by dividing it in half at the same time. The residents of this area would like to see the boundary between the annexation areas and the proposed City of Sea -Tac drawn at Military Road. This boundary would encompass the BRB, page 2 South Central School District and allow our community to remain intact. Our plan was to annex Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke to Tukwila which would give Cascade View a contiguous border with the City of Tukwila, allowing that area to annex as well. Since we've been presented with the opportunity to re- examine our boundaries, we would like the Boundary Review Board to resolve the boundary dispute between the annexation areas and the incorporation area by drawing the line on Military Road, a compromise that allows all parties involved to win. On Wednesday, November 8, the resident leaders of annexation met with the Sea -Tac proponents at their request to try to resolve our boundary differences before the November 15 hearing. Sea -Tac proposed 442nd as a compromise, which we rejected for the reasons outlined above. We offered the counter - proposal of Military Road. Sea -Tac proponents rejected Military Road because they feel the Tukwila police force can pt adequately serve the strip of Highway 99 between 152nd and We contend an existing police force (Tukwila's) will do a far better job than a non - existing police force (Sea - Tac's) that will not even be operational for at least another two years. We all agree that the current police protection under King County is insufficient. I suspect the Sea-Tac pr.oponents'major reason for wanting to keep our strip of Highway 99 in their city is the tax base. That is a selfish motivation that will not help but harm our community. In fact, residents of this area want our tax dollars to support Tukwila because the city is already providing us with the social and cultural activities that we use, and will continue to use. If the school district is split and Sea -Tac City presides over half of it, we're afraid Tukwila will stop providing some of the programs mentioned earlier. We identify with Tukwila and want to be a part of their city. On the other hand, we have no connection with Sea -Tac; no feeling of community with them or their movement. Their issues are different. They're dealing with airport noise and a rather large hotel and restaurant industry. We don't have that scale of activity in our area. Their representation is business oriented. Ours is grass -roots residential. In the Georgette study, there is no budget provisions for library services or fire district costs -- things that are important to the residents. The study plans for a city staff of 128 to resolve problems for a city, population of 33,0000, where the comparably sized cities of Kent, Auburn and Renton have city staffs of between 350 and 475. On the study maps outlining school districts, South Central is not even included. The survey grossly underestimates the services this area needs. The estimates were made to keep the tax base of Sea -Tac City comparable to the current county rate. Sea -Tac proponents have courted our area businesses, but not our residents. The whole Sea -Tac movement -- their methods, arguements and approaches - make me personally question what kind of support, services and representation will residents of this "disputed" north end area receive from Sea -Tac? nxn, page 3 We don't need to speculate as much with the City of Tukwila. When we went to Tukwila and petitioned them to make us part of their city (note: there's been some confusion over this and I just wanted to point out that Tukwila did not come to us, we went to them), they were very supportive and helpful. We asked for pre - annexation zoning and they worked throughout the summer to establish appropriate zoning for our area -- not an easy task or one without controversy. They've held several community meetings in our neighborhood to explain the impact of annexation on the residents. They've worked weekends and nights for us. We even have their home telephone numbers! The contrast between the two movements is staggering. Residents of this area have made a clear choice; we want to be annexed to Tukwila. We think the City of Tukwila will provide better services for the same tax rate as we pay under King County (and far less than we would pay under Sea -Tac City). We'll have access to a local government that has already proven itself to be professional, responsive and true representatives of the people of this area. I could give reason after reason after reason why this area should be a part of Tukwila. I cannot stress that strongly enough. The Military Road boundary -- a larger thoroughfare in this community than 42nd -- makes a logical border that allows access to property east of Military for Sea -Tac jurisdiction. It keeps our natural community intact. It allows Tukwila to expand for its own survival and positioning. It allows Sea -Tac to continue its cityhood movement with still a large revenue base and population. It does not split Highway 99 between two police jurisdictions. And it is the residents' choice. A .lot :of factions have been deciding our future for us. The county is involved, Sea -Tac businessess are having their say, and the City of Tukwila is being approached to comment on how residents . are feeling and reacting to all of this. It is time we stood up for ourselves -- which is the point of my letter -- to let you know how residents of the annexation areas are thinking. If you like, rely on us for information. We do not have access to studies or financial figures, but we'd be happy to give you a tour of our community, show you our landmarks and talk to you about the importance of community and our desire to keep our school district in the same city -- the City of Tukwila. Thank you for your help in resolving these boundary issues. We appreciate your involvement and are confident you will make the right decision for our community. Again, please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. erely, Rena Shawver 4318 S. 140th Seattle, WA 98168 (h) 431 -8960 (w) 583 -6581 tztAAA BRB, page 4 cc: King County Council Members City of Tukwila Officials Annexation Resident Leaders (Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade View) Seattle Times Community Voice Valley Daily News Highline Times Seattle P -I. We, the undersigned resident leaders of the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke', and. Cascade View annexation areas, agree with and support the contents of this letter: 4094/ So. /WA A, - 4../Y/9 54"..rzet Av DSO *v '$1/I444, ClOvisti 4 o) /3255 4e l ui. .J f zg (/. /39 z57 S t 3 4 I/ s • l- 1� 3 S • (3%;',41( q 5z e./..*/ So / I8' etc / a a d. 37 Z1640 �9 Mr. Tint H i l l King Co. Council King Co. Court House Seattle, :YA 4643 S. 146th St., Seattle, WA 98168 Noy. 13, 1988 Re: Tukwila annexation of Thornduke Dear Sir: We note in the. P -I that the council is making certain require- ments of Tukwila in the matter of annexing our area. We wish to .make our thir&ing known! 1. We do not want to be included in any Sea -Tac incorporotion! 2. We forsee efforts by Seattle to take our area over. We do not want that! 3. We have not received good law enforcement along Pacific Hwy. S. We now have prostitutes housed on our residential block. 4. Changing the annexation boundary from Pac. Hwy. S. to 42nd Ave. S. would bring the problems closer to us. With the line at 42nd,. Foster High School on 42nd would have problems with law enforcement against those pursuing unlawful activity across 42nd Ave. S. Such location for the boundary would also cut thru the voting precincts. As a Republican P. 0. and workers at the polls we see only confusion from this this in the precincts! We urge you and the council to approve annexation as recommend - ed by Tukwila and requested by the petitioning residents. Let the residents decide in a cote! Yours Mr. & Mrs. Walter K. Schmidt Copies to: Mr. Paul Barden Mr. Gregg Nickels King County Boundary Review Board 1 4 0 V 1 5 1 9 8 W i V IEW BOARD FOR KING CO Y a t :o if , j etr..zzYv Q w ��Zli_ G� lam -uAtte} - y 'd -106,1 � D Q � uu 7 faA4uWA'.- , - a )„, V Aad a4a1 : kAA'Att 4144 P-400-0-1. aice- v)_€, ate ,vim 7e-e-e_ i.c_ ) ,k Ee z :as to ge- ,a)(4f c -L /39 8 5/ s tea /35 6 - -��/ 4A-e. 5 0 Pu" To: Boundary Review Board K.C.B.R.B. FILE # Iv..3 Exhbt# g'; 11/17/88 First, I would like to say. that I live at 185th & 42nd which is near Tyee High School and, as far as I know, I'm not in any of the existing annexation proposals. Many of the problems facing the greater. Sea -Tac area results from the large numbers of people who must pass through this community (as a result of the airport & I -5 corridor). The resolution of the problems created by this flux of people will require cooperation between governing jurisdictions and a lot of arm twisting (clout) to secure funds. Ideally, one city stretching from Tacoma to Seattle and from Kent ` to the Ocean would provide the clout. Since that is not practical, I feel that the fewer the number of cities, the more likely our problems will get resolved. Therefore, if I must choose between a new city or expanding the existing ones I choose the lattr, which for/be is annexation to Tukwila.. I do that for two reasons: 1) A town needs a central core and shopping area. The proposed city of Sea -Tac does not have one and one is not likely to develop since large facilities in Burien and Tukwila already, exist. Without such a core the city would have a hard time developing identity. This would result in apathy and eventual poor economic health. 2) One of the most talked about reasons for forming the city is more control over zoning. This has been translated into no more people. As much as I would like to see a slower growth rate, the influx of people have to go . some where. I personally would like to see a regional approach to handle growth which I feel translates . into higher density near the I -5 corridor. This makes better sense for development of a rapid transit system and would assure developers of such a system that projected revenues could be expected to increase with time. If' and when the character of this community no longer reflects my values, 1 will elect to move. For the last 16 years, I have enjoyed being part of area and would like to commend the county for its efforts to exert some control over growth. This area will be a city.. The question is when? When that time comes, I will expect my city to provide my needed services - police protection, . utilities, roads, and zoning. (These services are currently being provided by the county to my satisfaction.) But . most of. all, I will expect my city by its very nature to promote a sense of community; a personalized and friendly neighborhood where one can meet and get to know my fellow neighbors. This ` is the element that eventually results in the livability of the area. As members of the Boundary Review: Board, you see the bigger picture. I urge you to make your decisions around what makes sense for the character of the communities involved and not around assets and taxing base and jurisdictional boundaries. Thank You en Hadaller 4226 So. 185th Seattle, WA 98188 LYLE R. SCHNEIDER LANDON M. OIBSON 111 DAVID D. JARVEY LAW OFFICES King County Boundary Review Board 3600 136th Avenue S.E.; Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Members: A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 001 -EAST HAIN STREET AUBURN. WASHINGTON 00000 November 17, 1988 RE: Proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation: Deletion of the "South Tukwila Area Parcel" From the Proposed Incorporation Area Our File #8459 We represent Fritz Gnter and John Gunter co- owners of approximately 41 acres of valley real property lying along the west side and adjacent to the westerly bank of the Green River (between Frager Road and the Green River). This land is all contiguous in one block but is listed under four tax parcel numbers as follows: 022204 - 9033 -00; 352304 - 9041 -00; 022204-9040-01; and 352304- 9117 -09. This property lies directly south of and adjacent to the . M.A.. Segale 'developed' , , : properties and approximately one -half mile south of the south city limits...of the City of Tukwila: ' Fritz Gunter and John Gunter request that their property be omitted from the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation area for the following reasons: 1. The entire plateau area of Sea -Tac proposed incorporation is geographically different since it is vastly commercial along highway 99 and otherwise residential. 2. The access to the Gunter property from the plateau area for city facilities is limited by the topography with one high- way leading from the plateau down to the valley floor. 3. The Gunter property comprises a small pocket of valley floor land which logistically attaches to and follows the westerly Green River corridor into the City of Tukwila and not westerly up a steep hillside approximately 400 feet in elevation into the plateau area. 4. The Gunter Family has owned this property for almost sixty AUBURN 888.8866 SEATTLE 889 -8866 K.C.6. R. B. FILE #/ b.5 Exhibft# ` iN King County Boundary Review Board November. 17, 1988 Page 2 LRS /th .. Enclosure years. They consider their property to be within the service area of the City of Tukwila. 5. Municipal services such as water, sewer, colic and fire protection can be furnished with less cost, more quickly and more efficiently by Tukwila immediately to the north rather than Sea-Tac incorporation or the City of Kent. 6. The Gunter family has associated themselves with Tukwila. before this came up looking forward to annexation in the near future along with other property owners in the area. For reference we are attaching a map marked Exhibit "1" with the Gunter property shaded_ in green. .When, -you.consider the: objective to be accomplished by the Boundary Review Board, which include: 1. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; 2. Use of physical boundaries; 3. To preserve the logical service areas; 4. Prevention of•impratical and irregular. boundaries. There. should be no question that the Gunter property be.. considered as part 'of South Tukwila and be annexed to the City of Tukwila. We request, on the Gunter family's behalf, that the Gunter property be deleted from the Sea -Tac incorporation area, and the it instead be considered as part of the South Tukwila area for future annexation to the City of. Tukwila. Very truly yours, LYLE.R. SCHNEIDER & $SOCIATES, INC., P.S. �ll rpl lrrn N w � N TA 136 BURIEN �•�'�•� YIN ardr 4 AS)* Ulm Normandy Park EXHIBIT 1 M 0..1 p11. Gm. Renton Sea -Tac Incorporation Study PROPOSED SEA -TAC INCORPORATION BOUNDARY Flout* 1-2 Sign -tn To Speak Exhibits K.C.B.R.B. FILE # /)-- Exhibit # (AaK SUMMARY OF HEARING PROCEDURES A roster will be found on the speaker's podium. Those who wish to testify must sign in before witnesses are sworn. All speakers will be called from this list. If . you sign in once, it is not necessary to do so at any continuation of the hearings. Please bring exhibits to staff for marking before the. Call -to- Order. The Board must retain all exhibits until a decision is filed and the appeal period ends (10 days). Speakers Please state your name for the benefit of the Court Reporter prior to testifying. It is not necessary to give your address. When referring to an exhibit, please state the exhibit letter. Time Limits If necessary, the Chair may employ a time limit of. 3 minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for organized groups. Testimony The Boundary Review Board Act requires the consideration of certain factors (see RCW 36.93.170) and specifies objectives the Board must seek to accomplsih (see RCW 36.93.180). Testimony and evidence related to these factors and objectives will be the most effective. Cross- Bzamination Witnesses generally may not question other witnesses or the Board. The Chair may allow cross- examination of expert witnesses under limited circumstances as described in the Board's Rules. Rebuttal The Chair may limit rebuttal. Rebuttal must be prefaced by a citation of the disputed evidence. Rebuttal may not include closing statements a summary, or any new evidence. AGENDA, November 15 & 17, Cont. Page Two Rebuttal 5. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Resolution and Hearing Decision Instructions on above B. Other 6.. ADJOURNMENT Thursday, November 17, 1988 6 :45 P.M.: Witnesses Sign -in (If needed) 7 :00 P.M.: Introduction by Board Chair 7 :10 P.M.: Introduction of Exhibits (if needed) 7:15 P.M.: Swearing in of Witnesses (if needed) 7 :20 P.M.: General Testimony B A C K G R O U N D S T A T E M E N T The Boundary Review Board The Boundary Review Board was created in 1967 by the legislature in part to ",,,provide a method of guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities... "(RCW 35.93.010.) There are 19 such boards in the State of Washington. The Board is a Quasi - judicial, administrative body empowered to make decisicr s on such issues as incorporation, annexation, mergers, disincorporations, etc., by cities, towns and some special purpose districts. It can approve, deny, or modify a proposal. Its decisions are final unless appealed to the King County Superior Court. When that occurs, the appeal is on the record. That is, the Court reviews the exhibits, transcript and board decision rather than conducting a new hearing. Board members are residents of the County, appointed by the Governor. for six year terms. They are not allowed to hold other local government elected dffices or jobs. Their compensation is $25 per day for work on Board business. Members may not properly discuss proposals under their consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications). Appearance of Fairness Doctrine In general, decision - makers such as Board members must not only be fair in their actions, i.e., have no conflicts of interest) but must also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. However, the State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision -maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING ST PUBLIC HEARING November 15 & 17, 1988 ROLL CALL V.C. David Boerner Don Aicher Al Haylor Clair Inghram Margaret Lane Red Lion Inn 18740 Pacific Highway, South Seattle, Washington AGENDA WITNESSES SIGN IN - 6 :45 P.M. Speakers will be called from this list. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTION -- 7:00 P.M. Gunbjorg Sandvik, Chair Paul. Mallary Richard Morrill Robert Patterson Miriam Sutermeister Jean Worthen PUBLIC HEARINGS; A. FILE NO. 1523 CITY OF SBA -TAC: Proposed Incorporation B. FILE NO. 1537 - CITY OF TUKWILA: Proposed Riverton Annex. C. FILE NO. 1538 - CITY OF TUKWILA: Proposed Thorndyke Annex. D. FILE NO. 1544 - CITY OF TUKWILA:. Proposed Foster Annex. Tuesday, November 15,1988 7:10 P.M.: Introduction of Exhibits 7:15 P.M.: Swearing in of Witnesses 7:20 P.M.: Sea -Tac Incorporation Presentation: Citizens for Controlled Taxation and Improved Services (45 Minutes) 8:05 P.M.: Recess (10 Minutes) 8:15 P.M.: Annexation Presentation - City of Tukwila (45 Minutes) 9:00 P.M.: King County Presentation (20 Min. Legislative /20 Min. Executive) 9 :40 P.M.: General Testimony shall be on the record. which shall be furnished by the appellant, but the board may, in its sole discretion. per- mit the introduction of additional evidence and argu- ment. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within ten days from the date of said action a govern- mental unit affected by the decision or any person own- ing real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. The filing of such notice of appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal shall have been ad- judicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the board. (6) The superior court may affirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the administrative . find- ings, inferences. conclusions. or decisions are: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions. or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure. or (d) Affected by other error of law, or (e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. An aggrieved party may secure a review of any final judgment of the superior court by appeal to the supreme court or the court of appeals. Such appeal shall be taken in the manner provided by law for appeals from the su- perior court in other civil cues. [ 1987 c 477 § 8; 1971 c 81 § 97; 1969 ex.s. c 111 § 9; 1967 c 189 § 16.j General corporate powers- Mreicip.I corporations of the fourth class, restrictions u to area: RCW 33.21.01Q (1N7 Ed.) Local Gov't-- Boendaries -- Review Boards 36.93.170 Factors to be considered by board —Ie- corporation proceedi•p exempt from state esvireamental policy act. In reaching a decision on a proposal or an al- ternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses; comprehensive use plans and zoning; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other pop- ulated areas; the existence of prime agricultural soils and agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and un- incorporated area during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of . community facilities; (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and -ade- quacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects of governmental services from other sources; probable future : needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or . alternative on cat and adequacy of services and controls . in area and adjacent 36.93.190 area: the effect on the finances. debt structure. and con - tractual obligations and rights of all affected govern- mental units: and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adja- cent areas: on mutual economic and social interests. and on the local governmental structure of the county. The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW. State Envi- ronmental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation pro- ceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. (1986 c 234 § 33; 1982 c 220 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § 1; 1967 c 189 § 17.) Se eriMNty- -1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.93.100. Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environmental policy act: RCW 43.21C.220. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: (1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities: (2) Use of physical boundaries. including but not lim- ited to bodies of water. highways, and land contours: (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas: (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries: (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character. and (9) Protection of agricultural lands. (10) Provide reasonable assurance that the extension of municipal services and the additional payments to be made by the property owners of the area to be annexed in the form of taxes will remain reasonably equal to the value of the additional municipal services to be received during a period of ten years following the effective date of the proposed annexation. This objective shall apply only to cities with a population of 400.000 or more which initiates a resolution for annexation proceedings. [1981 c 332 % 10; 1979 exs. c 142 § 2; 1967 c 189 ; 18.) Swarariry- --1101 a Sae note following RCW 33.13.023. 36.93.190 Decision of board amt to affect existl■g ftsscidses, permits, amiss, ordinances, ete., for ten years. Fora period of ten years from the date of the final de- cision. no proceeding, approval, action, or decision on a proposal or an alternative shall be deemed to cancel any franchise or permit theretofore granted by the authori- ties.governing the territory to be annexed, nor shall It be deemed to supersede the application as to any territory to be annexed, of such construction codes and ordinances (including but not limited to fire, electrical, and plumb- ing codes and ordinances) u shall have been adopted by the authorities governing the territory to be annexed and in force at the time of the decision. [ 1967 c 189 f 19.) (flos M RCW- -.p 2111 I III (I 1111 ' I�il I IIII I I III, II. Il1 II II p 1I ' I I II �IIH I .., ►� I , � � � m I '; ,� I II'Ill�!''. !!�i;\\ 1 I r IlI I�Idlllll!I r ':I�"," 1 I' I I I �, l lIl II!III P l 111 1.111111111111111111111111 ;1 1 11 III' A!Ilq�ll I!► I . 11111 IIIi ' III IIIIIIi !illliililhl " "'!IIIIIIII;II'�'' .t I I I I,. ulIl;;I�ut�eu III�, ��II I IIIIIU�III l I Ilulilbllpllll,, ; URIEN 3rma Pa n•ttI Tukwila T O G e 816 Midway IV -49 Kent' .rmrttlw■ Tukwila Planning Area Renton .u.w...u.w.... Kent Planning Area \tilGeenwits Gm* flours IV 'Li cSawllac Incorporation Stud;\ SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Dos Molnas Riverton Planning Area Annexatlon(prop.) M Des oines Thorndyke nir l lo l i Area Annexatlon(prop.) Nekton Des :> Poster Annexation Annexatlon(prop.) EXHIBIT # MADAM CHAIRMAN :PM BOARD VENEERS: MYSELF AND CuR FIRE C(vMISSICN EXTEND CUR APPRECIATION FOR `TIC MANY HMS YOU HAVE SPENT CN TEE (STION OF TI-E DESTINY OF TAE SEA TAC Cafti\IITY. MY NAME IS JANE E. ADSLEY. I AM TEE ACMINISTRATIVE CHIEF OFFICER OF KING C U11Y FIRE PROTECTICN DISTRICT 24. I HAVE OVER TWENTY YEARS EXPERIENCE IN FIRE PROTECTION °SERVICES, TOLD A FIRE CO/M413 ADMINISTRAT1g1 DEGREE, HAVE BEEN A KING COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL AID FIRE CHIEF IN THIS ..RISDICTION SINCE 1973. I HAVE SERVED CN CODE DEVELOPNFJVT Ct.WITTEES FOR TFE WASHINGTON STATE FIRE CHIEFS MD INTERNATIONAL FIRE CHIEFS. FOR TFE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, I REPREENTED THE FIRE SERVICE ON TEE KING COMITY BUILDING CODE ADVISORY AM APPEALS BOARD. K.C.B.R.B. FILE # Exhibit if I CURRENTLY. LIVE. AT 18028 51ST AVENUE TUTH AN) HAVE LIVED WITHIN TFE BOUDARIES OF FIRE DISTRICT 24 FOR OVER 47 YEARS. I HAVE VOLUNTEERED OVER 15 YEARS TO YOUTH BASEBALL, FOOTBALL AM) gJCCER. MY WIFE AND I1TLY SERVE AS VOLUNTEER COLT APPOINT SPECIAL ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN IN TEE. KING COI'ITY FAMILY COURT. MY WIFE AM I LIVE A) PAY TAXES IN TEE PROPOSED INCORPORATIC AREA AS DO MY GRANTARENTS, . MY DAUGHTER, FER HUSBAND AND TWO SUPER DP JGHTERS. IT IS FOR MY GRANDCHILDFEIN AND TFOSE LIKE TEEM THAT I HAVE 1W GREATEST CONCE% ON THIS ISSIE. MY DAUGHTER AID HER FAMILY LIVE IN TFE HCW WEEIt SFE. WAS. RAISED. SHE ;WWLD LIKE TO LIVE THERE PERMANENTLY. I HAVE TOLD EER TO .WAIT TO SEE IF INOORPORATION IS Si3CESSFUL FIRST. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT IF WE GAMJOT CREATE A GOVER1fElic OF TEE PEOPLE, BY TEE PECPLE AN) FCR TEE PEOPLE WEO .LIVE IN THIS LNIQE CCN NITY, TEEN THE VIABILITY OF OUR I■IGFEORHODOS WILL BE LOST. THE QIALITY OF LIFE HAS ALREADY SIGNIFICANTLY DRJPPED IN.TFE SEA TAC COMITY. YOU HAVE SEEN SCE OF TEE OBVIOUS PROBLEMS. 11-ERE ARE MANY NEW CCMING WH10H TFE GMAL PLBLIC IN TFE AREA IS NOT AWARE OF. I OK BEFORE YOJ TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THREE SIOECTS : TO. DELIVER A NESSPOE FRC I TFE CHAIRMAN OF CUR 5 PERS}1 FIRE OMISSION. 1E WISHED TO SPEAK TO YOU T ESDAY. EUT COULD NOT BE HERE .TONIGHT. TO GIVE A BRIEF OF OJR „URIMICTICN AI'D Hai OUR SERVICE MATES TO THE SPECIAL 'REEDS OF TFE CCM LAITY. TO DISCUSS WITH YOU POTENTIAL NIFICATIONS OF TFE BOUDARIES OF FIRE DISTRICT 24 AS TI-EY RELATE TO TFE BCNARIES OF TEE. PROPOSED CITY OF SEA TAC. FIRST. CCI`!MISSION CHAIRMAN .JOSEPH BREMAN WIS-ES NE TO CONVEY THE CCNMISSION'S WHOLE - HEARTED 9JFFORT OF TFE INDCWORATION OF SEA TAC AS THE BEST LONG TERM SOLUTION TO TFE MANY SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF THIS CCM4JIITY. AS A SPECIAL PLIFOSE DISTRICT, WE UTERSTA4D THAT THERE IS A DEGREE OF RISK. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT TEE TWO OTHER FIRE DISTRICTS WHICH COULD HAVE PORTIONS OF THEIR WRISDICTIa4S INSIDE THE BcUDARIES WILL BE BE CONCEITED ABOUT POTENTIAL LEVY IMPACTS. THE FIROFOINTS FOR INCORFORATICN DO NOT WANT TO INTERFERE WITH TIE. COCO OPERATION OF TIE SPECIAL DISTRICTS. THAT IS WHY TIE CONSULTANT'S STUDY LEAVES THE FIRE DISTRICT'S LEVY CUT OF AVAILPI3LE PROPERTY TAX FIGLRES. FURTIERvORE, WE FIRFLY BELIEVE TfE R.C.W.'S CAN BE CLARIFIED TO ALLOW A CITY THE FLEXIBILITY TO AMEX INTO MORE THAN CNE FIRE DISTRICT. THIS WI LL PRESERVE FIRE DISTRICT LEVIES, MAINTAIN THE BEST SERVICE TO TIE RELIC PD DIFFUSE CONICEFNS OVER 1RISDICTIONIAL BCUNDARIES. AS YOU 10.04, FIRE DISTRICT 24 WEN A DECLARATORY JJCEVENT IN SEPTEM3ER WHICH SUGGESTS TIE CONCEPT IS POSSIBLE. THAT HAS EEM APPEALED, KAM, WE BELIEVE THE DECISIONS WILL BE AFFIRMED. • 2. SPECIAL NEEDS OF Ilf SEA TAC 0341.NITY * FIRE DISTRICT 24 PORTICN REPRESENTS ABOUT 20,000 RESIDENTS. * WE ANTICIPATE ANOTIER 20 TO 25,000 WHO WI( IN TIE AREA OR STAY IN TIE MANY HOTEL ROCMS. TIE:.."..ARGEST .NLM3ER OF: HOTEL ROOMS IN TFE . STATE ARE LOCATED AT SEA. PIC.: EVEN. ME THAN .DOANTOAN SEATTLE. 4 * FIRE DISTRICT 24 SERVES ABOUT` .500 EUSI('ESSES. • THIS CafLD( IS TIE .LARGEST. TFE OCCLPANT LOAD OF THIS SINGLE CCNPLD( IS LARGER THAN TFE RESIDFMIAL POPULATION OF TUCWILA. PRICK TO THE SEATTLE C IMNTICN CENTER, THIS RED LION WAS TFE LARGEST HOTEL/CONNENTICN CENTER NORTH OF SAN FRANCISCO. * IN 1987, FIGURES INDICATE 14.5 MILLION PEOPLE FLEW IN OR CUT OF SEA TAC. *EN YOU CONSIDER THE PEOPLE WHO ACCNANIED TEEM TO TFE AIRPORT, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT 30 MILLION PEOPLE VISITED SEA TAC IN 1987. IN CONTRAST, THIS WAS ABOUT TWICE TFE EMBER OF PECPLE WO VISITED LAS DEGAS IN 1987. I SUSPECT THAT TI-ESE AND TFE MILLIONS *10 HAVE VISITED OUR CaMJNITY IN PREVIOUS YEARS *Di MERE SEA TAC IS FORTY PERCENT OF TFOSE 30 MILLION PEOPLE NOW Ct'NE TO TEE AIRPORT FROM THE SOUTH A'D ARE aPRENTLY FILTERING THROUGH f■EIGF30RFIO0DS TO GET ARCM 1RAFFIC GRIDLOQ( FIRE DISTRICT : 24 OFFERS A FULL: RANGE OF SERVICE' IN FIRE Alt NGY MEDICAL .PROTECTION TO • TEE ,CCNKNITY. .1}E I4JGE 'RESPOVSIBILITIES WEi HAVE BEEN FACES WITH HAVE CAUSED US TO BE VERY iINTVATIVE IN (1R • APPROACH :TO' CCM LAITY PROTECTION. FOR DARE FIRE DISTRICT 24 OPERATED THE FIRST FILLY COPUTER AIJTCMATED DISPATCH CENTER , IN :THE STATE. FEDERAL WAY NOW ALSO HAS THE SAME: SYSTEM IN .OPERATION: WE ALSO MONITOR ALL OF THE ALARM SYSTEMS IN EVERY ;HOTEL PM MANY OTHER . EUILDINGS WHICH ALERTS US AUTOMATICALLY WITHIN 20 SECS OF AN ALARM. THIS PREVENTS SHOE FROM TINNING OFF AN ALARM OR SPRINKLER SYSTEM WITFIOJT aR KIOLEDGE. A YEAR AGO A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OCCURRED IN A LARGE DEPART ENT STORE IN SOUINCENTER DUE TO A SPRINKLER SYSTEM BEIN3 TIED OFF. IT IS ; EXTRENELY DOLBTFUL THAT WOULD HAPPEN HERE. WE ALSO STORE MEDICAL RESFGISE 1 FORMAT1g1 ON MANY INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS IN OUR AREA TO HELP US SERVE THEIR FUTURE SEEDS BETTER. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM TI-E SAM'LE OF GRAPIS PRESENTED IN OUR INFORMATION. WE ARE TRACKING DATA IN OUR CDPUTERS THAT IDENTIFY WHERE OUR WORST. TRAFFIC, DRUG AND OTI-ER PROBLEM ARE. WE HAVE RECENTLY C HPL ETD ACCUISITION OF EQIIFFENT AM FACILITIES IN CUR 20 YEAR PLAN. WE HAVE APPLIED FOR A`RERATING. WE ANTICIPATE EASILY REACHIING A CLASS 3 RATING WHICH WILL LEAD TD SIGI\FICANTLY RFCUCED 'NUANCE PREMIUMS FOR MANY EUSWESSES. THE IMOVAT IONS WHICH GOT US 11-ERE ALSO MEAN OUR CITIZENS RECEIVE A HIGH LEVEL OF SERVICE IN COMPARISON TO MANY OYM IITITES. 3. TIE THIRD ISSN DEALS WITH O EXISTING BOLICARIES AS RELATED 1D TFE FRCPOSED CITY, WE :RECOGNIZE A FAIRLY LARGE ;I EVELOPED SECTION IN IR WRISDICTION IN TFE GREEN RIVER VALLEY IS POSSIBLY. BETTER SERVE BY KENT. AID 1UCWILA IN 11-E LONG TERM. (SEE TFE GREEN SECTION OF TFE MAP) . NTH OF •.200TH IN THE VALLEY IS IN TUN ILA' S FLANKING AREA. IT IS MY U'DERSTANDING TUCWILA PLANS TO EXTEND MIER SERVICES TO 1}E AREA WHICH WILL ALLOW IT TO DEVELOP WE .D0 •[IELIEVE. TIE .BODARY CE TFE CITY SHOULD. BE .LOCATED. AT TFE EAST B1DARY OF ORILL IA. ROAD RADER 1HAN I -5 FOR THE. FOLLOWING RE ASX: TFERE ARE SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS WEST OF CRILLIA ROAD ADD EAST OF I -5 ALat MILITARY ROAD QV TOP OF THE LARGE GRADE DIFFERENTIAL TIE 20 TO 45 PERCENT GRADES BETWEN TFE VALLEY FLOOR ADD TIE PLATEAU ARE RICH MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN 1-5. * al? EPERGENCY SERVICES ARE CLOSER TO THOSE AREAS. KENT HAS MOVED TFEIR VALLEY STATIONS OVER TO STATE ROUTE. 167 ADD TFEIR SOUTHWEST STATION FARTFER SOUTH TO SOUTH 265TH AND MILITARY ROAD. SEVERAL N JBILE< HC E PARKS MAY ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BE RELOCATED SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT. TI-ERE IS CIRRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LAID ON A PLATEAU WEST OF ORILLIA ROAD WHICH COULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY OF SEA TAC FOR TIEIR RELOCATION. TIE ABOVE NENTIONED LAID HOLDS A 0000 TERRITORIAL VIEW OF THE VALLEY ADD MINTAIIE. OUR SERVICES ARE CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTIONS OF SIOUTH 200TH AND 204N AND . ORILLIA ROAD WHICH PRODUCE SEVERAL SERIOJS ACCIDENTS EACHI YEAR * ORILLIA ROAD CREATES A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CN OUR HIGH SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL MD 'TIE NORTH ANGLE LAKE NE1GF OR1DOD. SEA TAC SHOULD HAVE A VOICE IN TEE FLAMED IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS MAJOR ENTRY POINT INTO THE SEA TAC COR ITY. IN CONCLUSION, WE APPRECIATE TIE DENJCRATIC PROCESS YOLR EFFORTS PROVIDE TO THIS ISSLE. IT IS SAD THAT SO MN'?( OUTSIDE INTERESTS HAVE REFUSED TO FELP WITH OR MANY UNI(E PROBLEMS AID INSTEAD HAVE LITERALLY .OINKED FORCES TO DISRUPT TIE GRASS ROOTS ATrO PTS OF GOW PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING WITH 11-E THE EN)OUS PROBLEMS IN THIS COMITY. ITY.` WIEN YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE WHICH DEPICTS HOW SEA TAC'AUJJ BE LITERALLY CHOPPED UP YOU CAN SEE OUR COTERIE. IT 1S D(TRENELY DOLEFUL ANY EXISTING CITY COULD OVER -LAP TIE OTIER'S PLACING BOiDARIES WITH:UT A BATTLE WHICH WJJLD HOLD THIS COMITY HOSTAGE FOR YEARS TO CONE. • •• THE FUTLIFE VIABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL AND QISINESS; CC MNITIES RESTS .TOTALLY C Old• ABILITY TO, KEEP.: TFE' EXISTING L RGE' TAX 'BASE IN THIS CNITY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN THIS CQNhiIITY. AS A FINAL NJTE, IT WAS INTETtSTING TO FEAR ` TFE SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT S FORT FOR 001441IITY IDENTITY AND CITY OF 1U011ILA SERVICES. IN CONTRAST 1}E CITY OF TUCWILA PLANS. TO EX1t!D TFEIR HJGE TRAFFIC PROBLEM CN SOUTH 180TH STREET INTO SOUTH 188TH N1 9JJTH 176TH IN OIP If.I(BIOCOS. THIS PLAN, CALLED TIC 188TH C tl'ECTION, HAS RECEIVED FLGET SOLND COUVCIL CF OOVERFENT AND KING COUITY Cq GIL APPROVAL. TFE EFFECT ON TFE CHILDREN WHO M STLY WAUK TO TYEE HIGH SCHOOL, CHINOOK MIDDLE SCHOOL, VALLEY VIEW. BSI LAKE AND McMICKEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WILL EE DEVASTATING. TESTIMOIY FROM HIGHLINE 9) IDOLS, KING CONY FIRE DISTRICT 24, MANY CITIZENS, AND THE TU4WILA CHANGER OPPOSED THIS PLAN. S THENfER APPROVES OF IT AND S0 TUCWILA CCNTIRES TO SLRIIT THE. PROPOSAL. THE THINGS I SEE.ON A DAILY.BASIS LEAD.T. TO•eELIEVE aR CHILDREN ARE VORE,.ENDAN(EED BY .TFE ENVIRCIWIT TFEY 'ARE LIVING' IN THAN THE _IDENTITY OF THE . SCHOOLS TFEY ATTEND. THANK YOU FCR YOLR PATIENCE. MAY I ANSWER ANY (IESTICNS. 10 November 17, 1988 To: King County Boundary Review board From: Robert E. and Janelle i°1. Scarber 13716 - 41st Ave So, Seattle, ties 98168 246 -7469 Re: Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke Annexation Petitions to the City of Tukwila, Washington Dear Members of the 6R6: First, let us state that we know YOU CANNOT PLEASE ALL PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES. However, in view of the public sentiment shown by the petition signatures on the many exhibits delivered to you, in favor of annexation to Tukwila, we ask that you do not fracture our neighborhoods and community. We have owned our horse on 41st Ave So for 22 years and are therefore, long standing and stable members of an area that hos exhibited many problems and frustrations over the years. The spectacular increase in the Sea -Tac Airport and the proliferation of prostitution and drug related crirnes has polarized the focus on our area of one that is less than desir- able. We have fought and will continue to fight the influx of the "sleazy" motels that have become endemic. A pattern seems to emerge where the ethnic groups purchasing the existing motels and property for future construction say one thing and the oppositse in regard to aiding and abetting the criminal elements. We feel with the existing police force of Tukwila and the promise of priority ONE for adding to and implementing the facilities and personnel to adequately police end clean up the "99" strip a very big reason to press for annexation. As the saying goes, "walk a mile in my shoes." Which is to say, unless you live in an area plagued with the problems we see, it is impossible to understand completely our interest and resolve to belong to a local government where we can be heard and where we con more closely watch and be involved in the decisions that affect our lives and future. We are aware that you hove the power to appoint, to set the boundaries where you choose. If in fact you moved the western boundary to Military Road South, west of Highway 99 it would encompass en area from Highway 516 North to approximately 130th. This would solve the problem of police jurisdiction along a corridor of small businesses that serve both the citi- zens residing in the area and a highly transient visitor population and attendant prostitutess, pimps, (unethical business persons included with pimps) procurers, drug dealers, drug users and indications of some organ- ized gang activities. We most closely identify with Tukwila and the regional area for most of our business interests. Our school districts identify very closely and in fact we would very much like to see the South Central School District preserved intact with the hoped for addition of the Cascade View area to the already existing three annexations. Many facts and figures have been introduced on both sides. We all know that those kinds of data can be weighed in favor of, or discredit, depending upon your specific interests and intent. A logical rationale would be that it will be less costly, and more effective much sooner to align with are existing, stable, well governed city such as Tukwila, than to start from scratch and begin a new city. There is to our knowledge, no track record by the advocates of the proposed Sea -Tec City of how to implement and govern e city of 33,000 +1 - persons as well as the growing transient population. Very importantly, the critical services, primarily police, would probably take 2 years or more to become an entity under local government control. Policemen as well as firemen require 1 to 2 years to train to the point they can "take to the streets" effectively. Until then, all of this type of service would have to be contracted for. King County Police would for the most part not care to quit their positions in any quantity to relocate to Sea -Tac City. Retirement and pension benefits based on their years of service make that obvious. Therefore, costs would increase and the pro- posed city would be in the personnel rental business for some time. In closing, the decisions you are mandated to rnoke are extremely impor- tant to all of us involved. We urge you to look at all the comments and information and be certain to listen to the people. We have requested annexation to Tukwila and not to be included in are unknown entity, with what will be at best a chaotic birth and a growing up period that is worrisome to contemplate. Give us our annexations as requested arid. keep us intact as we now are. Thank you. Respectfully, Robert E. and Janelle M. Scarber Submitted to King County Council., Meeting of November 14th, 1' BED by the residents of proposed Tukwila Annexation areas of Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke communi ti o ,. November 12th 13th, 1988 We, the residents of the referenced area., request the Council to rescind the Memo of Steve Miller, Crated Nov. 10, 1968. The attached letter states the popular feelings of the majority of the residents. We do hereby tell you that by our signature_,, we prefer to be annexed to Tukwila and would appreciate your cooperation in this matter and allow the ERB to go ahead with their meetings of Nov. 15th and 17th, 1488 without injecting addit- ional obstacles to an already emotional and deeply involved process:. No. 1 3 . 8. 1 1 1. 12. 1 3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 16. 2 23. 2J 2. 2''. NAME L/i /7 /59 /37c fr574ue r / /390 /7C & i/e, so /3 4/1950 i3?-`5 /o.2. S, /`3 �/v 2. '/z s /37 i 3���yls -r s. r 3 - to -- 1 13 4 41 ° "��. /.7 4/ 1 5. o /- £s. /37R. '!O/! - s . -.. 3.7 #. ` -/3 71( f ! S 2- 4/2- � nq 4- 13 /'3L( I L\ 2- ' 4 (- 7 - - *)- 13_ tit 4 2 nom. So "71.-7=4(- ) ;27-7774/ c t_ 1- 4 7� Ncf ADL'RE 13 - WAE.. (roc .40 /3 716 ei /. S: i3712.1 ij( cv . S . PHONE - 7 7-S l azitb . 7e-f8 9 L, 33 •// 24 4 zt /6•/2G 1 133-Z -3 =7010 -.5. - X2,0 ti 4:// 3 Te/ cji-f3 �57� 3- SS74 qq- 7i ST7 ° WV- - 7157 ( P P f"( Z YY face? d,37 • ;y3 574 7 � /9 z43- s3 r(6 N1D. 35. • -- 315 •••-1 1 . el 2. 4 3 44 45. 46, ' TL • ^ 50. 5 1: 5 3. 5 4 55. r 'JtM ' n )3:7 zpivc 1 E 5 ( 3 - 2 3 t -- 4- `;/' 571 t.< • NO 4Vr . o 5 1-41 1 2,4-11 7 , 1 7/ y LI; 1 ‘, cti S '7 /.7. II I . -Nji.;;•71 IStf.4Y 4; ,../cA..,:j- -,---, .... .-`- , 9 0 ..1" / P .2.-ealc_., Oh,/ - 7e i c-- 2 - ; :".3 0 _ 6-f--k:/t 7i 5 //; - e . . . : - .4/0/o & o. 450. r . 4.0 3 + 51- 3!a. s Vs 2LI3.&1 7).)( 5 i 5‹ 9 s ;2_4 5- 4 . ( ,; 4 s .0. 5 c•.! 60. 6(,• .'J C 1 ,1 t "" • ft") • /-) / •.;.. 2 (4 7‘-- e -7 9c/ c 57 •• 4ak- c-e &t_5 .K 4 - W ,J, • - /9•") _._)' ..--Cc2 ,-.. ( cii s .>>.--. , 7 0 , " <- , , ..), / , / )--' I._ .J J. _. 6 . 6 cf 6) :-,?) - / 62 4 -: . . / (- ___. . .1,1 .*f-cp - -7. c 3 . ...z.: / 65 1 A? - ;. - /5 4 6V7 • . • , 7 4, (op ijo `-s 7-'s967 (4 c.'(/ S (-(( ../ 1.9 .79 1 I J" / t.ff ty.1 .- , L__r • / // Y7f / - 16. x6 ;47 /. ;.• /7 , 4 7 i / S 3 . I , PHONE - 9 5 (2 YS s S.3! - Sa - 2 - I-2 2 /3- .413,22 1 • - ,“ 3 • -..- 7. 9.„vo 1 2577 z- 7- -Y I .5' .r3( .5 2 . 3 ehfoT. P-96 .1659 2-41 a .'049 N61fi1v Nc s.a.f.a No. 77. 78 7 9. 81. _.. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 86. . 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.... 100. _ 101. - 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111 1 12 . 113. 114. 115. 1 1 6. 117. 116. 119. 110. NAME �i /G�✓1 I/ 674.2 - Ws/ AL S.:. _ _09 rEl e, /a_. & Saafile 91/4 I)cJF . /ladle 1 _ ADDRESS 77 .:4/_! //IGZ / .7b.. ��G.. ■C L c .,i c r ( jS PHONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Ron Sims November 14, 1988 INTRODUCED BY Greg Nickels 1919C :SM:mis PROPOSED NO. 8 -855 MOTION NO. A MOTION expressing King County's position on the proposed Tukwila annexations: Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster. WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County and its cities should work together to identify future annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should play an active role in municipal annexations, SUPPORTING THEM WHEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, AND OPPOSING THEM WHEN INCONSISTENT," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should support incorporations when formation of cities is appropriate to assure adequate facilities and services for growth consistent with the Comprehensive Plan," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "interlocal agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within.agreed -upon annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states the processes of identifying future annexation areas and adopting interlocal agreements "should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, landowners and other governmental agencies," and WHEREAS, both Tukwila and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee claim Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster should be within their jurisdiction, resulting in a dispute which must be resolved before the annexation and incorporation proposals are submitted to the voters, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 1 Q1 Q( SM! m1 c (1 1 -1 4 -AA 1 2- 7359 WHEREAS, King County has identified several critical issues of: 1) boundaries that do not split communities; 2) continuation of surface water management, and 3) preparation of a transition plan which will insure adequate public safety services for the affected resident, and WHEREAS, King County has identified other issues within the categories of: 1) regional and local public service delivery; 2) achieving Comprehensive Plan regional policy goals; 3) capital improvement projects; 4) revenues; and 5) expenditures, which have not been addressed by Tukwila's annexation proposals or the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal, and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila which addresses the issues named above would have enabled the county and city to assure Riverton's, Thorndyke's and Foster's residents that they will receive optimal public services, programs and facilities but no such agreement has been done, and WHEREAS, the King County council believes at least the critical issues must be addressed prior to approval of annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The King County executive and council hereby request the boundary review board deny Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster unless: A. The western boundary of the proposed annexations is moved from Highway 99 South in order to preserve the natural commercial community on both sides of the highway in a single jurisdiction, and this also provides a basis to resolve the boundary dispute between Tukwila and the Sea -Tac incorporation, and B. The continued provision of surface water management must be required as a needed urban service prior to approval, and C. Tukwila must submit a plan acceptable to the BRB to assure the residents at Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster that they will 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ATTEST: i05 of the ouncil 191 (11- 14 -88 KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 7 350 continue to receive adequate essential public safety services and other critical government controls during the transition. PASSED this Pti•-- day of , 1988, t � uNINCQ1ATID CITY OF SeaTac "Th. Gateway City" s ■ r •3tSr4. CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES AND CONTROLLED TAXES CO— CHAIRMEN — Barbara Blake and Gene Tonnemaker MAP OF CITY V I c TUKwI LA �Oi I I PEIVTION BOUNDARIES PROPOSED CI OF 5eaTac • r • ` 7 11 r <07 sir AM 61 Co; \t'.A►+.L 3.1,1E-1 C CHRT -15 REVISION 11 /10 /ED wnhcaaTEn CITY of SeaTac "The Gateway city" CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES AND. CONTROLLED TAXES CO— CHAIRMEN Barbara Blake and Gene Tonnemaker GENERAL INFORMATION POPULATION 33,000 o 12TH LARGEST CITY IN WASHINGTON STATE LAND AREA — TOTAL — 12.7 SQUARE MILES AIRPORT — 3.75 NET AREA — 8.95 SQUARE MILES POPULATION DENSITY — 3687 PERSONS /SQUARE MILE ASSESSED VALUATION — $1.6 BILLION o PER CAPITA ASSESSED , VALUATION — $48,700 1987 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES -- )$375 MILLION NUMBER OF SERVICE PROVIDERS — 41 LNINCOFPORATED CITY OF SeaTac "TA. Gateway City" CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES AND CONTROLLED TAXES CO— CHAIRMEN Barbara Blake and Gene Tonnemaker CITY OF SeaTac STUDIES CHARLES DIBBLE, JULY 30, 1987 o Funded by Sea —Tac Community Council o Defined First Year Budget of City o Total Revenues $7,696,000 o Total Expenditures 7,328,000 o Reserves 368,000 GEORGETTE GROUP, OCTOBER 31, 1988 o Funded by King County o Lead Agency -- Boundary Review Board o Projected Budget for 1990 o Total Revenues $10,281,000 o . Total Expenditures 9,112,000 o Reserves 1,169,000 1 14A PA i I•Iit'' igi LUINXITCPWIED iLte: CITY CF To: SeaTac "rho o.>f.•►.y cute. rom: &e: K.C.B.R.B. FILE # 1 SZ3 Exhtin tt 1 CITIZENS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES AND CONTROLLED TAXATION CO- CHAIRYEH - Barbara Blake and Cons Tonaaku October 21, 1988 Proponents of the Annexations Riverton, Thorndyke, and Foster Proponents of The City of Sea Tac Compromise In order . for all our communities to win and meet our objectives and goals before the Boundary Review Board we feel an agreed position is mandatory. Let us keep the decision within the control of the area residents. We believe that both your side and our side will do their utmost to achieve our goals; but our efforts may be to the detriment of each other as long as we contest for the same land. The Boundary Review Board would look very favorable toward an agreement. Our elections would then be only positive issues for all factions. If the decisions are left to the Boundary Review Board we could lose or you could lose. For example, the Boundary Review Board could decide that Military Road South would be a good Boundary or Just as likely could decide that Interstate 5 is a natural service boundary. Please let us explain our principal objectives and perhaps you will understand why . we included your neighborhoods in our original incorporation petition: We want a local government capable in dealing irvith the Port of Seattle regarding. airport related problems. To accomplish this, our boundaries completely surround the • airport. • We want a local government to resolve local issues using airport generated funds. This objective is parallel to . yours. We also would consider being part of Tukwila, because the annexation process is far easier than incorp- ation. Unfortunately for us, Tukwila has not appeared to be willing to annex all of Sea Tac. • We want the Boundary Review Board to approve our boundaries. We believed if our boundaries resulted in unincorporated islands, the BRB would reject our proposal for incorporation. Respectfully yours We felt when we originally drew our boundaries to be contiguious with adjacent cities, corrections would be made byy the affected cities in the future. We want crime to be controlled in our city especially on our :main street, State Route 99 South.. Your annexations would split SR 99 . between the two cities in an area where crime is highest. The result of this split would make crime control more difficult if not impossible: • We want those residents . in the neighborhoods included within incorporation boundaries to favor incorporation. Strong opposition in a 'few neighborhoods such as yours could result in our failure. A : delay of your vote could work to your detriment. The Redondo neighborhood is an example of this situation in Federal Way's effort to improve thier situation a few years ago. The North Hill area by. Normandy Park and adjacent to Des Moines was . deliberately not included within the incorporation boundaries because of their historical opposition during the Highline effort: We .propose to you the following compromise: Use the eastern margin of the road comprising the essentually north south route of 42nd Avenue South /40th Avenue South/East Marginal. Way as the boundary between your annexation and our incorporation proposals. A sketch of this compromise is attached. This compromise will allow us to meet all our objectives and may allow you to meet yours. We want to meet with you to discuss this proposal, please call Barbara at 248 -2298 or Gene at 431 -8060. Without a meeting, we will assume the proposed boudary change is in your and our best interests and thus will request, at the November 15 hearing, the Boundary Review Board to make this change. Again working" together we have a much better chance in meeting our goals and objectives in trying to make this a better neighborhood to live and work. Gene Tonnemaker, Co- Chair Barbara Blake, Co -Chair t: ' AVE 3 AVE r •: tot A' COM PROM1 Ste.' , rabuNCIAc'.`r PPcF�b�ED BY CrrM'EtiS FOR 1MPweev SE ./ tES b' � cc r'rp ,- 0 TA'X� TESTIMONY FOR THE BOUNDRY REVIEW B ROBERT C. CARY NOVEMBER 14, MS K. C. E3. x.13. FILE # E (F„, My name is •Robed Cary. • I live at 1205 S. 196th. I am a member of the committee seeking to • incorporate, the .City of. SeaTac, and I •would like to speak on why I am convinced that the city should be created. : • I was born and raised in Seattle. .iwatched the Seatac Airport being built. My family and I have lived in the same house on Des Moines Memorial Drive for twenty years. We love the area and have watched it change. We have personally felt the impact of the airport, both the positive and the negative. We have experienced noise, crime, traffic, the destruction of adjacent neighborhoods, and we know what jet fuel smells like. On the other hand, the area around the airport is an interesting place to live and it is full of interesting people. We have many good friends who live here just because the airport is here. All of our sons and daughters have worked their way through university by taking local jobs in industries associated with the airport, • jobs that would not exist were it not for the airport. It is significant that the new port director is coming from the Port 01. Rotterdam. Rotterdam is probably the biggest port in the world. Although it is located in the Netherlands, its importance tran*nds that small nation. Rotterdam is a "Europort", serving all of of Northern Europe. To draw a parallel with .Rotterdam, the significance of Seatac Airport trans>lands the Puget Sound Area Seatac serves the region, the nation,the continent. • I need not belabor you with statistics. You know that the number of departures and landings, 3y u s s cV G et projected by the year 2000 will be about 25 million per year, that every two weeks the number of people passing through or visiting Seatac equals the population of Seattle, that the Seatac area has more hotel rooms than Seattle or anywhere else in the Northwest, etc. - I've said all this to emphasize one more time that (a) that the airport is necessary, inevitable, here to stay, expanding, and (b) the the influence of the airport on all of us who live around it simply cannot be overestimated. This Is true now and will be even more so in the future. How are we to deal with this? How can those of us who live near such a formidable giant preserve our homes, our neighborhoods, our way of life ? How can we have some share in •controlling our own destiny? The answer is that all of us who live around the airport must create a city for ourselves. The City of Seatac would be a large, well financed, and well organized municipality which would be positioned to deal with the Airport as an. equal. Such a city, working closely with the Airport, could help plan a future which would support positive economic growth yet at the same time preserve a healthy, safe, and beautiful community. The City would be able to deal with problems associated with the airport such as crime, traffic, drugs, safety pollution, etc. ' But, if the city is not created, and the area around the airport is fragmented into multiple jurisdictions, checkerboard annexations etc., such planning and cooperation would not occur. Not only could we not plan for the future, we will have very great difficulty dealing with present problems such as crime, drugs, prostitution, fire safety and emergency services because these problems radiate out from the airport area and demand unified solutions. We need a city whose focus is on the airport and surrounding developments, not on 1 -5, South Center, or seaside marinas. November 9, 1988 Ms., Gunbjorg Sandvik, Boundary; Review Board: 3600'• 136th 'S. E. , Suite 122 Bellevue, WA. 98006 .. Re: Des Moines Creek Proposed Annexation and Sea Tac :: .Incorporation Boundaries Dear Chair Sandvik: On behalf of the Citizens for Improved Services and Controlled Taxation (Sea Tac) and the-City-of Des.- Moines are jointly. requesting an. amendment to our letter of July 14, 1988, to the Boundary :Review. Board. In that-letter we proposed :a mutually acceptable bm dary between the..proposed.City•of.Sea•Tac and the City of .Des Moinesynorthern projected boundary. That proposed. boundary still overlaps slightly into Fire.District No. 24 Lake. Fire Department). In,:order to resolve any disputes or discrepancies regarding the . provision of fire and emergency medical aid services we are jointly proposing a minor modification to our previous proposal. This modification would provide that the planned Des Moines Creek East annexation by the.City of Des. Moines would be' entirely within the • boundaries. Of Fire District No.•26. The revised:_boundary would'start at the northeast corner of Des Moines Memorial Drive and So. 208th, then:•.proceed easterly along the northern, border of So. 208th to the west -dge of 24th Ave. So., then-proceed south to: So. 210th St., teriy" to - the, east margin: - f - Padific�ighway : So: and tTience 0out1i to =the Des Moines City limits. We believe this,minor ation would resolve any questions of fire service for both the pr =, -� a3,City of Sea Tac and the future border of the City of Des ,,We respectfully. request that the Boundary Review Board -,•orate this proposed boundary. change in - the upcoming City: of Sea Tac'thaaring and the.upcoming Des Moines Creek annexation proposal. Sincerely yours, Barbara Blake, Co -Chair Pat DeBlasio, Mayor Citizens .for Sea Tac Incorporation. City of-Des Moines W7.BRB-2 DRAFT K.C.B.R.B. FILE # 1-).3 EXhibl # 41+ November 12, 1988 Members Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Members, I live in the unincorporated King County community of Foster. I am one of many resident leaders actively working to annex the. Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, and most recently Cascade View neighborhoods to the City of Tukwila. I am writing to express my concern over the King County Council's and the Sea -Tac City proponents' request to move the Tukwila annexation areas' western boundary to 42nd Avenue South. This proposal is not acceptable to the citizens of the annexation areas because it divides our natural community in half. Our neighborhood is defined by the South Central School District. We would like to keep our options open for annexing the entire school district into the City of Tukwila. Our small area identifies strongly with Tukwila. Our children and Tukwila children attend the same schools. We share the same community and senior center. Tukwila police teach the DARE program in our schools. We go to the same churches, shop in the same grocery store, and go to the same annual community celebration, Tukwila Days. When Foster High School has a football game, annexation residents and Tukwila residents gather together in the freezing cold to watch the game in a sense of community spirit. We share many common bonds with Tukwila. We want to see our neighborhood remain intact and further improve under the leadership of the City of Tukwila, which is why we started our annexation drives in the first place. If the western boundary of our annexation areas is drawn at 42nd, it will shatter our community. Sea -Tac proponents say that Highway 99 is not an ideal boundary because it splits the highway between two police jurisdictions. We argue that 42nd should not be split for the same reason. Crime, prostitution and drug trafficking has not been limited to Highway 99. It has spilled over into our residential neighborhood. We find condoms and syringes in our front yards. We've been burglarized repeatedly. We're tired of watching prostitutes walk our streets and use our church parking lots to conduct their business. Drawing the boundary at 42nd will not solve the jurisdiction problem. It could make crime issues even worse for residents while destroying our neighborhood by dividing it in half at the same time. The residents of this area would like to see the boundary between the annexation areas and the proposed City of Sea -Tac drawn at Military Road. This boundary would encompass the South Central School District and allow our community to remain intact. Our plan was to annex Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke to Tukwila which would give Cascade View a contiguous border with the City of Tukwila, allowing that area to annex as well. Since we've been presented with the opportunity to re- examine our boundaries, we would like the Boundary Review Board to resolve the boundary dispute between the annexation areas and the incorporation_area , by drawing the line on Military Road, a compromise that allows all parties involved to win. On Wednesday, November 8, the resident leaders of annexation met with the Sea -Tac proponents at their request to try to resolve our boundary differences before the November 15 hearing. Sea -Tac proposed 42nd as a compromise, which we rejected for the reasons outlined above. We offered the counter - proposal of Military Road. Sea -Tac proponents rejected Military Road because they feel the Tukwila police force cane t adequately serve the strip of Highway 99 between 152nd and 2 'vth: W contend an existing police force (Tukwila's) will do a far better job than a non- existing police force (Sea - Tac's) that will not even be operational for at least another two years. We all agree that the current police protection under King County is insufficient. I suspect the Sea -Tac proponents'major reason for wanting to keep our strip of Highway 99 in their city is the tax base. That is a selfish motivation that will not help but harm our community. In fact, residents of this area want our tax dollars to support Tukwila because the city is already *providing us with the social and cultural activities that we use, and will continue to use. If the school district is split and Sea -Tac City presides over half of it, we're afraid Tukwila will stop providing some of the programs mentioned earlier. We identify with Tukwila and want to be a part of their city. On the other hand, we have no connection with Sea -Tac; no feeling of community with them or their movement. Their issues are different. They're dealing with airport noise and a rather large hotel and restaurant industry. We don't have that scale of activity in our area. Their representation is business oriented. Ours is grass -roots residential. In the Georgette study, there is no budget provisions for library services or fire district costs -- things that are important to the residents. The study plans for a city staff of 128 to resolve problems for a city . population of 33,0 where the comparably sized cities of Kent, Auburn and Renton have city staffs of between 350 and 475. On the study maps outlining school districts, South Central is not even included. The survey grossly underestimates the services this area needs. The estimates were made to keep the tax base of Sea -Tac City comparable to the current county rate. Sea -Tac proponents have courted our area businesses, but not our residents. The whole Sea -Tac movement -- their methods, arguements and approaches -- make me personally question what kind of support, services and representation will residents of this "disputed" north end area receive from Sea -Tac? •BRB, page 3 We don't need to speculate as much with the City of Tukwila. When we went to Tukwila and petitioned them to make us part of their city (note: there's been some confusion over this and I just wanted to point out that Tukwila did not come to us, we went to them), they were very supportive and helpful. We asked for pre - annexation zoning and they worked throughout the summer to establish appropriate zoning for our area -- not an easy task or one without controversy. They've held several community meetings in our neighborhood to explain the impact of annexation on the residents. They've worked weekends and nights for us. We even have their home telephone numbers! The contrast between the two movements is staggering. Residents of this area have made a clear choice; we want to be annexed to Tukwila. We think the City of Tukwila will provide better services for the same tax rate as we pay under King County (and far less than we would pay under Sea -Tac City). We'll have access to a local government that has already proven itself to be professional, responsive and true representatives of the people of this area. I could give reason after reason after reason why this area should be a part of Tukwila. I cannot stress that strongly enough. The Military Road boundary -- a larger thoroughfare in this community than 42nd -- makes a logical border that allows access to property east of Military for Sea -Tac jurisdiction. It keeps our natural community intact. It allows Tukwila to expand for its own survival and positioning. It allows Sea -Tac to continue its cityhood movement with still a large revenue base and population. It does not split Highway 99 between two police jurisdictions. And it is the residents' choice. A lot of factions have been deciding our future for us. The county is involved, Sea -Tac businessess are having their say, and the City of Tukwila is being approached to comment on how residents are feeling and reacting to all of this. It is time we stood up for ourselves -- which is the point of my letter -- to let you know how residents of the annexation areas are thinking. If you like, rely on us for information. We do not have access to studies or financial figures, but we'd be happy to give you a tour of our community, show you our landmarks and talk to you about the importance of community and our desire to keep our school district in the same city -- the City of Tukwila. Thank you for your help in resolving these boundary issues. We appreciate your involvement and are confident you will make the right decision for our community. Again, please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sin9erely, Rena Shawver 4318 S. 140th Seattle, WA 98168 (h) 431 -8960 (w) 583 -6581 page 4 .ng County Council Members ty of Tukwila Officials anexation Resident Leaders and Cascade View) Tattle Times )mmunity Voice .11ey Daily News .ghline Times Tattle P -I e, the undersigned resident leaders of the Riverton, Foster, 'horndyke, and Cascade View annexation areas, agree with and .upport the contents of this letter: � &7A 2, ' 4/4/3/ :o. /Y8- Ck7 /39/9 3•2, Avc So 7144A, 90444 X /3258 40 0Lai. ido. Aizs7 if03› " : ` -4( fgi'a 1//3 S. l 3° 2,6 f48 4,z4/3/ so /Y 8 98/6S 7 . (4 i Sr t9/6 • 6 Oreater,.Highlino Community •Parks Board • Sunset Activity Center 1908 South :140th Seattle, Washington 88168 K.C.B.R.B. FILE;# �Sy3 TO: -:_Boundry Review Board; . FROM; The Greater Highline Community:Parks Board DATE: November 15.,1988 At the November 14th meeting. of the Greater Highline- Community Parks .Board' the following resolution was passed: "Be,it resolved that the Greater Highline Community Parks Board endorses the incorporation of the City of Sea Tac." • Dorothy ,Harper President, • Greater Highline Community Parks Board. Planning and Development Services McConnell/ Burke 7834 Southeast 32nd Street Suite 212 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 (206) 232 -6115 RONALD L. McCONNELL, AICP Mr. McConnell has extensive experience in both the public and private sector. He has headed the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD), the Land Use and Environmental Planning Division of the Puget Sound Council of Governments, the Washington State Land Planning Commission and the Planning Departments for the Cities of Bremerton and Redmond, Washington. He has also served as Director of Planning for NBBJ, a Seattle based architecture /planning consulting firm. He has been active in the American Planning Association and has held various chapter offices. He was president of the Washington State Chapter for the 1981 -1983 term and served as Co -chair of the Host Committee for the 1983 National American Planning Association annual conference in Seattle. Mr. McConnell has also served as a Design Commission member for the City of Mercer Island and as a Planning Commission member for the City of Redmond. He has taught urban planning courses and currently serves on the Visiting Committee for the College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Washington. Mr. McConnell is a co- founder and partner of McConnell /Burke. He has full technical and administrative responsibility for a wide variety of public and private projects. His extensive background and pragmatic approach is particularly well suited to meeting a client's planning or development needs. He serves as Hearing Examiner on a contractual basis for the cities of Gig Harbor, Kirkland and Mercer Island, provides pro -tem Hearing Examiner services to Snohomish County, pro -tem Zoning Adjustor /Shoreline Hearings Officer Services for King County, has provided planning expertise to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and has served as project manager on planning studies for Pierce County and the Cities of Bonney Lake, Normandy Park, Redmond and Spokane. In addition, he provides professional advice to a number of private clients. Mr. McConnell has a very broad background due to the diverse experience he has obtained. His primary areas of expertise and interest are: FACILITY /SITE FEASIBILITY o Unigard Site Selection Study, Bellevue, Washington o Bellevue Multi - Agency Governmental Site Feasibility Study, Bellevue, Washington o Lakeview Center, Kirkland, Washington o Redmond Watershed Study, City of Redmond, Washington o Site Evaluation, Lake Washington School District DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SERVICES o Development permits, shopping center, Fairwood, King County o Conversion Analysis, Friendly Village of Redmond, Redmond, Washington o Shopping Center Rezone, Benson Hill, King County o Silver Lake Annexation and Zoning►, Everett, Washington o Multifamily Rezone, Federal Way, King County o Shopping Center Rezone, Panther Lake, King County o Commercial Rezone, Federal Way, Washington COMMUNITY PLANNING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION K.C.3.R.B. FILE # /72,3 o Land Use Plan, City of Redmond, Washington o Goals and Policies for Regional Development, Puget Sound Council of Governments o Snohomish Subregional Development Plan, Puget Sound Council of Governments o Open Space Study, Governor's Niaqually River Task Force, Olympia, Washington o Comprehensive Plan, City of Bonney Lake, Washington. o Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Public Information Program, Pierce County, Washington o Zoning Code Update, City of Spokane, Washington o Hearing Examiner, Cities of Gig Harbor, Kirkland and Mercer Island o Hearing Examiner Pro -Tem, Snohomish County o Zoning Adjustor /Shoreline Hearings Officer Pro -Tem, King County 1 2 3 4 5 6 WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King 7 County and its cities should work together to identify future 8 annexation areas," and 9 WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King 10 '11 12 13 WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King 14 County should support incorporations when formation of cities is 15 appropriate to assure adequate facilities and services for growth 16 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan," and 17 WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "interlocal 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Ron Sims November 14, 1988 INTRODUCED BY Greq Nickels 1919C:SM:mis PROPOSED NO. 88 -855 MOTION NO. 7359 A MOTION expressing King County's position on the proposed Tukwila annexations: Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster. County should play an active role in municipal annexations, SUPPORTING THEM WHEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, AND OPPOSING THEM WHEN INCONSISTENT," and agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within agreed -upon annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states the processes of identifying future annexation areas and adopting interlocal agreements "should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, landowners and other governmental agencies," and WHEREAS, both Tukwila and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee claim Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster should be within their jurisdiction, resulting in a dispute which must be resolved before the annexation and incorporation proposals are submitted to the voters, and K.C.6.R.B. FILE # Exh ibft # # L 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 735. WHEREAS, King County has identified several critical issues of: 1) boundaries that do not split communities; 2) continuation of surface water management, and 3) preparation of a transition plan which will insure adequate public safety services for the affected resident, and WHEREAS, King County has identified other issues within the categories of: 1) regional and local public service delivery; 2) achieving Comprehensive Plan regional policy goals; 3) capital improvement projects; 4) revenues; and 5) expenditures, which have not been addressed by Tukwila's annexation proposals or the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal, and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila which addresses the issues named above would have enabled the county and city tc assure Riverton's, Thorndyke's and Foster's residents that they will receive optimal public services, programs and facilities but no such agreement has been done, and WHEREAS, the King County council believes at least the critical issues must be addressed prior to approval of annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The King County executive and council hereby request the boundary review board deny Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster unless: A. The western boundary of the proposed annexations is moved from Highway 99 South in order to preserve the natural commercial community on both sides of the highway in a single jurisdiction, and this also provides a basis to resolve the boundary dispute between Tukwila and the Sea -Tac incorporation, and B. The continued provision of surface water management must be required as a needed urban service prior to approval, and C. Tukwila must submit a plan acceptable to the BRB to assure the residents at Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster that they will 1919C:SM:mls (11- 14 -88) -2- 5 10 12 13 14 � 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 continue to receive adequate essential public safety services and other critical government controls during the transition. PASSED this ( ' . day of ATTEST: f the C ouncil 1919C:SM:mis (11- 14 -88) -3 - .: KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1988. . November 15, 1988 Ms. Gunbjorg Sandvik, Chair Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA. 98006 Dear Chair Sandvik: Respectfully submitted, s(' Pat DeBlasio, Mayor City of Des Moines W7.BRB Attachment CITY HALL 21500 11TH AVE. SO. 0754595 POLICE DEPT. 21640 11TH AVE. SO. 175.1101 1' THE r �>G2�etl nd CITY DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 MUNICIPAL COURT 21530 11TH AVE. SO. 0754557 a f 2. /21_4, K.C.B.R.B. FILE # Exhibit 1/1 nil Re: Des Moines Creek Proposed Annexation and Sea Tac Incorporation Boundaries On behalf of the Angle Lake Fire District (Fire District 24) Commissioners and the Des Moines City Council, we are writing to modify our request of July 13, 1988 (a copy of which is attached). As indicated in that prior correspondence, the Fire District and the City of Des Moines have resolved their differences and proposed to the Boundary Review Board that our Des Moines Creek East annexation boundaries'be re -drawn to the northern edge of So. 208th Street. We now wish to revise our previous agreement and understanding to exclude a small section of Fire District 24 from the proposed annexation. The revised northern boundary would extend from Des Moines Memorial Drive on the west along the northern edge of So. 208th Street, eastward to the westward margin of the 24th Ave. So. right -of- way, then south to So. 210th St., thence eastward to the eastern edge of Pacific Highway So. and then south to So. 216th St. We jointly believe that this revised boundary will remove any questions or conflicts regarding fire service since the revised Des Moines Creek East annexation will be entirely within Fire District 26 (which serves Des Moines). We respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board adopt these revised boundaries as proposed at the time of the Boundary Review Board hearing on the Des Moines Creek East annexation. 1 r . "Joseph D. Brennan, Chair Board of Commissioners Angle Lake Fire Dept. MARINA PUBLIC WORKS • ELD0. DEPT. 22307 DOCK AVE. S0. 21550 11TH AVE. SO. 5246700 0755525 SENIOR SERVSCSt P.O. SOX ISM 075.1542 July 13, 1988 ge,6 T H E " " CITY DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 Ms. Gunbjorg Sandvik, Chair Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA. 98006 Re: Des Moines Creek East Proposed Annexation Dear Chair Sandvik: On behalf :of the Angle Lake Fire Department (Fire District 24) Commissioners and the Des Moines City Council, we are writing to address issues of common concern regarding the proposed Des Moines Creek East annexation initiated by the City of Des Moines. The proposed annexation has resulted in concerns on the part . of Angle Lake Fire Department regarding service to the proposed annexation areas. After discussion, the parties have resolved their differences and propose to the Boundary Review Board that the proposed annexation boundaries should be withdrawn from the northern boundary of So. 200th Street to a new boundary of the northern edge of So. 208th Street to the north, the eastern edge of Highway 99 to the east and expanded to Des Moines Memorial Drive to the west. The revised Des Moines Creek East boundaries substantially eliminate conflicts between Fire District 24 and the City of Des Moines. The one area of concern left unanswered by the revised boundaries is that portion of land between So. 208th and So. 210th Streets bordered by SR -99 on the east and 24th Ave. So. on the west. This area is currently in the Angle Lake Fire Department and is currently served by that Fire Department. The parties agree that the area should continue to receive service from the Angle Lake Fire Department. Should the Declaratory Judgement indicate that Fire District No. 26 boundaries follow those of the City boundaries in annexations, a contract for service and corresponding fire service levy transfer will be signed between Fire District No. 26 and Angle Lake Fire Department. Should the Declaratory Judgement find that Fire District No. 26 boundaries do not follow. the City's boundaries, the City will contract with Angle Lake Aire Department for fire protection service and transfer of fire service levy to District 24 in that area. CRT KALL POUCE DEPT. MUNICIPAL COURT RARINA PUIDUC WORKS 1 SL00. DEPT. MOOR SERVICES 2117011TH AVE. SO. 21040 11TH AVE SO. 2110111 1 AVE SO. 22307 DOCK AVE. 110. 2111011111 AVE. 110. P.O. SOX 111071 4711.4125 0743201 1714117 524-3700 475.4025 171.1142 ,r- Y Ms. Sandvik, Chair Boundary Review Board July 13, 1988, Page 2 Moreover;.. the parties agree ,to` work cooperatively With the Washington State Legislature to pursue legislation allowing two fire districts to annex . separate portions of a city at one time. it is the intent of the parties to continue fire service as it currently exists. • • We respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board adopt the revised boundaries as proposed thereby eliminating conflict . between the parties. Respectfully submitted, DeBlasi Mayor . City of Des Moines • /sb W1.BRB -LTR Joseph D. Brennan, Cha r Board of Commissioners Angle Lake Fire Department >saaaaa.�.rat: November 15, 1988 Ms. Gunbjorg Sandvik, Chair Boundary Review Board 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA. 98006 Dear Chair Sandvik: B rb ra Blake o- Chair W7.BRB -2 7 J ' . L .'/:". - .. ..i v it Z. i v' v ,..i. THE " ;:tatetLzne .. CITY DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 K.C.B.R.B. FILE # I.1} Exhb!t #/4 Re: Des Moines Creek Proposed Annexation and Sea Tac Incorporation Boundaries On behalf of the Improved` Services. and. Controlled .Taxation • (Sea.Tac) and the City of Des Moines we are jointly requesting an amendment to .our letter of July 14,.1988, to the Boundary Review Board. In •that letter we proposed a mutually. acceptable. boundary between the proposed City of Sea Tac. and the City of Des.Moines' northern projected boundary. That proposed. boundary still overlaps slightly•into Fire.District No. 24 (Angle Lake Fire Department). In order to .resolve any disputes or discrepancies regarding the provision of fire .and emergency.medical aid services•we are jointly proposing,a minor Modification-to our.previous proposal. This .modification would.provide that .the planned Des` Moines Creek East annexation'by the City. of. Des Moines would be within•the boundaries•of Fire District No. •26 The revised boundary would 'start at the northeast corner of Des Moines Memorial Drive and So. 208th, then proceed easterly along the northern border of So.' 208th to the .west edge of 24th Ave. So., then proceed south to So. 210th St., thence easterly to the east margin of Pacific Highway So. and thence south to Moines City limits. We believe this minor .modification would resolve any questions.of • fire service for both the proposed City of Sea Tac and the future border of•the City•of Des Moines. We respectfully request that .the Boundary Review Board incorporate this proposed boundary change in the upcoming City of Sea Tac 'hearing and the upcoming Des Moines .Creek annexation proposal. Sincerely at DeBlas 0, Mayor zens for Sea Tac Incorporation City of Des Moines '�'`:•�l�:Flr'4r�'� • •,; �;•:::. ^�'^":'� 'IN% � � .r�7f= '+ ^• . = : � • ': ��: :�• t ^.'�' :i.`. , 1,;, � '+V. '[ ''; i ��" 'T'�r;� -. :. i ieayvH ALL'.' :•M1x10EDI .st t?iM � . 'Ai r J4T+" ?��5. 3e4'1E '3�.I�rdE�j 'T ^3 ti i Mi • �� `� , MMtf :t T:il:.i.•:' w�A ' a .rRLG:N sciv l NA4 `�.,1, 7 . 1t10IS 11TI6AVL 10.: IIMS 11Th MIL . $0:' , 1151 11TH AY! l0 11107 DOCK AVV. S0. t ' `711IIAN u s"i: R i :� �r z . ?a. �rii' c�. 500., r iba r : ?A 1101 OK 42 ?, . u: . • 11lS400S . ..:. - •.. 0704001 3 a.w.��a 7 ....4ir..rr:, 01!14700 . = zsrw.a.�rr.nii► �• SIS�MIe -.» .��.�•.- :�" ... '.1171141142 - Ms. Gunbjorg.Sandvik, Chair King County Boundary Review Board 3600 136th SE, Suite 122 Bellevue, WA. 98006 Dear Chair Sandvik: ge4 THE " #aleehzn d" CITY DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 9S19a • . On behalf Citizens for Improved. Services and Controlled Taxation, (Sea Tac) and the City of Des Moines (Des Moines) and in the spirit of compromise, we are writing regarding the proposed annexation known as Des Moines Creek East and the proposed Incorporation of the City of Sea Tac. The northern boundary of the proposed annexation and the southern boundary of the proposed incorporation had been in conflict. We are pleased to report that our conflicts have been resolved and a mutually agreeable boundary of So. 208th St. has been found. This boundary will allow both the City of Des Moines and the potential City of Sea Tac to provide the best possible urban planning and services to the local residents. Des Moines acknowledges the urban nature of the Sea Tac area and .will not oppose the incorporation effort, and, in fact, supports the concept of urban services for . that. area. We firmly:believe that - these agreements will provide:for the best:possible urban services. and lay •the foundation for future cooperation between the City of Moines and the potential City 02 Sea:Tac. This agreement is contingent upon the proposed annexation of• South Angle either denied by the Boundary Review Board or withdrawn by. the City•of Des Moines. In the'spirit• •of cooperation Des Moines agrees not to appeal .the Boundary Review: Board's decision regarding the South.. Angle Lake .annexation. If Fire,_District 26 seeks to intervene in the South Angle Lake annexation, the. City. of. Des Moines agrees • to withdraw the proposed annexation. • an' HALL POUCE DEPT. YUNICPAL COURT swum AMAX aroma a num. nom. Nisi*" somas 2113011TH AVE. SO... 21640 111 1 AYE. 610. 21030 11TH AVE. SO. V307 0001 AVE. 110. 2166011111 AVE. 110. P.O. 110X 66176 1176.4616 11711.1301 6764567 6:Mi700 671.6626 671.1162 Des Moines agrees not to approve any resolutions or accept* any ;pstitions proposing- annsxation'Within the boundaries described in the petition for the City of Sea Tac until after the incorporation election. Sea Tac agrees not to oppose any annexations . south of So. 208th St. and west of Highway 99 prior to the incorporation election. We are . jointly requesting that during the review process for both the Sea Tac incorporation petition and the Des Moines Creek East annexation, that the Board redraw these boundaries from the east margin of Pacific Highway South; westerly along the north margin of So. 208th St. to the west margin of Des Moines Memorial Drive. This letter is not intended to jeopardize the Sea Tac incorporation petition or the Des Moines Creek East annexation south of So. 208th St. It is further recommended that the boundaries anticipate the proposed SR 509 extension and south airport access. This roadway could become a natural barrier and an easy landmark. Until SR509 extension is closer to reality, the south• boundary for Sea Tac suggested for this compromise should be the .north side of So. 208th St. and the eastern edge of Highway 99 to Des Moines Memorial Drive to the west. Des Moines agrees to participate in transportation solutions . which affect south access terminus. We respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board favorably consider our logically negotiated boundaries. This boundary will serve to delineate the northern boundary of the Des Moines Creek East annexation and the adjacent southern:: boundary for the Sea Tac incorporation. We recognize that the Boundary Review Board is the final authority regarding any modification of annexation or incorporation boundary petitions. We respectfully request your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, CITIZENS FOR SEA TAC CITY OF DES MOINES INCORPORATION ara Blake, Co -Char /sb W2.BRB2 Pat DeBlasio,'mayor 1.9.e.7s./ •• K.C.B.R.B. FILE # ic}.3 Exhibit # .)0 7-; i7Z4.777-e,-44', t74 , v/ 7E -. -- i e ' 772-e"..z '..., .- „.., - .4,,e, i , , , • e-- ..,A, a.... ..72,4,..-rn.4,1.2.:_ -az.-.7,44.4,-,-.,...i• i.,oce:,-e--- .-/6 - -,.e” , A7-7e-er- ../ 4' e e , Aec-44.1 -e---d-Ca:t 0:7:.e6/ 4 4-n4, 4.7,,Aeey--•1-ex-c / / 2:-.4(eft-ne:06 a ez "IL/ "--/4 el': • •Srf. -7 t' Z_ /47 - Z. -• -&,• ,(e.. .. .‘., ...24-/Le2 gr.-Az • .3 -Axe- a- geGe-- -24L ze-64€,cee-.2-1 eeyA: 7,-!:7--dzree--) 1a,c4 -2 J -dee-Z`e , - - / - r--)re.:40:-,-Tei (2_52 -2-7-21-91-a-4170.--7-z.. -,-;-:-.2-.) -ift-se- 4 <7,4eitee ..0-974-- X -, -or Ar-e-e ,-- g &p Zi2d I le) 1 6.0- 7 f-etys.) -4 -l.fadf -VZ : - : . / 0 r Z / c'e--, ' 6;---4 -,--)-z- i --d--A ,-- 4 ‘, ,f6 2" / .tee/7/,-&-) -CA'',1/ ..e-g-reg /4/ 2i -"Triza . ik e 46 ..-, • ;Iv - '7 iil L4..) 4.1‘C‘re .e41"d'al" ZA‘2,e#76e4 "7,1f44.e;r7'11#e ./71Z,.e'Ke4 iI' Adoru: 42% ia•t/iev -4/-7r-/ -4 7-e."e• 41,47 rr , -€4"-c • 77'-e-A 'a`rvc-Z-/ •-••3/4- -eiced/ 47 - t4,0•7 1 c4 • 7 - • ,, ..e J & _y_ - g2-t-/ - • 77 at1 4/ <deer" se7t-e-- 'die& 1:7 • v 14/ 1 41S! # 3IIJ 13 "i`' 41.4% 4ff- r2.. 47A , 72.4iv 77 / r; �- �_r. 4.T ��. g (7 21 1 •'r (77 , t /U - - -PP-7 - -4* (77/2 4 -zzA V 7 0. 7 4,- 7 14-/Ae r yc.‘ 172 1. 71 41v- i -2,"p 7 7z.44-,24.4 4 7 - - 411 • - ? /_,C% - 6 _91 ,0/ aPP2-,ev 4•t ' r 7 ,c y r724(4 11 i, , pw f/ / G/;,-A01"4 /2t- �71/�' 'p ?L ?7 /". , 703-X7 ; /. G•' 7 41.v Tj i 1 /7- (la 11,4 22,7p79,‘, r7G� � te- 'rz • r--7,-A-6-4 47/7172". • 4 1f2- - 22le-Orpir "A7727r 2 4' �• 4r. � . 4.P / Ar • r.?'�,,z �-► �j ` ,. ' tea / ?'t'a' " '. rh", S rizo- 7,1 /A 4- to" -7zilyz44" 77 42" (2(-777-'7- 77.1 & 71-v- ✓:'f" 'jcr "747 4,/://2' /l7J' /��%�rli?� !� / l‘r rK • •1 •' r/P 71 - - ! •, t7A - �,.y72 ' ? ,�2✓�' '?1- rin -y "7261 P fr r vember 16, 1988 undary Review.Board of King County 00 136th S.E., .Suite 122 llevue. Wa. 98006 Sea Tac incorporation . and TuKwila annexations ar Members of the Board: did not sign up to speaK at the Nov. 15, 1988 meeting on the oposed TuKwila annexations and the Sea Tac incorporation. However, I watched and listened to the presentations Tuesday night, I alized that I wanted to express myself on these matters. fortunately, because my daughters are performing in a school ncert, I will be unable to attend the Nov. 17th continuation of the v. 13th meeting. Therefore I am sending this letter to you with her residents of my neighborhood. live at 14120 34th P1. S. within the area Known as Cascade View. I came aware of the Sea Tac incorporation effort sometime after the titions were submitted and accepted. When I became aware, I was rY upset. If we ever became part of a city, I always assumed it uld be TuKwila. Our whole community identification is with Tukwila. cause of activities involving the South Central School District ( rent organization meetings, levy and bond drives, school concerts, pool athletics, etc.) our libraries, shopping, church, etc. we sociate daily with the citizens of TuKwila:. Our children attend day mp , athletic camps, craft activities, dances and other activities onsored by the TuKwila ParKs and Recreation Department. Seniors and her adults also participate in many TuKwila ParKs activities and ents. " TuKwila Days" is the big celebration of the summer. In her words, we have a viable community that exists right now in every ✓ but name and some services. I watched the video shown by the incorporation proponents. I ticed that very few pictures were taKen north of Highway 518. It Dears to me that along with most of the supporters of incorporation, e interests of the group lie mostly in the southern area of the oposed incorporation effort. If the incorporation proponents really d the interests of the residents in the Riverton, Foster, ThorndyKe d Cascade View areas in mind, they would understand that to put the stern incorporation boundary anywhere but along Military Rd. is to lit our community. To leave this small chunK of the South Central hool District out of the TuKwila annexation would be destructive to N sense of community. Tuesday_ night, .State Senator Eleanor Lee said. that a community must really be desired by the residents :to be viable . •1 agree the proponents of Sea Tac `sh understand that we don't desire Sea' Tac and .feel We are being railroaded into something we don't want. To sum up. I feel Military Rd. is the logical and reasonable boundary. I believe TuKwila has the resources and ability to handle the pubi•ic safety and water management problems the'annexations would bring. Please don't split our community. Ruby- Marie McGibbon 14120 34th P1. S. Seattle, 14a. 98188 " na •' a is Joan . :eryhew. T. live at 11.2631 SO 142t11 it • T' husband and I started the Thorndyke annexation. About three years _ .o .'e ;;ot di>appointeti 1.7it:7 Kin:: County 1 cause they .,'are Jett in in Jo nary E- :+Jart:'aent:i anc: they c - - :1 t: r.Ipt Lve to our scsoc'l:i. r ;z'n i?:; eC' ho 1 w'i nne : :i_i • I t.lot. "':: '']f3. :. to h•? :: t .nec hilt we didn't even kno`'' where to b in :'o L iin' h it at that tine. Tien last year _:inn: County :£a.s try in to : ;` .)t zone an area by o:a=. rer:t:.tl ''lou:; e a7ain. e Bled fouht. the :, O'_1 ,hie, for over 20 year... Then we heard that. Tiverton was attempt in-' to annex and our rental was in it so that satisfied lis, but we wailed our residence in Tukwila. We then heard of Fosters effort and went to one of their :ueet.ins where we found their boundry came within 2 blocks of us. We decided if we wanted in Tu(t<kwila we had to do it. We had 1 week to collect enouMh signatures to P'o on the ballot with the other two annexations. ' :.le always hopes Cascade would get workin; in their area and they were waiting to he akked. Our area has 4600 residents but apro.:. 900 re ri,tereci voters and 350 who had voted in the last eiection..A.11 the rest are apart: ent dwellers, another reason we wanted to halt their taking' over our neiThborhood. Kin= County did't care. Fbr years we have associated with Tukwila using their center for dance classes, paintin?.classes, t enior center and holiday activities. In fact the picture is of Ty g year old dauzhter when she was three '.no. attendin? her 1st Halloween party at the center and everyone since. envied Tukwila residents all their improvements and we have always felt a part of then. We aon't tf feel ..eatac has any interest in our problems or they irw would have come out and canvased our nei :hhor- hood before add in; us . I a.m•very unhappy with the 42nd boundary because we still have a lot of problems and want curbs, sidewalks and and er,3round v; irin but they don't want to give us the hiway revenue. Because we ident *fy with Tukwila we also identify with their problems With our proposal Seatac would get all they wanted not as much of 99 but then they wouldn't have to deal with our problems. Tukeila would end up being a nice city, one we scould be proud of. It would change Zfro'n a tiny town with one of the biggest interchanges to a larger city with a school district, a hospital and a cemetary and we hope they would build the new community center in our area. This would give them the residents they need to 2;et on Metro Council and do somethin about the traffic. Please excuse my typing' I' very sick with the flu. K.C.B.R.B. FILE # 1.0,) Exhibit # �� PETER. L. BUCK BRENT. CARSON JAY P. DERR • JOEL M. GORDONt • AMY L. KOSTERLITZ King County Boundary Review Board 3600 136th Avenue S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation: Deletion of "South Tukwila" From the Proposed Incorporation Area Dear Board Members: We represent M.A. Segale, Inc., a property owner in the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation area. Segale's property along the Green River is in the southeastern part of the proposed incorporation area, and is bordered on the north, east, and south by the existing cities of Tukwila and Kent (see attached map). Segale's property spans the existing Tukwila city boundary. The property, used in one integrated operation, is partly in Tukwila and partly in unincorporated King County. Segale's property and that of the neighbors, referred to here as "South Tukwila," is topographically and functionally separate from the major portion of the proposed incorporation area on the Sea -Tac plateau to the west. We request, on Segale's behalf, that South Tukwila be deleted from theSea -Tac incorporation area. All parties, including the Sea -Tac incorporation proponents, seem to agree that South Tukwila should not be included in the incorporated city of Sea -Tac. Instead, this area should be targeted for future annexation to the City of Tukwila. Segale has been cussing annexation with the City of Tukwila for some time, and seems clear that annexation to Tukwila will occur. Statutory Requirements }.: .. •.� ..r, a lit` n ot LAW OFFICES OF � . ,Lt:riia 13 6 BUCK 8 ,GORDON WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902 1011 WESTERN AV£NUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 382-9540 November 17, 1988 In RCW 36.93.180, the legislature enumerated the objectives that the Boundary Review Board should attempt to achieve. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. The decisions of the boundary review 'ALSO ADMITTED IN ALASKA .% ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA • King County Boundary Review Board 17, 1988 Page 2 •Fr }Fr}erei nv v.i nw:•m.+..w.sw}+rex • 4: {. ^v`.• }:•Y: };•;r:3 } }Y: }Y7r v�'v:7Aiv'n :i•:vi :r }F: }TFi� rYe i C{L:v rrrr :v: vr..•.:n: rrA). }rm rn rvN Fi'�S�:: 'r:4N. N• � • •�s ]f1Yii p. �y�. { y �t4'i�,tT.^�:�IQI�1�:�'+��fV �ti'��:IfY��}� :��vY•A:.1��1.�Y.V i'� . F!i{ H �•. I •{ � aJ} titi�. �� I{ y 4 : C i • ^ �.: y �:v:i }9:4 }iT4)):{V)i }:{•} }X4:3 })n`: }i.4 ?ti {4):LJ)) %: )):4hW . +` . 4h++ Y1•JD!J% ?Y %•}•�.J;r {4Yi..%•JY.. *TJ:{.v3'•�}}rJSy board shall attempt to achieve the following ' objectives: 4 cM .yr.M . i L ;:;:�i;`f•:+R•:;/ii:i: i:iNi�/N'.i:i:r,.}hY.• W FZ>.YA/.a�Y! iG:iNKiL:�Y r. M1+ V. 3}}:•}. 4X• iJ i:•: i:) i}): 4: 4) iX i{: AN{{ i+ 4'.{}} TJ ;ti4 }YR;•: {4} }:1. +' }fi } }Y.4 }) }iri• (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution o purpose districts; (7) #It?:i�fih!; inactive special (8) Incorporation as cities or towns annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; . . The Washington Supreme Court has stated that these objectives are "more than merely`aspirational." Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 9 v. Spokane County Boundary Review Board, 97 Wn. 2d 922, 926, 652 P.2d_1356 (1982) Preserving Communities and Using Physical Boundaries The statute requires the Board to preserve natural neighborhoods and communities, . and to use physical boundaries, including highways and land contours, as city boundaries. The Washington Supreme Court has defined "natural neighborhoods" to mean both distinct geographical areas and socially and locationally distinct groups of residents. Spokane County Fire King County Boundary. Review Board November 17, 1988 Page 3 Protection. District No. 9 v. Spokane County Boundary Review Board, 97 Wn. 2d 922, 927 n.2, 652 P.2d 1356 ;(1982). South Tukwila is located on the floor of ,the Green River valley, at the foot of a. :steep hillside far .below the Sea -Tac plateau. Indeed there are over 380 of elevation difference between the valley floor and the plateau to the west. In addition to the hillside, 1-5 acts as a barrier isolating South Tukwila from the plateau. There are few access routes across the hillside and I-5, and. thus South. Tukwila is functionally separate from the neighborhoods, communities, and activities on the plateau. Rather,;. South Tukwila is part of a natural neighborhood and community in the valley along the west bank of the Green River. For four generations, families in this area have seen themselves as part of Tukwila. Topography and roads natura].ly link South Tukwila with the population center in Tukwila immediately to the north. Creating Logical Service Areas The Board should also attempt to create and preserve logical and practical municipal service areas. Because South Tukwila is currently in unincorporated King County, some municipal services are currently provided by a police station, fire station, and water district in the unincorporated area on the Sea -Tac plateau. However, no sewer or storm water management systems currently serve South. Tukwila. The steep hillside and few access' points: across I -5 demonstrate that it is neither logical nor practical to serve South Tukwila from the Sea -Tac plateau. Tukwila currently provides municipal services to its southern boundary, bordering South Tukwila. The portion of Segale's property. in Tukwila currently receives police protection, fire protection, sewer service, and storm water management from Tukwila. Because Tukwila already provides these municipal services to a portion of Segale's property, the logical tie -in for provision of municipal services to the balance of Segale's property and neighboring properties in South Tukwila is the City of Tukwila. Tukwila has existing capability to provide these additional services. preventing Irreaular and Impractical Boundaries Including South Tukwila in the proposed incorporated city of Sea -Tac would perpetuate irregular, arbitrary, and impractical : King County Boundary Review Board • November 17, 1988 Page 4 boundaries, and would fragment government in the Green. River valley. The Board has the opportunity to create a regular boundary that is practical. Presumably it would run along I -5, Orillia Road, the top of the hill, or some other logical service area boundary. To use the existing Kent and Tukwila irregular boundaries to define the new city of Sea -Tac would be to miss a timely opportunity to create boundaries that meet your statutory objectives. Summary .. Given the Boundary Review Board's statutory mandate to preserve natural neighborhoods and communities, to use physical boundaries such as highways and land contours to define cities, and to create logical and practical municipal service areas, logic and reason dictate that South Tukwila should be deleted from the proposed, city of Sea -Tac. Pet- 'L. Buck Attorney for M. A. Segale, Inc. Segale \L11148.ms1 BURIEN / Lae Norma Pa 5 16 Tukwila 5, Renton Sea•Tac Incorporation Study PROPOSED SEA-TAC INCORPORATION BOUNDARY Map Accompanying Buck & Gordon Letter to Boundary Review Board Dated November 17, 1988 Met Goolget is GI ouP Figure 1-2 1 November 17, 1988 King County Boundary Review Board. .3600 136th Avenue S.E.., Suite 122 Bellevue., 98006 Re: ,Proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation Dear Members: Enclosures VINCENT COGUCCIO 4317 South 188th Street Seattle, Washington 98188 K.C.8.R:6: FILE # Ise 3 xhibit # Jqk We are owners of approximately. 40 acres of property located in the valley immediately south of .the .current south border of the City of Tukwila. These 40•acres have been included in the description of the proposed "Sea -Tac • City" even though the property several hundred. feet•below and across`Interstate from-the .center of the proposed.new city. In other. words,. our 40 acres is totally separated from the "Sea -Tac City" area. A legal description. of this property. is attached as Exhibit "A ". We do not want•to be part of "Sea -Tac ; City ". Our property is divided from the Sea -Tac area'by.both Interstate 5-and a ridge of substantial grade (over..20%) and we are. not•confident that this new. Sea -Tac City will be capable:of pro.viding the utility and other services we do and will require. For example, how will .this new Citvservice' our property. with sewer? We :ve that •the barrier created by I -5 and the .grade of the hill .which separates us from Sea -Tae will • make sewer service very, very •costly at 'best. Sewer service is just one of our concerns. For • this and other reasons, we would prefer to annex to the City of Tukwila which is our immediate neighbor to the north. Based upon the above we ask that you remove our property :from the area being•considered for incorporation as Sea -Tac City. Sincerely, Vincent Coluccio P40 1 S: • • is lo I441i/ tame swoop W gaff/ M A e.t.a... 111' llt 111 111 f9 1 11m 10019 4I1 0011111 M 00100 1 p/ 11 sears. **Hi A 1011. N.O. 1. log r+M'111 1111 ( A1100 11811 slum 111 111111, 1111 toe lflaea 1f71*1 N 111 S110 WWII 011101/ /1196 119 M11go of fee 11ttne. 19 PaaLT 911 NICIIPf1M1 Mu 1111111 IS '911' 11 /.1.1119 '10ore1' •aanl Settee 11.1. Vane I11f111 1,111 some 11 OUSWAl 1 111 se./ S1 AML 119111. are iel9Nlnt agate *Am' M - NI1W1 muss 7191 sag 1,1W111 11 011 19 11(111. as If 011110 0 ful 00010. LAI 4111 1oe11oc out Ia I9• t0 11911804* 1119 1. 11191 '1' 911 a t ome N fog sagest, 1111 of f1191 '1' 1112 UIeal(Iles eel t1 1 /l1 019/ 10 11 1 Of T11 S1 % 191 111 71 1 N ft• a l l 1 MIS .1/11.1 1011 I91 Shit 11 10011 111 111 1111 If Ml 111aur. sr1 sego. fea9 rem/ e 04 gees" $ 0191 04111 I.O. SAO T41gN10110 0. 1190 11111:11. 11 11(1 -!1111 (1111 11 OMart 10 A Meow 011 tone f1? 1111 1111 OAS solos. 1.11. 11 IrKOSIIMSn 110 N MIfIMl 40 N I11 0tA11*3 W etMlfl M 111 .1311. les 110111 I .r 11. 1111 711», gut. 11e091 I0s101119 Of 00 11 1 N IIgla S. IIU no 1 0111.1119 1111 Are foe g 1 N A AS 1 oele It 1.110.1 nu 1111 eve OAST Of t9 /9119„ sorts M 1111 11 1. femme 91111 N 11110ca -11111 0*111111 *3 MII11-11111 11r111 M teell- 1111.1 ten u1) t1 11a/Mt 1110909 11 10 111 Sant el 10AI 1111111199 19 TO 1111'1 SAO 11 4 '11199 00,11 Wt1le9 11 mese N. lelr II11110(1 N M 1119.11 aids lw1I1ll, 11111 Ip•SIH 110 Weer of 11111 NSC11e101 M/ Cesar. A 'OW 111(1 0001 11 *0 1111111 1012. ell Mutt was 901 11110010 I• N 1111 /e 1111 10 1911 111(111HOPI sill emus - 1aCNW. 11111.010 Al 111 •IVt /l.* x101 11 /1111111010 1s 111 . fog. O HQI1 Manta. Ins 11111 11. S. ills Me/ee11 1111 % .1II1. 1101131 e 4 1111 01,111 ley 10011 111,19 a Main• 11,401 M 11 101110 11 10110001 AI A t111 tee 111.1 091 911144 10 t9 ?111 1 Mole N tse 101100. 1011 911 1111 011011 19 *1111 1111 N Mt SI 1 AS 111.1 1.04.11 0/11 1 1t. 191 OOVW1 wore e9 aa1y1(t 40 Iee.eo. MAO N 1111, 111 1141 1111 fear!/ 1 17111 AVOW elf tall Se M /R 1013111 101149 M AffeeN ltIll 1 /111 1* *1Me M1(1 II el M1Ne 11 aaa4C511. (WOO Sfl10 IS (.151.11* seepage SI A 9.IOIQ 111(1.1 111 fowl am 11.9101 r 101 1 1181 111911111. 191411 1111 If 1110191 nil 00 11.01111 Sent N tie flag e1tJt1111 At 111 1111. K (*13. O0 Int W8 lie all elfti150 11 1111 1 71/1 an Ile 111111111 119.110. 011 110111 11 101(11 toe 1111111 1bin•MMfl 0111 10001 no we 1 et 111 fo 1 1135 a PAM Of 1111 11111 N1C*1M1011. 7e11 1991 11. a. toe eats seem 10 fog aMe110 snore N same 11m I011S01 e eases nen 11 00.74 99T 111 0011 0111 110 OAST O9 N 111 1101 1.74191 *3 50 35 to WT /Ise r M VIII It OSSA et 19 111 1 Of Tr 11 1 fan en /1). 10 010 100111 11 70111510 0181 118 0113.0(1 Nast1 *11.,, 1211 WIN 1f$ MS/ 011 11 /et '1.0 0.111 t/11 r 135 free M 011110 IS MS 91. 1O■ *11.1 1111 10 0111111140 AA 7111 (15 0111A101 11 CA1110 On M 111.11 1111 11II• 101 111 Wo 19 8101111 8* 71e 'P11' 1901111.. 1111 531A- 110 181 N's m51. 1e1 •1111 11. 1. no Iereennl9► M to 11111111 .911-111111/ 1111111 Aw setae O 114 fig 119 1. 119 Mpg 11 /• 1110 1111 M 19 .0411 MU ammo. AS W t Cosmos r0 110 fault 99111 Np1 M WWI OW 0 WE N/S 118(8111111 19g A17 fat 111111 110 01/111 a 111 01(7111 ,1.I 1041. nu 11(1111 Wale 11111115 foe It 1111 91(1111111 01 /1.5411 11.1 111 113011997 Of 111 ferle 1110 N 1110 090 M 5011T150 1111 905 W 0. 11,ne1011. 111 1100111 ON115 W 01.40 1111 e 41Tet of 111 Melee se. fence IA1011 /f. loo masf 11. -- f1Econo 10 CERIIFICATEI ' I I n /(MI MECUM /INS -DAY (>f 11.._ 51__11 111 VOLU E - Of WOW v3 rase _____ c(+aM 01 oa111/1 Al Tilt REOIUT 1 /1).Y /r Af ek. "N µ11y/ tflM11 01111 - 4/1 11 Ct NI Mlle NMI T 0nlal' mNra • PANG /L 1 9 of 9711111.8 Oaf • Ho Of 11,11 1 1911 1011 111111 M 1111 141011 7110(1 1 11.11'11• • .1111 1111 sods 11911.90.117 1111, 11.11 1111, M a *3110 11111 10.11 fail S9e1131 N 1111 981 law Of Site 11111 N In 91 50 Nefoligil Al 11(11 00.05 1111101 111.01 11/111111 91.09 SAID *071 1/1.1 -9.1111 sloe. $ Wore)* * V. 111.10 /let. 01 710 1018 r 11 18UN4 Sei1e N toe 1119. 1111111011 00 I1p/I•N -111 M 35(01. P ARCEL 3 teat 101111 r 150 man 1 or f9 111 r untie 1. 111111111 t1 (1141 4 1111. 0.0.. 11 0 (Matt. •11111.1100. Nogg xelealu *! 11111111 M *311/01 18111119 111.. Nee a 19 9111 1111 r 19 1911 11.01 1181 10 111111 Of /4e 111 Of 1111150 f 11111 009 1111 4111 11111 fie ISM/ 1K41-r•V/S 119 0 9119 leers 111113 M 1111 011111 MICE 4111 1 11141'01• V 1.11111101 Of 111.11 111' 1101 19 11flu1(510 Of 0110 & WTI 4111 of ti 1911 00.0 *SIT ON '111 119 A Wt 419 r 1111 111. OA', *3111 MN 1119 111 M71101• (11111 If 1111 VOWEL Of w 0001110 ' 1* 1111 O. SOO 01011 0. 017401 01 1a71 11011351111 M 11.111021 oeuvre 0110 1./21 0(11(111 le. 1741. 0. 100901 11 O 0119111 11011 1111119, MOMS Of WO 0111 0110114 lean 0 0 1, 01.11 Mill. • /M /MIMIC 091911 of 4410 •111115 11400 1 11 1, 110.4e 1111, 11 10 11110111* dingle Of Mr 135(111 - ISIIIVE CERTIFICAtE* MIS MAP COIVIECILY REPRESENTS A IIIW IM.IIt ST ME 011 11'IEN MT MECUM N CON - ►a111ANCE *1114 TIE SOVIET RECOROTIO ACT Al RE St His 1 t1AY1dF ; .� ►' w'v PLl. HEt �7GEiR t ,l. !GALE It/AV' z: ' 4'" 'e's 35/8019 faEtlt[ •'r' REVIEwEOn•/�1ra 1.J. t1. 1J .L . \ L d�� 1 01. G ) PANCIL 0 - CONT. severer m severer S 0111SMARM T ample . 91.11 11. 11 t SMARM or flat 10014 M 111 89 1011tfl* a' late 19 111111 tooter n 1t peals are 11111 N 1, 11 191. 00 sl18ta SI 011111 11 baits Moots 0. 11. 9(15111 11 O 1111111 warn 1115111. .atreM N 11111 SAO SIPS (11 tame 1 e 0. 11.11 nte. ,s 111 001014/ 1 r t 1911 $ 111(11 Oft 19011 111r01 t 1S 181111 O. 1111111 11 0111(./ 111111 M 001.11 it 1180 0181 101 N, 1147. *0 1110000 110000 at 350111 101 m 1111111. 35190 r SAID 11111 01P1IIl 190(1 1 9 0, 111.41 roll, *3 A 9111 el el 1111 110 r M Men 41.01 ref SO eels r 11. 1310 111 4 r A 11t Mre N 018 1111 0 r 5 10411 a 00 N 1 171 11 110 /8 9/.-3 w11 11 0111 110141) 11101 4110 0 1/ 1 $ •1111110 r 111.11 111, foe f MM IH111 r 1111 01.11 1111 M 011 1111 111 50.01 1181 01 11011 1111 9 soft l teat tor 11O 94. Sawa 11111 r 910 00010011 00010011 1f1t CM OS St 19 1000 * 1, 91110 191 0101000 10 1/1811 1. N1/lle Moe A Sl V MSS* 4810 1810 sill tin 110 n N O 00110.000110.11 . 1.ot. 111 1/1 AMMO r Peet, Pet1 Mee 11 0 • MM von 11011511 1Am r 0 SAID 1001. 111.11 41 .( • M• • 119 . .11• I. 871.0 Age fume 0 0 0. 414.10 1111a 190(9 0 15 0. 140.0 1111/ 10001 0 1 1. 91.11 A1111 8s10. I ?14 1. 111.10 1111. 11 $ 011n Sr 1001111100 1111 11, 01119001000011 111 01111 S 119 r 011111 1135 Sang 35 38t11 1t111 If 1141 tea q1. more mor movie 0. 1. 11 - 11. ISIS 11111 11/11 N 711e 001 N a 1911 meal 11119 N 1,101.11 1111 es 14111 me115 to 9 iR 11/195/ IIM (*111 r It11 mote r 0101 1111 11 so 4 Itoe 1111, 5 9 N 11 e 51'5 ■ feal *111 0011111 else 1110011811! 400 111 U Mae 1111 tee 111111 A latest N 1,111.01 11 u 11. 1991a A eau/ 1111:11 r 110.11' M Alec /1111,11 r M O r N M M 11 114.11 foot IoM Ie M( least / 'N'II' 1. 111.41 teeth 9 0 1004 1*11 1113 1071 9 a rO1 -loran e1 *1100. 1 11 $. 11.11 wry • 13519 WO /e els 01n91,natg 110RM -Ml AIM r 011.14 /115 140 S. 1 40'4'11' 1. 1.1. root. . N a 9111 N Io1 814 0100 N Mt SMp4 r 1, 11 /1 0114. enigma 0. MS lessees I. mane amane 8 1 _ 104 Demme S 119 10 01111 *03571 Sew 1171. 10011 1. 11414 01S 10 MOe at 1190. 1111 NOW r 1111 ea else ewes 1111101 00011 1,10 0 I*S/ else. 9 ' peer' ' O. 111.0 not. N I0 9 11111/1 MOOS r 111 1.51131 {Mee 91819111 w 9 e r M f goinne sus *3198, 0 0'0 1. 110.rem rM 111111 • 11$4'1) 8. (81 111 011 .0/ T/ /* • 0'11.38' S. ►,9.14 *111. to 11 r 1000010 1000010 A 111 1K11N nn 111151 011 * 9/ 11811 M Af11 .10 -1 tie r O fete giggle N Ile41osll Is 1010 M M r A /V were sea w. 1119 119. A. Poems 1 1 1gf. 1111 00040 MO VIM AhS SO A 0101 Oman 19 11/111111, CRAWS 11 01111 O • 11 Ol COCOA e r 001(1 18 1, t 11 • *Aw tee 0•II•lP 1 Soo 71111 /0100 90(9 11 1 99111 M N ammo 11411 •o 9 agog gog MOOD 4 WWII M 14.38 71St. 19011 4 011ML Mate N 11'11'$1', M AOC 041111( N 10.41 1118 10 / 910? a 8 **.0(/ Isle 71/8 11111 M 111 1/ 9M 9 11 a ni w1gw Move 11l 1111 , 1)/t metro 50 1. 1111 mete 0 00'er1' 1, 111.11 test, 1019 1158 r 101111111. 1111 0 I1ne 11019 109 389, r Igl. 1011019 a 0011 ee slt IgMe- age nonfat 11. 1, 111111 0 •1•e1* l01 01101 11SEIel1 11111171 11 1001. CONTINUOS ON 004111 • IREC01111 OUNEY TIORI wm [ J '! J. COLl1CCA1 t I� mg _s c. .>' rr -f Iwl•••••06.1111.10 •••••06.1111.10 •••••06.1111.10 w0.OIMA • ' 1 111 MITT Al,/. *Pm. 4.11 .. 041540 4$ Wynne 1SM 01 OG7111. 1510 w1•60O•11V •. NO,ao• h d1 t 1Z F an• 1.0 f(1. JO NO/-1 ►CV CY33/77Co . 1 N13N /A war AVANM 01103iui J (T To 7. a2el V. .T.T-1T T3 E . •.. •• erg / JAN 4 Dire •A111071I11Aa1 NAP 41 071103113 0 s�9 • ANY ." Mb VW a! I. II _ .1 : N &r1ly 4 0133410.7 JINJAVIA 10 1a 311 U $V 17,/ 911101103,11 *7111511 711 11114 30101111101 -MO 11 IMMlM I all WNW YO 3'1 A1 3?M AAAII1t V $1113113114311 A113.1103 hM1i1111 111V31A11V33 i110A3A11118 pyre samemp4 111OP IV of/ MI 1$111031 1111 IV 1.1011103 1O $411/0911 — " - 3041 i13A JO 31111001 Ni 11— 1r — M I1 £$1 1211 O1103V1 YO/ 0111 1111/311111511 pNW0315$ •111114 w /w-m-u 11 O WMn. 'o05 visa /w *goon 5111 1111 11 . 1111111 '5111/1 •M 1515 1.011.014140 11 11 1/111711 1111 111 11111 1111 MY M 1 11 1514511 J W 1i1f11 11 •1L•s 411 1110 11 1111711 4 1111111 • •41 5111 1.0110 11 11111711 17111 -553 111111 '5551 111 511175 am M11311 551 11151501 1515 1111 N C 1 •125111 1111 1111 11 1111711'1111111 40 5111 1.11111! 15 12111111 51 /1104/11 N 41111 7/151153 fit N 11111114147 141 Y 1111053 5111414m I 115111 M 115551 'S11MIM '111 51 YNON1 11 1 IMAM N 55 1/115 M1/ 1111 1514 5 111 4111111 '1NO3 - 1 11311114 KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 3600 136th Ave. S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Re: Proposed Sea-Tac Incorporation Dear Members: I own approximately one and one -half acres of land southeast of the intersection of South 200th Street and Orilla Road. I am writing this letter to inform you that I oppose being included in the area being considered for incorporation as "Sea -Tac City ". I would like my property to be taken out of the proposed area, and if that is not possible, then I request that you deny the incorporation. I have no• confidence in• "Sea -Tac City's" ability to provide services to me or to consider the needs of my south Tukwila neighbors. I believe ' that it is in my best interest to annex to the City of Tukwila rather than to become a part of "Sea -Tac City" located clear across. Interstate 5 and more than 300 feet above my property. Thank you for considering my position. erely, Jack D. Stevens JACK D. STEVENS 4655 South 200th Seattle, Washington 98032 November 17, 1988 K.C.B.R.B. FILE# IS? Exhibit # \/ King County Boundary Review Board 3600 136th Avenue 5.E., Suite 122, Bellevue, Washington 98006 Re: Proposed Sea -Jac Incorporation Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are owners of approximately thirty -six thousand square feet of land in the valley across from the M. A. Segale shop facility shich we understand is already in the City of Tukwila. We do not want to be part of "Sea -Tac City ". It makes more sense for us to become part of the City of Tukwila, immediately to the north of us. Please eliminate our property from the area being considered for incorporation as Sea- Tac.City. Thank you very,much. Very truly yours, Dorothy Yantis Robert S. Yantis Lzed, -Mr. `& Mrs . Robert Yantis 19212 Frager Road South Kent, Washington 9803.2 November 17, 1988 K.G.B.RB. FILE # lsd3 Exfflbft# : . • - • • • . • ' BOUNDARY.. REVIEW BOARD RE:TUKWILA ANNEXATION PROPOSAL THIS IS TO INFORM YOU OF MY INTENTIONS REGARDING THE BOUNDARY PROPOSAL CHANGES. I STRONGLY FAVOR THAT THE WESTERN BOUNDARY FOR ANNEXATION BE MILITARY ROAD SOUTH AND THAT NO ALTERNATIVE BE CONSIDERED. ALSO I AM VERY OPPOSED TO THE SO CALLED "SEA -TAC" PROPOSAL FOR THE RIVERTON AREA. • : $ I NCERELy.,:_� bijkate./.14^_. ",(.11- �� n. j- 13029 41ST.AVE.SO. SEATTLE,WA. 98168 12061241 -7829 .November 17, 1988 KATHRYN'A. & JOHN B. STETSON 13258 40th Avenue South Seattle, WA . 98168 (206)' 243 -7504 King County Boundary Review Board Seattle, WA K.C.B.R.B. FILE nos °s�'st # Dear Members: As a'twelve - year resident of the Riverton Annexation area and an active participant (initiator, actually) of the annexation effort, I would like to take this opportunity to give my views on several issues. I have tried to condense this as much as possible for your ease in digesting. - - but. it is a multi - faceted issue, and requires some depth. INITIAL ANNEXATION AND INCORPORATION DRIVES The..Riverton annexation effort was begun (with no prior knowledge of . during the late summer 1987. We hosted. numerous ;meetings at..the Tukwila Community Center, well - attended:by residents`who'had notified by flyers distributed door -to door. From our meeting, a core group of six individuals .developed „f loped help determine boundaries, assist with :community meetings',.distr -ibute petitions, answer questions, contact the City officials, write the environmental checklist, Hand basically coordinate the annexation drive. Our.meetings were held "evenings, attended by many department heads and other City 'officials who graciously answered the many questions posed by the .residents in attendance. Telephone lists were compiled, maps were consulted, community sentiment was evaluated and from all this information, boundaries were drawn where we felt appropriate, both for the annexation, and to include "problem" areas to . ..gain better control over development. A "problem" area most notably included was the commercial /industrial area north of S. 125th Street to:the Duwamish River (Fire District #1 boundary), as this was an area having a great deal of effect, both current and . potential, on the adjacent residential area to the south. The first inkling the annexation group had of an incorporation drive was late November 1987, when we were contacted and.asked to join their effort. We discussed mutual problems and agreed that solutions :included annexation or incorporation, as the County seemed unable to assist us. We thanked the caller, and indicated that since our annexation effort was well underway, please do not include us in the incorporation boundaries. The next thing we knew, an article appeared in the newspaper outlining the boundaries for the SeaTac Incorporation, including the Riverton area within these boundaries. Since that time until now, whenever we have contacted the residents, we have found many who are not aware of the incorporation drive, only a small handful who have ever been contacted by the SeaTac proponents, femer yet were asked to sign the petition, and very few who think it is the way to go. This speaks to. the "sense of community" as much as anything else. Riverton was ( mostly) included in the boundaries, but "excluded" (unintentionally, perhaps). from direct contact with the proponents. Little or no doorbelling occurred, no meetings were held in our area. Little effort was made . to inform: the residents, or : get their input. Is it any wonder. that SeaTac Incox'poz'ation is meeting with resistance in the northeastern section of their outlined boundaries? COMPROMISE BOUNDARY PROPOSAL - 40TH /42ND AVE. SOUTH Moving the boundary from Hwy 99 to 40th /42nd Ave. South is totally unacceptable to the residents of the three annexation areas. 1. It would divide the residential community between two jurisdictions. . Crime /vice problems on Hwy 99 do not disappear by the time you reach 40th /42nd Ave. S. Hookers have been seen plying their ..trade on the lawn of Foster High School •(east side of 42nd at S. 144th) and the dead end residential streets east of 42nd are used to conduct transactions. • Drugs /crack houses exist well into the residential neighborhoods on both sides of Hwy 99. 4. The compromise proposal of 40th /42nd would only take from Tukwila the tax revenue base derived from the businesses along 99, while leaving much of the "dirty work" of crime fighting to Tukwila police. 5 . Most of the lots which front Hwy 99 between S. 139th and S. 125th are only accessible from 40th /42nd Ave S. due to the steep grade directly east of 99. Policing these lots could only be done from 40th /42nd, which would then be divided between two jurisdictions -- the same situation as 99. 6. North of. S. 130th, the ..boundary would become E. Marginal Way South, which would further divide this very sensitive residential community, making service provision difficult. Annexation proponents have offered their compromise: 1. Eastern boundary of the incorporation area to be Military Road South between approximately S. 116th and S. 152nd Streets (where Military Road meets Hwy 99). 2. Petitions.forH,annexation to Tukwila are already circulating irnthe Cascade View. area, located west'. of Hwy 99 to' the eastern :of Military Road South. 'They have received 220 +o signatures. " residents interested' in pursuing annexation. • Successful annexations of FD #1 .Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, and Cascade View would place the entire South Central School District within the boundaries of Tukwila. ▪ .SeaTac would retain the business /commercial strip along Hwy. 99 south of S. 152nd to their southern boundary, thus allowing :them to. keep a good tax base, while not "robbing" Tukwila of the tax revenue it could use to provide services . to our section of 99, as well as the residential communities east and west of 99. DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY Unique among adjacent urban school districts, South Central is small, with only 3 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 1 high school. Every child in this district will eventually attend only one high school The residents recently passed a bond to build a new high school, demonstrating this community's support to maintain our school district. There ; is almost a "small town" feeling among the residents of South Central. We all support the same high school sports teams, attend the same school concerts, plays, PTA meetings, etc. In this area, the school district defines our community. It is something we all have in common and share with the City of Tukwila. We do not feel the same sense of community with SeaTac area. SeaTac has not demonstrated an understanding of our community's interests and issues. SeaTac's focus is (understandably) near the Airport and immediately surrounding area. ANNEXATION VS INCORPORATION' During.:the.annexation•process residents were invited to participate in a .Task Force to establish .pre- annexation . zoning, and comprehensive plan designations for the annexation areas. This'was• •to assure residents' of exactly •what their. zoning/comp plan designation would be prior to voting on annexation. We'worked with • City officials as well as business representatives to_ establish 'compromises' compromises in sensitive areas, • protecting the residential properties as much as possible, while not unnecessarily commercial development. We all learned quite a bit about how and why zoning decisions are made, and came away with a new .understanding of how the City of •Tukwila views residential and commercial property. I am concerned': that in the Georgette .study, the City of SeaTac is only budgeting: for 3 planners on staff for a city of 33;000. This seems to be, inadequate. Tukwila .:(pop: .4700) currently has 4.5 planners;' and if the ;,annexations are successful; are planning to add : to , this ..staff. One of the reasons we began to pursue annexation was due to uncontrolled. development pushing out the residential neighborhoods. We wanted to gain some control and feel we would have that with Tukwila. I am very unsure whether we would have the same with SeaTac. KING COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS Finally,.I must respond to the County's requests for a change to the boundaries, interlocal agreements, and a Surface Water Management program County Council members did receive testimony from annexation proponents at last Monday's (11/14/88) meeting and did "soften" their stand on the Hwy 99 vs 40th /42nd vs Military Road boundary dispute. For this we thank them. During the current budget preparation process, the City of Tukwila has prepared separate budget proposals to cover when and if any of the annexations were to be approved by the voters. Recommendations from all departments have been considered in determining how many additional staff members, police officers, fire fighters, etc., will be needed to take care of the annexation areas. Therefore, we have an opportunity to "see the numbers" and determine whether the level of service from Tukwila will be adequate. We all are aware that if the vote is delayed beyond March, even if it succeeds, the County will be able to collect the property tax money from our area and use it for the entire year -- probably a significant chunk of change, and not a very fair proposition from Tukwila's standpoint. The County recommendation that Tukwila have a Surface Water Management program up and running at the time of annexation is unrealistic. Is this just another delaying tactic? Tukwila has already hired a consultant and begun the process of establishing a SWM program, thereby demonstrating their desire and intent to handle any drainage problems which may develop. The really curious thing about all of the County's recommendations is this -- Why aren't the same requirements being placed upon the SeaTac Incorporation effort? This questions was not adequately answered by the County representative at Tuesday's BRB hearing. If the BRB decides in favor of SeaTac, will the requirements for demonstrating "adequate service levels" during transition, and establishment of a SWM program prior to incorporation be required of SeaTac? Why is the County so concerned about Tukwila's ability to handle these problems, but seemingly unconcerned about SeaTac's? We do agree with SeaTac proponents that' this is an urban area : in ne of urban level :services 'We agree with Kinq County Executive Hill.. who. '. recently . stated; in= a ', newspaper, •• article ` that if resident want a greater: level of. service ;in' their area they must annex. or.: incorporate. • :We,.:do not .oppose • the formation of a City of SeaTac ..: We : wish: them. good fortune` in' 'their endeavor We residents of Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, and Cascade View only ask of you, that the boundaries be established which most realistically represent the wishes of the residents who must live under the Jurisdictions established. From the support we have demonstrated through attendance at the BRB, the petitions and letter submitted, and the testimony you have received, we ask that the boundaries for. the. SeaTac incorporation be set at Military Road So. between S. 116th and S. 152nd. It is our desire to complete the annexation process without further delay. Thank you. November 17, 1988 To: King County Boundary Review Board From: Robert E. end Janelie M. Scarber 1371E - 41st Ave So, Seattle, Wn 95168 246 -7489 Re: Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke Annexation Petitions to the City of Tukwila, Washington Dear Members of the BRB: K.C.B.R.B. FILE # �5� Exhibit # First, let us state that we know YOU CANNOT PLEASE ALL PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES. However, in view of the public sentiment shown by the petition signatures on the many exhibits delivered to you, ire favor of annexation to Tukwila, we ask that you do not fracture our neighborhoods and community. We have owned our home on 41st Ave So for 22 years and are therefore, long standing and stable members of an area that has exhibited many problems and frustrations over the years. The spectacular increase in the See -Tac Airport and the proliferation of prostitution and drug related crimes hos polarized the focus on our area of one that is less than desir- able. We have fought and will continue to fight the influx of the "sleazy" motels that have become endemic. A pattern seems to emerge where the ethnic groups purchasing the existing motels and property for future construction say one thing and the oppositse in regard to aiding and abetting the criminal elements. We feel with the existing police force of Tukwila and the promise of priority ONE for adding to and implementing the facilities and personnel to adequately police and clean up the "99" strip a very big reason to press for annexation. As the saying goes, "walk a mile in my shoes." Which is to say, unless you live in an area plagued with the problems we see, it is impossible to understand completely our interest and resolve to belong to a local government where we can be heard and where we can more closely watch and be involved in the decisions that affect our lives and future. We are aware that you have the power to appoint, to set the boundaries where you choose. If in fact you moved the western boundary to Military Road South, west of Highway 99 it would encompass an area from Highway 518 North to approximately 130th. This would solve the problem of police jurisdiction along a corridor of small businesses that serve both the citi- zens residing in the area and a highly transient visitor population and attendant prostitutess, pimps, (unethical business persons included with pimps) procurers, drug dealers, drug users and indications of some organ- ized gang activities. We most closely identify with Tukwila and the regional area for most of our business interests. Our school districts identify very closely and in fact we would very much like. to see tha South Central School District preserved intact with the hoped for addition of the Cascade View area to the already existing three annexations. Many facts and figures have been introduced on both sides. We all know that those kinds of data can be weighed in favor of, or discredit, depending upon your specific interests and intent. A logical rationale would be that it will.be less costly, and more effective much sooner to align with an existing, stable, well governed city such as Tukwila, then to start from scratch and begin a new city. There is to our knowledge, no track record by the advocates of the proposed Sea -Tac City of how to implement and govern a city of 33,040 + /- persons as well as the growing transient population.. Very importantly, the critical services, primarily police, would probably take 2 years or more to become an entity under local government control. Policemen as well as firemen require 1 to 2 year: to train to the point they can "take to the streets" effectively. Until then, all of this type of service would have to be contracted for. King County Police would for the most part not care to quit their positions in any quantity to relocate to Seo -Tac City. Retirement and pension benefits based on their years of service make that obvious. Therefore, costs would increase and the pro- posed city would be in the personnel rental business for some time. in closing, the decisions you are mandated to make are extremely impor- tant to all of us involved. We urge you to look at all the comments and information and be certain to listen to the people. We hove requested annexation to Tukwila and not to be included in an unknown entity, with what will be ot.best a chaotic birth and a growing up period that is worrisome to contemplate. Give us our annexations as requested and keep us intact as we now are. Thank you. Respectfully, -diet �• c. �---- - Robe rt E. and Janel l e M. Scerber Submitted to King County Council, Meeting of November 14th, 1988 by the residents of proposed Tukwila Annexation areas of Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke communities. November 12th,13th, 1986 ^,/e, the residents of the referenced areas, request. the Council to rescind the Memo of Steve Miller, Crated Nov. 10, 1966. Th3 attached letter states the popular feelings of the majority of the residents. We do hereby tell you that by our signatures, we prefer to be annexed to Tukwila and would appreciate your cooperation in this matter and allow the 6RB to go ahead „lith their meetings of Nov. 15th and 1 7th, 1988 ; ^rithout injecting addit- ional obstacles to an already erriotiorral and deeply involved proc:e.,s: No. 1f 3. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 16. 1 20. 23. 24. 26. 27. 26. 31. NAME 9 ADDRESS /37)4...7W46 }c ,uo J 3 7 J // /'7 /6g xSZ /37c / , / 5 /•39Q3. 01 /7g , e . o u.�z YZir\ 3°t 03 A-I . Nc 1 . 1 e �'� -i3c2 rt L77} p q 7,9R .41/ 5'r _. �/b 2 . ' / 2 . 5 /37 y % s . )374 4-I s , AA so /3708 _ . [toii- ,�v . i37,A. - trO /r 5' f3 "? -13.7/' f ;2 1; 7 U 2. La "`�/i� -u \373t-1 l ag .. S, /43 7 _/ 7...12 7- - !"). -�./- ,. 134.1x1 42 So C�1b�� -rc . '37 i es' BSc' PHONE Z : 74,i ._._. 2q , 7q8 9 L-133 . // 7 1- 133 - 0V3 43/ -96 z (13 -/SZo _. 4 415 — q - �9 c ,2t -43 55)' -/- a4.3- SS7c A( - Ali S aWV - - /57 Zyy —loc<r :Ay gz137 2 .4 X37 6 y 7 �x vg- 1 z43- s3CC6 2 Sz2 5 -�a 59. NAME Ctd 7/1/4 a 7 • . , /1 1 ) 5 a • 60. tt 61 •(1'4 114 ) 14 621 64 . c e. , )-f: *). fizt , ,,k.. 5 NUL,Ji., 65. N 7:1% , 1 --:' `bz..Vip..f.' 46'4.- fi. . 70. 47r. / . 4 ' ? 7 , 2 - . i , , , ---..,.-ei. ,.. •• ,. . 1 -,•-t--il " / ...._....-, , . ..,f ., .. ADDIFSS ' PHONE Ij)3) e/v(-14u Li. I 3 3 5/,'7 I S> 7 .frf /4 .zz4" 5 - , Ye" 4/1V.,Ze-, I ,(,•?. 7 / 4/../Ag/ • , . ; „. . - . (1, t. a 1, • , v. 1 ) --. ‘. i ! 7 , -, t,„6 C _/ : q .: 3 I • .-:1:.? 1._ . _ tN(41fri; 7 ( -.( _......./ 3 ' - , ' 1 e ! 2* i 4 ,.. . • IN : . , . ! •■::" ir • -.., 1 • 3 I .. , ‘ ,c. .; .....- \ -,j 1 , 1.1 - 1 : ' tt. 1 (1 - " r '.• . I . ' • I - 1-1_5 7' i . . . _e/' , - -24 " s .. /3 . _ e:CY • . • 0.1i? • , aO— f • 3. / 1; -2-e/e.) / 2 ;3 , ); : :: :5 4777 , : ! ii z / .5 1 2 ! . , 1:7(./../ • ....: • 7-y,.,.. .,..._.., %.ei2. 5..7, . -,• . .....;,.-- ...‘,) • _ .:... /- / :_'•:.•••.;,,--/ 7 './() /0 (el. )Sc) • 9,,f• Arv44 . `5o iSO4 11.t 74 - Lt. ! 55.. • ._. . 0 -1,!> /,;:?c•e, 56.1 ; u•-•• . ) I I - cfr )/ f • 7 - • . s. z-s V 0 5 7, - ,/ I 1 SL 4 -1-4 • /.17.?! 9 lfhfe oa•9 - 16 4- : 7/ .1 . 9,51V:: I 2 <Ici3k1- / s 1 ; -=!// ,/ 7 _c, ‘e) 1 - g - i :76 - tor" - i(//// ..q)./ - 54D . • .r • — : 6 T (21 -7r •• - •' .. 5'e La_ P/cLA.7L /37(..4 - 7 1 /S A. 5o V.704 - (ef .• NO. NAME ADDRESS PHONE .3ta/}4 9Y/4y 0;7./3 ..J2?7 77 78 7 80. 82. 83. 84. 85. 66. 87. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 95. 96. 97. §§7 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. . 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 1.12. 113. 114. 1 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. w .771AE occ ii►�c /c... �C� C owe 4 / Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th Place S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, Wa. 98006 CC: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa. 98188 15625 42nd Ave. So. #25 Seattle, Wa. 98188 November 17, 1988 Gentlemen: Re -- Public Hearings File 1523, 1537, 1538 and 1544 I was at the Sea -Tac iiieeting on Tuesday, ii /15788 at the Red Lion Inn, but cannot attend tonight. I live in the Thorndyke area and ask that we annex to Tukwila rather than flue incorporate City of Sea -Tac. Federal Way and Burien have been trying to incorporate for well over twenty years, but to date have not been successful. I do not believe we have the luxury of that time span. We need the city services nowt Also the expense of land purchases, erecting city buildings, hiring all new employees, establishing new departments would entail greater expense and time periods than annexation to Tukwila. At present Tukwila boundary is acvessthe streFt from my residence. I would definitely vote against incorporation. However, annexing to an existing well established entity seems to be the best and logical solution for our area and I would 'like to see it extend to Military Road. I wish to testify that I would definitely vote for annexation to TUJUILA at the February election. Yours truly, Helen M. Pekie City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined. Annexation September 22, 1988 Page '1 FISCAL IMPACT OF COMBINED RIVERTON, FOSTER, AND THOR NDYKE AREAS ANNEXATION Under RCW 35.13 district responsibil the area, provided adequate, they wil I. Introduction The City of Tukwila has proposed annexation of Fire District *i; this proposal is presently being considered by the Boundary Review Beard: In early. 1988, the City received annexation petitions from three other areas and has been examining these potential annexations for the past three months. The three, areas are called Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke. combination, these areas are contiguous'with the boundaries of Fire District (a district that is now defunct, having merged with Fire District *11 as of June, 1988), except for the north portion of Riverton between the Duwamish River and South 124 Street (an area which is not part of any fire district). The three annexation areas "fill in" the area between the western boundaries of Tukwila and Fire District *1 to Highway 99 (Pacific Hwy. South). Scope of Study: This study provides a planning analysis of the fiscal impact of annexation of tt e three areas. The estimated cost impacts on Tukwila are based on a department level review of the area characteristics, and the staffing levels that departments would request for providing services to the area. The City wil, review these results internally. Final decisions about the staffing requirements for the annexation area will be made when the City adopts an amended budget for the annexation. The Riverton area is the northern portion of the combined area and extends from the Duwamish River to South 138th Street. Foster is the middle portion between South 1380: Street and South 144th Street. Thorndyke is the southern portion extending from South 144th Street to South 160th Street. Presently, general government services in the area are provided by several agencies including King County, Fire District *11, the King County Rural Library System, Water District 125, the ValVue Sewer District, Seattle City Light, and Puget rower (Puget Power serves a small portion of the annexation area, east of 51 Avenue South). Solid waste collection and disposal is provided by private companies under franchises with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Based on current policies and practices, only the municipal services now provided by King County, fire protection services and library services would be governed by Tukwila after annexation. Regional services would continue to be governed by King County. The existing long term franchise agreements between Tukwila and the two electric utilities would extend to the annexation area, b sed on existing service areas. Solid waste collection and disposal would .continue to be provided : by private companies. .070, if a City does not choose to assume sewer or water ties, it need not. Because sewer and water services in by Water District 125 and the ValVue Sewer District, are continue to provide service, and there would not be a K.C.B.R.B. FILE # Isy3 Exhibit # City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 2 direct fiscal impact on the City. For these reasons, the operating costs of water, sewer, and other utilities are not examined in this study. Characteristics of Area: The combined annexation area is primarily residential, with commercial development along the Highway 99 strip and along East. Marginal Way. The northern end of Riverton (e.g. north of South 124th Street) is commercial/ industrial property. The community facilities in the combined annexation area include an undeveloped county park (Southgate Park), a King County swimming pool (South Central Pool), a library (Foster Library), and a , fire station (this was the Fire District .* 18 station and is now ` owned by Fire District *11, subsequent to the merger). Table 1 summarizes some basic data on the area, including :population estimates, land area and county road miles. It is important to note that the in the combined annexation area is greater than Tukwila's current population, 6,580 versus 4,760. Population Percent of Tukwila Pop. `lousing Units 597 Registered Voters 414 II. Revenue Impacts The most significant sources of potential revenue to the City from the combined annexation area are property tax and sales tax: Three property taxes that are presently levied in the area would no longer be levied after annexation: the Road District Levy, the Rural Library Levy and the Fire District Levy. The services that are presently supported by these levies (Le. road maintenance and construction and partial funding for other County services such as police protection, library services and fire protection services) would become the responsibility of the City. After annexation the City would levy its general property tax. The annual impact of these 367 2.074.. 3,030 .. 355 1,106. 1,875 5.77 3.17 6.34 15.28 TALE 1 GENERAL DATA •.RIVERTON: FOSTER . THORNOYEE TOTAL 1.224 752 4,604 6,500 25.7X 15.e2 96.7X 138.2X City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 3 RIVERTON ASSESSED VALUATION: Annexation Aria Fire District 018 38 ,222,680 28,062,113 80,339,726 146,624,519 1988 TAX RATES i LEVIES WITN ANNEXATION: Tukwila Tax Rate %1 2.937 2.937 2.937 2.937 Levy 126,408 82,418 235,958 464,784 WITNOUT ANNEXATION: FD 018 Tax Rate %2 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 FD 818 Levy 57,334 42,093 120,510 219,937 .Road District Tax Rate 1.681 1.681 1.681 1.681 Road District Levy 72,350 47,172 135,051 254,573 . Rural Library Tax Rate 0.500 0.500 0.500•. 0.500 Rural Library Levy 21,520 14,031 40,170 • 75,721 1. General levy for Tukwila, excludes Golf Course Levy. 2. The 1988 tax rate for FD 018 is 51 per 81,000 in assessed value; however, with merger with FD 811 the rate will be 81.50 per 81,000. different property tax levies, •based on the 1988 assessed valuation'and levy . rates for the area, are shown on,Table 2. TABLE 2 PROPERTY TAXES FOSTER TNORNDYKE • TOTAL 43,039,680 28 80,339,726 151,441,519 TOTAL LEVY Y/0 ANNEXATION 151,204 103,297 295,731. 550,231 During the first two years after annexation, revenue from property taxes are affected by various timing considerations. Property tax levy rates are set in one . year and assessed and collected in the next year. This means that, regardless of when an annexation occurs, the property taxes for the current year would already be set and cannot be changed before the following year. Revenue from the City's general tax levy is affected by the timing of the annexation. If the annexation takes place before March i, the City can levy property tax in the current year for collection in the following year, and there would be no revenue from the City property tax until the following year. If annexation takes place after March 1, the City cannot levy the tax until City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 4 the following year, which means it is not collected until the second year after annexation, and there is no revenue collected during the first two calendar years after annexation. To some extent, this delay in collection of the City's general property taxes is made up by the provision that any Road District taxes that have been levied but not been collected as of the annexation date are distributed to the City upon collection. However, the Road District tax levy is smaller than the City's general tax levy, and would make up only a portion of the City's potential annual property tax revenue. The following examples show the relationship between timing of the annexation and property tax revenue. Example A is for occurring before March I, Example B is a hypothetical date (June 30) for annexation occurring after March 1. As these examples show, the timing can affect revenues for up to three years. ": . A 5 Annexation by Annexation by Feb. 28, 1909 June 30, 1909 1909 Property Taxes: Fir. District 219,937 219,937 Rural Library 75,721 75,721 Road Tax: County \1 ..43,643 165,473 Tukwila: Uncollected Road Tax \1 190,930 89,101 General Levy 0 . 0 Tukwila Total 190,930 89,101 1990 Property Teen: Fire District Rural Library Road Tax: County Tukwila: Uncollected Road Tax General Levy • Tukwila Total 1991 Property Taxes: Fire District Rural Library Road Tax: Canty Tukwila: Uncollected Road Tax General Levy Tukwila Total 0 444,704 444,784 0 219,937 o 75,721 0 0 254,573 0 254,573 0 444,784 444,784 1. Estimates of Road Taxes going to the County and to Tukwila are based on the assumptions that 25 X of the tax would be collected as of February 28 and 65 % as of June 30. Tukwila receives only the uncollected amount. City of Tukwila: Fiscal. Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Pages As indicated by this eumple, delays in annexation can result in less revenue for the City in the first two years. ; However, since the timing of annexation :. also affects the City's costs; some of the decrease in revenue would be offset by timing related decreases in costs. For example, under Example B, the City would be responsible for services to the annexation area for only six months in the first year, compared to the 10 -month period under Example A. Also, if the Fire District and Rural Library System continued to collect property taxes, they could continue providing services during the same period for which they collect taxes. ' This could be done through an interlocal agreement, and the City would not have to bear these additional costs until it was able to collect the general tax levy from area residents (in the second or third year) and phase in its own services. The retail sales and use tax is another source of revenue from the annexation area The estimate of retail sales tax is shown on Table 3. A list of businesses was gathered from a drive -by survey of the annexation areas. This list was sent to the Department of Revenue, who provided information on the amount of taxable sales for these businesses in 1987. Tukwila's sales tax rate is one percent; fifteen percent of the local sales tax revenue collected within the City : is allocated to the County. Table 3 reflects the County's share and the amount of revenue remaining for the City -- approximately S243,000 for the combined area. TABLE:3 SALES. TAIL . RIVERTON . FOSTER ;'.TNORNDTR TOTAL Taxable Retail Sales 19,995,177 2,134,568 6,541,413 ::28,671,158 Local:Sales Tax Rata 1.0% 1,0% Local Sibs Tax Revenue 199,952 21,346 65,414 286,712 Less County 15 % (29,993) (3,202) (9,012) (43,007) Tukwila Sales Tax Revenue 169,959 18,144 55,602 243;705 Other significant revenues for the area would be generated by state distributed revenues and locally imposed fees and fines.. These are shown on Table 4 which includes footnotes on the method of estimating each revenue. Some of the revenues are restricted to specific uses. The motor vehicle .fuel tax must be used for roads purposes, the real estate excise tax must be used for capital projects, and block grant funds must be used for specific grant City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 6 programs. Unrestricted revenues can be used for any purposes designated by the City. As shown on Table 4 the estimated annual amount of .:revenue that would come to the City from the annexation areas is over $1.1 million in unrestricted sources and about $142,000 from restricted sources. UNRESTRICTED REVENUE: PROPERTY TAX SALES TAX BUSINESS LICENSES /PERMITS \1 BUILDING PERMITS \2 MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX \3 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX \3 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS \3 COURT FINES i FEES, \4 COURT FINES i FEES, TRAFFIC \5 PLANNING FEES \6 UNRESTRICTED .TOTAL RESTRICTED REVENUES:. MOTOR VESICLE FUEL TAX \7 REAL ESTATE EXCISE. TAX \5 BLOCK GRANT \9 RESTRICTED TOTAL GRAND TOTAL * 1985 budgeted estimates, of revenues. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF REVENUE IMPACT 1958 * ANNEXATION TUKWILA RIVERTON FOSTER TNORNDYKE TOTAL 2,643,640 126,608. 82,418 . 235,958 444,784 7,639,674 169,959 18,144 55,602 243,705 90,000 2,475 525 ' 1,800 4,800 90,000 7,074 4,349 .24,577 36,000 60,000 15,569 9,565 53,698 108,832 20,000. 3,721 2,286 20,003 26,010 30,000 12,044 7,400 64,747 84,191 55,000 3,135 1,925 11,770 16,830 97,100 24,955 15,342 93,896 134,192 102,000 4,009 2,464 . 13,927 20,400 10,827,414 369,349 144,418 605,977" 1,119,745 64,000 16,448 10,112 61,888' ' 88,448 70,000 3,551 2,315 6,628 12,494 30,000 7,710 4,740 29,010 41,460 164,000 27,709 17,167 97,526 142,402 10,991,414 397,058 161,555 703,503 1,262,147 1. Based an 'stinted number of employees, businesses, and average charges of 575. 2. Assumes overall increase of 40. percent in building permits. 3. Based on satimtad per capita rants for state formulas. 4. Accounts 341310, 356900, 357300 increased based on estimated increase in Part I crises of 592 (30.6 percent). over current level of 1,936. 5. Accounts 353100, 354000, 353700, 355200 increased based on population. 6. Assumes an increase of 20 percent in zoning fsss. 7. Based on increase in population B. Based an an assumed turnover of 3.3 percent of assessed value 9. Estisete based an increase in population (grant is allocated based on moderate and Lou income population.) , III. Cost Impacts for Annual Operations The impact of annexation on Tukwila's costs for annual operations derive primarily from the additional personnel that would be needed to serve the areas. There are some one time costs for additional equipment (e.g, vehicles, desk and chairs). A range of cost estimates were developed based on information supplied by department heads as to personnel and equipment needs. (Personnel costs were estimated using the mid -range monthly salary for the same or similar positions that currently exist in the City; benefits were estimated at 25 percent of salary costs). City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 7 The estimated cost impacts are based on a department level review. The City . will review these results internally; final decisions about staffing a requirements for the annexation, area will be made when the City adopts an amended budget for the annexation. All costs are shown as a range of estimates. A range was used to reflect: 1) the uncertainty about the overlapping impacts on services with and without the annexation of Fire District *1 and 2) variation based on annexation of all or part of the combined annexation area, with annexation of Foster only, as the low: end of the range and : annexation of all three areas as the high end of the range. The range for general, costs, such as facility needs, depends on the actual level of personnel additions and decisions about accommodating added staff within existing space. Facility costs also depend on the extent to which existing facilities can be reconfigured to house additional personnel and equipment. General:. With the addition of personnel with annexation the City may need to provide additional office space. The high end of the range reflects the cost if all of the additional personnel were hired and all of them required new office. If this were the case, a short term measure would be to lease the additional office space in facilities located near to the current City Hall. There are office parks and similar facilities available in the area Over the long run, the City will need to examine its long term facility needs: This should be done in the context of considering all likely annexations and other tong term growth in City requirements. Estimates of office space needed for additional postions were based on the average amount of space needed for each type of position, ranging from 74 square feet for clerical staff to 150 square feet for mid-management staff: A factor of 20 percent was added to account for common areas, such as hallways and conference rooms that would be needed in addition to individual office space. Based on the range of postions identified for the annexation area, office space needs would range from 581 to 3,215 square feet. If all of this were for additional space that could not be accommodated in existing City facilities, the cost for leasing the space would range from 59,296 to $51,440 per year. There would also be some additional one time costs for furnishing work stations; this cost would range from 54,800 to 521,600. Facilities for other uses, such as fire protection and public works maintenance, may also need to be considered. There are plans to remodel the fire station in the Foster annexation area If the area is annexed, the City would become owner of . some of the Fire District's assets; it is assumed this would include the fire station. Public Works anticipates that it would need some additional maintenance facilities convenient to the annexation area, for sand piles and certain pieces of equipment. The potential cost of these maintenance facilities have not been included in the cost estimates, because it may be possible to locate them on existing governmental properties in the City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 8 area through an arrangement with the owners. Police Services: The impacts on police service relate to both the size of the geographic area, the density of the population, and the nature of criminal activity in the area. The three annexation areas are mainly residential, with but there are some commercial areas (e.g. along Highway 99) that may attract a different type and frequency of criminal activity. For all three . annexation areas, the, Police Department has estimated that it would need an additional 14.5 FTEs. This impact assumes the addition of a patrol: district. It also assumes the annexation of Fire District *1 takes place. A patrol district would be added with the annexation of Fire District *1 and this would allow for certain efficiencies in departmental organization and provision of backup for patrol. If: the Fire District *1 annexation does not occur, police staffing for the combined: annexation area would likely be higher: ' The additional personnel estimated by the Police Department for annexation (with Fire District 01) include 5 patrol officers, which Is sufficient to have one officer on duty 24 hours a day. A smaller number of patrol .officers would be sufficient to man only one or two shifts per day, instead of three. The estimated costs at the low end of the range (i.e. for the Foster area only) is ,generally ,based on the relative size and population of the area, and would result in patrol staffing for less than 24 hours a day. However, the existing patrol staffing of the City would be available for. back up. Costs for police services include some one time costs for equipment: The total annual cost impact for the Police Department, including both labor costs and a 15 percent factor for other costs (e.g. uniforms, training, equipment), ranges from $120,632 (with 2.5 FTEs) to $606,562 (14.5 FTEs); one time costs range from $11,000 to 577,000. Fire Protection Services: The costs for providing fire protection services to the annexation areas are primarily personnel costs. These costs reflect the fact that Tukwila would obtain a portion of the assets of Fire District 011 upon annexation, and that these assets would include the fire station in the Foster area and some equipment. The amount of assets that the City would receive . is. based on the proportion of the assessed valuation of Fire District *11 that is within the annexed; area However, the value of the Fire District's assets have not been re- evaluated since the merger with Fire District *18. An accurate figure on the Fire District's assets, and the assessed valuation for the annexation area would be needed to be more precise about the potential impacts for Tukwila. A certified v aluation of Fire District *11 would be requested upon annexation. At present, the estimates of cost impacts assume that existing City equipment and the facilities in the Thorndyke area would be sufficient, so that the only impact is from additional personnel. The allocation of personnel among the three annexation areas results in problems similar to those for the police. department. The smaller numbers of firefighters for an individual area would not allow for 24 hour staffing of a City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22. 1988 Page 9 position or slot. , However, in combination with existing fire'department staff, the City would still be able to provide 24 hour response. The range of estimated costs for the Fire Department is 589,490 "(2.5 FTEs) for Foster only, to S 278,048 (5 FTEs) for the combined annexation. Municipal Court: The annexation will affect Municipal Court costs because of the additional criminal and traffic cases that must be handled by the City. The Municipal Court has estimated that a half -time Court Clerk will be needed to handle the additional .caseload.. This cost is only estimated for the total combined annexation area, as it would be difficult to divide a half time position among the three areas.`' Other Municipal Court costs include judicial time, prosecuting attorney time, public defense" payments and payment for the Southeast Community Alcohol Treatment Center. The estimated costs for Court range from 85,167 for Foster only to 158,072 (with .5 FTEs) for the combined annexation. Planning and Building: The. Planning and "Building Divisions would be affected by increases in .building permit applications and development review tasks generated from the annexation area. The Planning Department has estimated the staffing impact of annexation based on an assumed 20 percent increase in zoning applications and a 40 percent increase (150 over the current level of 372) in building permit applications, with combined annexation. There is potential for additional commercial /industrial development in the Riverton area, and the Thorndyke area has experienced significant development of multi- family units is recent years. The Planning Division would also be affected by additional workloads in the long range and policy planning areas: The estimated annual costs for the Planning Department range from no cost (for Foster only) to $117,465' (4.3 FTEs) with combined annexation. *With combined annexation . there could be an additional one time cost of 811,000 for purchasing a vehicle for building inspectors Parks and Recreation:: The Parks Department estimates that the impact of annexation would be relatively small, since residents in the area already use Tukwila's recreation programs. It is not anticipated that any of the existing parks in the area (e.g. Southgate County Park) would be further developed, although the City may seek ownership of the County park. (Parks maintenance costs are reflected in : the cost estimates for Public Works, Division 1I.) There would be some increase in costs for staffing recreation programs, mailing notices of classes and program, and providing transportation services for senior citazens The estimated costs for. the Parks Department, range from 17,000 (.33 FTE) for. Foster only to 521,000 (1. FTE) for the combined annexation. Legislati ve,and Administrative:: The City's various legislative and administrative functions would be affected by the overall increase in responsibilities resulting from annexation, with impacts for the City Clerk, Finance Department and Personnel Department. Annexation would also affect the responsibilities of the Mayor and City Council, but this increase cannot be easily translated into dollar amounts; some additional assistant staff may be City of Tukwila Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 10 needed for the elected officials. The total cost impact for the Finance Department :. reflects that,;auumption that operation of sewer and water utilities 'would be through contracts with existing providers, and that the Finance Department would not be responsible for any billings to sewer and water customers in the annexation area. The total cost for 'these general administrative functions ranges from $11,805 (.5 FTE) for Foster only. to *85,025 (2.5. FTE) for the combined annexation. Public Works: The. Public Works Department would be affected by the addition of roads, surface water management needs, facilities and parks maintenance that would result from annexation. The Department has determined the number of road miles in the area, reviewed the surface water problems, and looked at facilities in the. area The Department has identified staffing requirements for the annexation area based on this review.:: In addition to staffing requirements, there would be equipment rental costs. The estimate of the equipment costs was made by calculating the percent increase over 1988 staffing for Maintenance Divisions I and II, and increasing equipment rental costs by the same percentage..: Public Works costs are divided between the General Fund and the Street Fund. The General Fund portion includes Administration, Engineering Services, Parks Maintenance and Facilities Maintenance.: The Street Fund portion includes maintenance of City streets and surface water ; management. The cost impact ranges from *3,438 for the : General Fund and *48,551 (1 FTE) for the Street Fund with annexation of the Foster area, to *127,383 (4 FTEs) for the General Fund and *200,019 (4 FTEs) for the Street Fund with combined annexation. :. Community Services Several community service costs are budgeted in the Mayor's Office, including the costs for the City's library contract and health service contract. The City pays the .King County Health Department for services provided to City citizens based : on a . contractual . agreement; the estimates for this contract are based on p ulaiiva in the annexation areas. The library contract provides for payment of *19.53 per capita and the estimates are based on this per capita amount. It should be noted that the amount that would be paid to the King County Rural Library System under this contract for the combined annexation area ( *128,507): is greater than the amount of revenue the System . would lose from its property tax levy for the area ($75,721). In combination with annexation of Fire District *1, the Library. System would loose about *144,000 due to the differences between the contract and tax levy amounts. The City contributes to various other programs on a voluntary basis; since these programs provide direct services to individuals, it . is assumed that contributions would be increased in proportion to the increase in population related to annexation. The total estimated cost for these community services ranges from S22,399 for just the. Foster area to *195,987 for the ' combined annexation. City of Tukwila: Fiscal impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 11 Annual .OpsratinoCosts: Police. Department Fire Department :.,. • Municipal -COU t Plsminp Department Parks Department ''Administration Community Ssrvi css Public Works: Gen. Fuel General Annual General Fund Total Annual. Street Fund Total Equipweent Costs Police Department Fleming Department Finance Department York Stations Total Equipment Costs TOTAL ALL COSTS Summary of Operating Costs: Table 5 summarizes the range of costs for each department and for "general" costs. The low end of the range reflects annexation of Foster only. The high end of the range reflects departmental estimates for annexation of all three areas, and the general costs if new office space was needed for all positions. These estimates may or may‘not reflect economies of scale that could be achieved with annexation of . Fire District *I.: Economies` of scale could be achieved through more efficient organization of departments, through substitution of equipment for labor costs, pooling of capital resources, reorganization of service areas, and so forth: These potential changes were, not addressed in any detail by the departments, so the high .. estimate may not reflect these types of efficiencies. The table also shows the one time costs for purchases of equipment and work stations. ,. The total annual cost to the General Fund _ for all three areas ranges from 5259,931 to 51,514,981 The annual costs for the Street Fund ranges from 548,551 to 5200,019. In addition there are one time costs for equipment and vehicles ranging from 511,000 to 551,500.: The range for all costs is 5319,482 to $1,850,601: TABLE 5 .RANGE OF OPERATING COSTS FOR ANNEXATION AREA Low - Nigh ' Estimate Estimate :120,632 89,490 5,167 7,000 11,805 22,399 3,438 606,562 278,048 58,072 117,465 21,000 59,025 195,987 127,383 51,440 259,931 1,514,982 48,551 200,019. 11,000. 77,000 11,000 26,000 . 21,600 11,000 135,600 319,482 1,850,601 City, of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact. of. Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 12 C. 'Capital Improvements Based on a review of. King County's capital improvement, plans, and discussions with Tukwila's Public Works Department, four capital improvement projects have been identified for the combined annexation area Since sewer and water services would be provided by existing purveyors, no` capital improvements for these services were identified. The annexation area has some surface water problems, and two specific capital projects have been identified by King County to address these problems. With annexation, Tukwila would be responsible; for these. projects. The costs of the projects have been estimated by the County, but could vary depending on cost of acquiring` rights of way. The cost for these two projects totals 5307,000. The surface water projects are identified in Reconnaissance Report No. 24 (for the Lower Green River Basin) and Report No 26 (for the Duwamish River. Basin). Report No 24 identifies a project to " install a control structure and excavate two existing stream channels to provide 2.5 acre -feet of : storage" at a site located just north of 154th Street and east of 42nd Avenue, in the Thorndyke area. Report No. 26 identifies a project in the Riverton area for construction of a retention /detention facility at the intersection of 133rd Street South and South Marginal Way East. Another impact of annexation is the potential shift in funding for Surface Water projects included in Tukwila's current capital improvement program. County contributions totalling $620,000 for drainage from the Riverton area cover part of the capital improvement costs; after annexation, Tukwila would be the sole source of funds. Two road projects have been identified in the annexation area. Neither of these projects were given, a high priority in the King County Transportation Plan, so they arc not part of the County's Capital Improvement Plan. The projects are 1) installation of traffic lights at the intersection of 42nd Avenue South and South 144th Street, and, installation ; of curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the 40th to 42nd Avenue South arterial which extends the length of the combined annexation area. These road projects address problems that are less immediate than the surface water problems, and they could be funded and implemented over a longer time period.. However, since there are schools in the vicinity of the 40 -42nd Avenue arterial, the need for sidewalks and improved signals may be significant. Also, the installation of gutters may have some advantages for surface water management. These issues should be examined before the City determines whether these costs are likely to be incurred in the near future or, not. City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined :'Annexation September. 22, 1988 Page 13 Surface Water: Roads: intersection ::I sprovinents (S. 144th ;i 42nd. Ave.. Curbs,'.Outters; 8 Sidewalks 140th ••42nd Ave. -S.) 38,500. :38,500 7,000 935,000, 460,977 " 1,459,813 2,855,790 1,157,000 460,97 .. 1,583,313 3,239,790 THOLE 6' 'CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS' Riverton Foster Thorndyke Total. 222,000 IV. Summary and. Discussion The estimated annual revenues for the annexation area ranges from about S161,000 (for Foster only) to S1,262,000 for the combined annexation. Estimated annual operating costs range from :$30$ 000 to 51,715,000, including Street Fund cost. The following table summarizes the cost and : revenues estimated for the annexation. TABLE 7 SUMMARY TABLE :General Fund Annual Costs Street Fund Annual Costs Equipment Costs TOTAL COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES 259,931 .48,551 11,000 319,482 1,850,601 161,585 1,262,147 85,000 307,000 1,514,982' . 200,019 135,600 Potential capital costs range $307,000 for more immediate surface water projects to S3.2 million with less urgent roads projects. Funding contributions from King County for Surface Water Management in Riverton, totalling $620,000, would likely be withdrawn after annexation. The range of estimates for annual costs are based on department level review of the personnel needed to provide services to the annexation area. Should City of T kwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation Septembe 22, 1988 Page 14 annexati ' n occur, these costs will be reviewed: prior to adoption of an amended City bud : et. During this review, the City will need to examine its fiscal requirem nts in order to achieve,a balance between costs and revenues for the annexati s n area This balance can be achieved by actions to reduce costs or increase evenues. Options f • r increasing revenues include allocating more of current revenues to support a nual costs by using debt financing for capital projects. Tukwila now pays for almost all of its capital projects directly from current revenues. The. City's total debt capacity for non- voter approved general purposes s about 86.75 million. The City has about S 1 million is reserved debt cap city (for the 1977 Limited G.O. Bonds for City Hall and 1978 Limited G.O. Bon s for the Golf Course), leaving about 55.75 million is unreserved debt cap city. The practicality of using this approach to finance capital projects ould require a review of long term projections of City wide capital improve ' ents, operating expenses and revenues. Another ay to . increase revenues would be to exercise certain local tax options; i ' crease local fees and charge new fees for current services: For example, the City does not impose a utilities tax or a local business and occupati . n tax. Increases in taxes may not be desirable, but might be preferab if needed to provide adequate services for future City residents. Surface ater management costs may be funded from sources other than current General and revenues. The options for funding surface water management are currentl being studied by the City. Options or reducing costs include examining ways in which efficiency can be increase through restructuring of department management, substitution of equipme t for labor costs, redefinition of service areas (e.g. patrol districts) and re- evaluation of service standards. ; Using thew _:ei:uaiques, there ma, be areas where the City can trim the costs of providing services to both cur eat and future residents without making unreasonable reductions in the quality of service. King County Executive TIM HILL 4011 King County Courthouse 316 Third Avenue Seattle. %Vashin8ton 98104 1 2061 344 -1040 November 3, 1988 The Honorable Gary Grant Chair, King County Council Room 402 COURTHOUSE K.C.B.R.B. FILE Exhibit # Tukwila's Proposed Annexations and Sea -Tac's Proposed Incorporation Dear Councilmember Grant: Enclosed for your review and adoption is a motion recommending the Boundary Review Board (BRB) continue the City of Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster and the proposed incorporatfon,of Sea -Tac. Also enclosed for your review is a report which highlights.the issues upon which'' am basing that recommendation. - r - -- I urge the County Council to support the recommendation for BRB continuation of Tukwila's proposed annexations and the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal because a boundary dispute between Tukwila and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee has resulted in both parties claiming the same territory. King County, as the Comprehensive Plan requires, could play a role in resolving that dispute. This recommendation is also warranted because of tne large number of unanswered questions about these proposals. They must be answered before the voters are asked to ratify annexation or incorporation. Among these issues are: (1) wnicr jurisdiction will deliver which public service; (2) whicn jurisdiction is responsible for which capital improvement projects; and (3) how annexation and inc orporation will affect the County's ability to achieve regional public policy goals. The enclosed report demonstrates there are major questions which must be answered before it would be responsible or appropriate to suomit annexation or incorporation to the voters. While it is not King County's policy to prevent appropriate annexations /incorporations, the County does have the responsibility to ensure for its citizens more cost effective service delivery and protection of regional needs. An agreement for the County and City Councils to adopt before an annexation election would enable the.voters to maKe an educated deci- sion and would make tne County and City better prepared for a smootn transition of program management and service delivery snould the annexations be adopted. And a partnership between King County and tne proponents of a new city of Sea -Tac on regional policy goals, service delivery and capital projects would ensure that the citizens of Sea-Tao continue receiving services should they vote to become a new city. • • Gary rt. V an aro Grant .November 3, 1988 Pais Two ?. * �" . t :..,•. . I request-you-review this report and adopt this motion before the Boundary Review Board hearings on November 15 and 17, 1988. If you have any questions, please call Joe. Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department, at 296 -7503. Sincerely, Tim Hill King County Executive TH:JR:pr S:LTR1 Enclosures • cc : King County Councilmember.s - - ATTN: Cal Hoggard, Program: Director Jerry Peterson, Administrator Department Directors . .. 'King County Executive TIM HILL 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 ''1061 3444040 November 3, 1988 The Honorable Gary Van Dusen ',Mayor,••C1ty of Tukwila - 6200 Southcenter"Boulevard: Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Tukwila's•ProposedAnnexations of Riverton. Thorndyke and Foster Dear Mayor Van Dusen : -. • • Enclosed'for'your •• .information is a copy of the motion I sent this morning to the King.County•Council recommending the Boundary Review.Board continue the city's proposed annexations and the proposed..incorporation of Sea -Tac. I.ain this••iction " •to serve the public's need for.a complete analysis of tl 7eannexation-and'incorporation proposals' costs, benefits and impacts on local and regio • nil ` public servite .del ivery:�� ;; ; ' ' : .. •_ •tom 'The Executive Departments ;of King County_have: worked together to identify major issues of the annexation and incorporation proposals which are unresolved and w11,1,_still be when the Boundary Review Board holds its hearings on November 15 and:I7_, 1988.` Among these :unresolved issues are (1). the boundary dispute be- tween` Tukwilajnd `theTSea- Tac-Incorporation Committee which has resulted in each claiming that Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster belong in its jurisdiction; (2) the impact of annexation and incorporation on the County's•ability to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's regional policy goals; (3) the impact of annexation and incorporation on County and city revenues and expenditures; and (4) the impact of annexation and incorporation on capital improvement projects. The .King County Comprehensive Plan requires that the County be involved in the process of determining the annexation and incorporation areas' boundaries. it also provides that the County play a role in addressing'the impacts annexa- tion and incorporation on regional and local puolic services, on regional puolic policy.goals, on•revenues and expenditures, and on capital improvement :projects. Because'King County is the only government whicn currently represents the-citi- zens of these neighborhoods, the County has an obligation to represent their interests throughout the processes of determining the annexation and•incor- poration areas' boundaries and analyzing all the costs, benefits and impacts of annexation and incorporation. .... • • • _ __ • .. .. • The Honorable Gary Van Ousen November 3, 1988 Page 2 The most effective mechanism for ensuring that the public interest is consiceree when the regional as well as local impacts of annexation and incorporation are identified and analyzed would be an interlocal agreement between King County anc Tukwila. An agreement would enable the County and city to effectively join together to resolve the boundary dispute and adaress how annexation anc incor- poration will affect service ceiivery, revenues, expenditures and capital im- provement projects. It would also assure the citizens that tnere will be an effective partnership between King County and Tukwila to smootnly •transfer program management and pubic service ceiivery responsioilities from one juris- diction to the other if annexation anc. incorporation are approved. I respectfully request that TuKwiia join King County in recommending that the Boundary Review Board cont'nue its hearing on the city's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster and Sea -Tad's croposec incorporation. I commit to you that the resources o' King County shall be devoted to working with Tukwila, the Sea -Tad Incorporation Oommittee, the citizens of the pr000sed annexation and incorporation areas and other affected jurisdictions to establish the.annexation'1and incorporation areas' boundaries. King County will also com- mit the necessary resources to working with Tukwila to adopt an interlocal agreement which addresses all relevant interjurisdictional issues and clearly states which jurisdiction will be responsible for public services, capital. improvement projects, and ensuring that publi:'bclicy goals are achieved. King County's goal is to have adopted an interlocai'acreement witn Tukwila when the 8R8 reconvenes the public hearing so tnat the BRS and the public see evidence that:.both our jurisdicticns addressed.all issues and agreed on how they should be resolved. - If:you have any cuestior.s or wish to discuss the County's proposal, please call 'Joe: Nagel, Director; Parks, Planning_ anc Resources Deoartment,at 296 - 7503. • Sincerely Hill ' ' County Executive ' * %.:"." , _ cc: King County Counc i l mente rs • -'T . ATTN: Cal Heccar:. c _ am Director Jerry ce :erscr, ^R• 's :rator Joe Nagel, Direc:c -, • - ar , s, p anc Resources Department ATTN: Lois Scrwereeser, Ya.r.ae_er, - :ar.ringg arc Community Deveic;Ter: C'visior Dear Mewbers of the Boundary Review Board: My husband and I:are residents of the King County area which is being conaidered.for- annexation to the city of Tukwila. My femily, which also includes our two sons, 1s definitely in favor of the proposed annexation,' and is concerned about the repeated attempts to hinder this proposal. We do not wish to become apartf the proposed See -Tac `Incorporation. ins .o instead we wish to become part of Tukwila for the following reasons: Our children are part of the South Central School district. We' dhotis': this area to reside because of the school district and its neighborhood atmosphere Our house is situated across the street from the Tukwila city boundary.. It has been our experience with the Tukwila Police department that their response time is extremely good. Our dealings with the Tukwila City Center have been always met with quick and courteous responses. In short, we feel that our needs and those of all our neighbors will be better. attended to by the city of Tukwila. In terms of where the boundaries should be placed, I feel that it is appropriate to keep the entire school district together. As One of the ssallest school districts in the state, there is no good reason for division of any sort. Sincerely, 96 Susan Anaya- Hussey •4357 S. 135th St. Seattle, WA 1 2 3 4 5 In Re: City of Tukwila ) FILE No. 1538 Proposed Annexation of 469 6 acres South King County ) KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION [Thorndyke area] DISTRICT #24'S MEMORANDUM ) OF AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO CITY OF ) TUKWILA'S PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE THORNDYKE AREA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -1- py BEFORE THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY COMES NOW King County Fire Protection District #24, herein- after referred to as KCFPD #24, by and through its undersigned attorneys of record, GIERKE, CURWEN, METZLER & BOBRICK, and respectfully submits the following memorandum of authorities on the issues raised by the proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area by the City of Tukwila. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila initiated review by the Washington State Boundary Review Board on July 19, 1988 by filing a notice of intention to annex the Thorndyke area of South King County pursuant to R.C.W. 36.93. On August 25, 1988, within 45 days of the filing of the City of Tukwila's notice of intention to annex, the King County Council passed a motion and filed with the Washington State Boundary Review Board a request for review pursuant to R.C.W. 36.93.100[2]. On August 24, 1988 the Washington State Boundary Review Board issued a notice of hearing scheduling a public hearing on the proposed annexation LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 for Tuesday and Thursday, November 15 and 17, 1988 commencing at 7:30 P.M. at the Red Lion Inn Conference Room, 18740 Pacific Highway South, Seattle, Washington. On the 1st of October, 1988 the Washington State Boundary Review Board amended its notice of hearing scheduling the matter to commence at 7:00 P.M. II. on the same dates and in the same location. LEGAL ISSUES In making a decision upon the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area, the Boundary Review Board must consider those factors set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.170, and in particular subsections [2] dealing with municipal services and subsection [3] involving the effect of the proposal or alternate proposals might have on adjacent areas, mutual economic and social interests, and the local governmental• structure of the county. Similarly, the statutory objectives of the Bound- ary Review Board set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.180 must be evaluated in order to determine whether or not the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area in fact is consistent with the. Board's statutory objectives as the City of Tukwila has suggested. The question before the Boundary. Review Board is really whether or not the proposed annexation will further the stated statutory objectives involving the preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities, the creation and preservation of logical service areas, the prevention of abnor- mally irregular boundaries, and the adjustment of impractical boundaries. R.C.W. 36.93.180[1], [3], [4] and [7]. KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -2- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA( 2061383-3761 SEATTLE I206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 ;1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 26 III. FACTUAL STATEMENT KCFPD #24 appears before the Boundary Review Board in connection with the City of Tukwila's proposed Thorndyke annexa- tion as an interested governmental unit which may potentially be affected by the proposal. Although KCFPD #24 did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board as did the King County Council, they nonetheless have standing to present evi- dence to the Board dealing with the' potentially adverse affects that this and other related annexations may have upon District 24. (R.C.W. 36.93.070, .160, and Boundary Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure). Although the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area does not presently encroach upon KCFPD #24's geographical area, a review of Attachment "H" to Tukwila's notice of intent to annex indicates a portion of the proposed Thorndyke annexation area does abut the northerly boundary of KCFPD #24 in the vicinity of the McMicken Heights area along South 160th Street. Moreover, Tukwila's "planning area - sphere of influence" is said to extend throughout substantially all of KCFPD #24's geographical area. (November 1988 Sea -Tac Incor- poration Study, The Georgette Group, at page IV -48.) The most obvious and potentially adverse affect on KCFPD #24 deals with the City of Tukwila's apparent desire to engage in multiple piecemeal annexation without regard for any compre- hensive community plan. While the affect of one isolated proposed annexation might arguably not be considered by the Board to KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -3- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA(206)383 -3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 have any significant impact on adjoining districts or govern - 2 mental units, multiple uncoordinated proposed annexations repre- 3 sent a danger both to the community and to other governmental 4 units because they fail to take into consideration the best 5 interests of the community as a whole. The piecemeal annexation 6 process throughout a municipality's planning area and "sphere 7 of influence" by its very nature tends to be self - serving and 8 frequently results in the haphazard extension of municipal 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 boundaries, and the creation of illogical service areas. These are the very purposes and objectives which the Boundary Review Board was designed to deal with under R.C.W. 36.93.010, .170 and .180. Because of the inherent conflicts between the proponents and competing jurisdictions to claim territories for municipal growth and the need to resolve these claims based upon the merits of what is in the best interests of the community as a whole, the Boundary Review Board should not consider the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of Thorndyke in a vacuum. Rather, the Board should evaluate it in terms of the overall scheme and plan for South King County growth and development. In order to properly fulfill its objectives and to consider the factors mandated by statute, the Boundary Review Board must consider not only the affect of this but other proposals or alternatives on Thorndyke and adjacent areas in order to assure citizens and the governmental units in the South King County area that the action .taken by the Board benefit the KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -4- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 . 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-33'19 TACOMA (206)383.3761 SEATTLE ( 206) 838.3040 FAX (206) 272 -2766 1 greatest number of people with due consideration to long term 2 community growth and development. R.C.W. 36.93.170[3]. 3 It should be noted by the Boundary Review Board that both 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the Thorndyke as well as the Riverton and Foster proposed annex- ations by the City of Tukwila substantially overlap the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation area. Additionally, ninety -nine per cent (99%) of KCFPD #24's geographical area lies within the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation area. (The Georgette Group Study, supra. at 1 -14). For the foregoing reasons, the Boundary Review Board should evaluate any potential benefits and the detriments of Tukwila's proposed annexations as they may affect not only Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke areas, but should also gauge their affect upon the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation area and adjacent governmental units and special purpose districts. IV. BASIS FOR DENIAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION A. Tukwila's proposal is in reality contrary to R.C.W. 36.93.180[1], [3], [4], and [7]. By attempting to utilize Highway 99 as the westerly boundary for the proposed Thorndyke annexation area, the City of Tukwila is suggesting that the Highway 99 commercial district be split in half and fragmented which will neither serve to preserve the natural neighborhoods and commer- cial community, nor will it preserve a logical municipal service area or promote any reasonable type of regular boundary. The overriding influence of the Sea -Tac Airport and the Port of Seattle serves as the basis for one of the largest hotel /motel populations in the State of Washington, in excess KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -5- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(2O6)838.3040 FAX (206) 272-2766 1 of 4,000 rooms. This produces a high volume of transient popu- 2 lation and makes this area one of the largest 24 hour per day 3 communities within the State of Washington. [The Georgette 4 Study, supra,_ at page III -77.] The complexities of the problems 5 facing this community demand a unified and coordinated response 6 to municipal services in order to properly serve the needs 7 of this community. The answer to this problem does not lie 8 in multi- jurisdictional administration of municipal services 9 between competing municipalities. It makes virtually no sense 10 whatsoever to split the Sea -Tac community area with all its 11 12 associated crime, traffic, transportation, and service- related problems into a fragmented area governed by multiple munici- 13 palities competing for tax dollars. The 24 hour community 14 activity in the area due to the airport alone militates against 15 multiple jurisdictional splitting of services. 16 B. The proposed annexation in the Thorndyke area will 17 isolate a small peninsula between Highway 99 and the Port of 18 Seattle which will remain to be served by the King County Depart - 19 ment of Public Safety. This is bound to create significant 20 overlapping law enforcement problems. Fragmentation of the 21 area by piecemeal annexation will result in differential law 22 enforcement authorities along Highway 99 and will pose problems 23 of consistency in administration, and will require significant 24 interlocal cooperation and coordination among multiple police 25 jurisdictions. The coordination and exchange of criminal 26 information will be much more time consuming and critical if KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -6- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA ( 206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1. the present King County Department of Public Safety police 2 jurisdiction surrounding the airport is fragmented between 3 four or more separate jurisdictions. [The Georgette Study, 4 supra, at page I -15.] 5 The continuity of law enforcement and criminal investigative 6 activities alone will be impaired by the number of jurisdictions 7 attempting to service the "airport strip" on the east and the 8 south ends. Since Highway 99's criminal activities pose signif- 9 icant law enforcement problems not only in the field of simple 10 traffic control and enforcement, more importantly in the areas 11 12 crime task force suppression of gang activities, the effective 13 solution to these problems is obviously not to fragment the 14 community into multiple law enforcement jurisdictions. Issues 15 of public safety, traffic and crime are not only of paramount 16 interest to the community, but are the types of considerations 17 which unfortunately do not necessarily confine themselves to 18 neat geographical or jurisdictional boundaries. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of drug control, vice enforcement activities, and organized C. The division of the Sea -Tac community into several jurisdictions may be thought to create some logical service boundaries for the areas that are being annexed, but in reality may leave the remaining unincorporated areas of South King County with far less logical service boundaries. The cohesive planning and administration which are necessary to deal with the highly urban nature of this 24 hour community would be hampered by multiple annexations which do nothing more than KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -7- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX ( 206) 272.2766 1 divide the community "pie" between several jurisdictions. [The 2 Georgette Study, supra. at page I -15.] 3 D. Tukwila's proposed annexation of the Thorndyke area 4 will further reduce the local control of taxation and will 5 not serve to ensure that Port related tax revenues remain in 6 the area to provide improvements in local service commensurate 7 with the degree of impact created by the presence of an inter- 8 national airport with its 24 hour community activity. By 9 dividing the Sae -Tac area into multiple annexations to adjacent 10 cities, the community benefits that flow from taxation would 11 be dissipated between multiple jurisdictions rather than con - 12 centrated in an area where they are badly needed. [The Georgette 13 Study, supra, at page I -15.] 14 E. If Tukwila and related municipalities continue to 15 extend their respective "planning areas ", or "spheres of 16 influence ", and continue in their haphazard an uncontrolled 17 quest for additional municipal territory, KCFPD #24 would ulti- 1 8 mately be fragmented and be unable to provide adequate fire 1 9 protection services for residences and businesses in the areas 2 0 remaining in unincorporated King County. The multiple piecemeal 21 annexation philosophy which seems to be prevalent among small 22 municipalities in South King County is many times counterproduc- 23 tive because there is an incentive for competing jurisdictions 24 to claim adjacent territories for municipal growth through 25 the use of annexation procedures. These competing municipalities 26 frequently fail to consider what is in the best interest of KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -8- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403 -3319 TACOMA (206)383-3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX (206) 272.2766 1 the general community as a whole and how their attempts at 2 expansion will adversely affect adjacent governmental entities 3 and their ability to provide services to the community. 4 The only proposal presently before the Boundary Review 5 Board which would serve to maintain the continuity of the special 6 purpose district services including municipal fire protection 7 services, is the proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation. While KCFPD 8 #24 is technically independent of the Sea -Tac Incorporation 9 Citizens Activist Group, the District feels that its constituents 10 11 would be better served in terms of emergency fire protection services, enforcement, and related fire department activities 12 if the district were not fragmented and sliced off piecemeal 13 to adjacent municipalities. 14 KCFPD is opposed to any proposed annexation which will 15 have the net effect of fragmenting and reducing its ability 16 to provide adequate fire protection, inspection and code services 17 to the constituents of its district. In order to fulfill this 1 statutory obligation and need, logical service areas for fire 19 protection services must be maintained. The proposed 20 Tukwila - Thorndyke annexation is contrary to the objectives 21 of the Boundary Review Board as set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.180 22 in that it will not serve to promote the preservation of a 23 natural neighborhood and community, and it will create an illog- 24 ical service area with both an impractical and irregular bound - 25 ary. Moreover, the Thorndyke proposed annexation will have 26 a significantly adverse impact on the level of municipal services KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -9- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA I206)383.3761 SEATTLE <206)838.3040 FAX ( 206) 272-2766 available and to be provided in the future by KCFPD #24. The repeated reduction and elimination of District 24's peripheral areas by competing municipal jurisdictions through statutory annexation procedures will ultimately leave the District in a position unable to provide adequate fire protection and code inspection services for the remaining constituents of the Dis- trict. Since approximately 99% of KCFPD #24's geographical area lies within the proposed Sea -Tac Incorporation area, it seems logical that the best methodology for preserving the integrity of the special purpose district and thereby maximizing its benefits to the businesses and residences within the District would be to refuse to approve any proposed annexations which would diminish the effectiveness of the District. These factors have been specifically outlined by the legislature in R.C.W. 36.93.170[2][3] as matters to be considered by the Board in resolving these questions among competing municipalities. Not only should the Board consider the rights of all affect- ed governmental units such as District 24, and how the proposal might affect their abilities to render municipal services, but further the Board must consider the affect of the proposed annexation or the alternatives, such as the Sea -Tac proposed incorporation and the effects it may have upon adjacent areas, mutual economic and social interests, and the local government structure of the County. KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -10- LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 - 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98403-3319 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)838.3040 FAX ( 206 ) 272.2766 i V . CONCLUSION 2 The Washington State Boundary Review Board pursuant to 3 those factors and objectives set forth in R.C.W. 36.93.170 4 and .180, should disapprove. the City of Tukwila's proposed 5 annexation of the Thorndyke area in its entirety pursuant to 6 R.C.W. 36.93.160[5]. 7 DATED this 15th day of Novem 8 GI 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 KCFPD #24's Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Annexation -11- 988. .i WEN, METZ R & BOBRICK By Attorneys •r King County Fire Protection Dist. #24 LAW OFFICES GIERKE. CURWEN. METZLER & BOBRICK SUITE 203 • 2115 NORTH 30TH STREET TACOMA. WASHINGTON 96403 -3319 TACOMA(206)383.3761 SEATTLE(206)638.3040 FAX ( 206 ) 272.2766 K.` ` , s 1 .1....J. FILE # �'sti3 I. • : , 4! r�_' ..- ' :. u w `.5 { ;W;'% N 1 Boundary Review Board RE: RIVERTON; FOSTER; THORNLIKE; & SEA -TAC PROPOSED CITY PLAN Leonard D. & Donna Meagher 13242 40th Ave. South Seattle, Washington 98168 (206) 248 -2693 We do not believe that the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke, Annexations or the Sea -Tac Proposed City Plans are in the best interests of the community at this time. Having lived in the area for almost 20 years and having seen at least one annexation to Tukwila fail at the polls we are deeply concerned that this area is being unduly pressured by both sides, (ie: Sea -Tac City & Tukwila). We do not feel that either of the proposals offer enough Fire, Police, or City Services to adequately provide for present problems much less future problems which seem to be arising daily in our area. Neither of the interested parties (ie.: Tukwila or Sea-Tac), can offer us services that we do not already receive from the County on a regular basis. We have no complaints with how the County has ran our area, granted there were in excess of 75 signatures on the petitions to annex: to the City of Tukwila. Of that original 75 at least 5 have moved or have passed away. This is not a rich neighborhood and there are alot of elderly people who will be hurt if either of these proposals are allowed to take place. According to the City of Tukwilas' own code book chapter 13.08 entitled UNDERGROUND UTILITY INSTALLATION "13.08.010 Policy. It shall be the policy of the city to require compliance with the following orderly program pertaining to the underground relocation of all existing overhead wires carrying any electrical energy including, but not limited to, telephone, telegraph, cable television, and electrical power, and to require the underground installation of all new electrical and communication facilities, with certain exceptions noted hereinafter. The health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the community require that all such existing Page 1 overhead facilities be relocated underground as soon as practicable in accordance with the requirements included in this chapter, and that all new facilities specified in this chapter be installed underground. (Ord. 486 §1(A), 1976). The policy continues along in the same vane for some time but in the end it comes down to a point where the residents of the of which avast majority are elderly and live on fixed incomes. Not only do the elderly in our area live on fixed incomes but alot of the younger citizens live on fixed incomes as well, and I for one do not feel we can afford to pay for underground wiring and additional police and fire protection when we are adequately covered by the County already. The scare tactics and fear that has been imposed on the neighborhood by these Annexation Proposals and the Sea-Tac City Proposal has affected each and every one of us some to a greater extent than others. It has caused me personally undue stress and aggravation not to mention disappoint- ment, over the estrangement it has caused among neighbors. WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF KING COUNTY AS WELL AS THE CITIZENS OF ALL THE AREAS INVOLVED TO SHELF OR DISMISS THE PENDING ANNEXATIONS AND THE PROPOSED SEA-TAC CITY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AND LET THE NEIGHBORHOOD TAKE ITS NATURAL COURSE. Avast majority of the Riverton Area is already industrial in one form another and it should be allowed to progress naturally into the industrial park it is eventually going to be whether it is annexed to Tukwila or becomes part of the Sea-Tac Proposed City. Sincerely , ke ,t, 4 410_,,e410ta...42 , e Donna Meagher /7 2;7 1 /7 K.C.B. .B. FILE # j5�3 Exhibit # �� „� Ring County Fire District 124 Response to Sea Tac Incorporation Proposal I. History King County Fire District #24 has historically been one of the few fire districts which has supported the concept of incorporation. We supported the incorporation of the Highline area in 1983, even though we felt that the proposed city was too large. At that time, we felt a smaller city in the Sea Tac area would produce a much better revenue per capita for services. We also recognized that the Sea Tac area was perhaps the most impacted in King County and badly needed cohesive community planning. As a result, we supported the Highline effort. In February, 1985, a small residential section of our jurisdiction annexed to the City of Tukwila. The Boundary Review Board (BRB) invoked jurisdiction since the proposed annexation conflicted with the proposed Highline boundaries. When the Highline issue was over, the BRB released jurisdiction on the Tukwila annexation, therefore there was no public review process. As a result, the Crestview annexation ultimately resulted in an illogical service boundary for emergency fire and medical services. The citizens were told by the City of Tukwila and annexation proponents that the area would receive services from the fire districts and the city. The fire and medical aid service to the Crestview areas is now provided from the valley floor southeast of Southcenter. The increased distance, the severe grade between the valley and Crestview and the difference in alarm /dispatch centers have significantly delayed emergency fire and medical response to the area. Of all local government services, emergency services should not be reduced as a result of jurisdiction changes. In 1987, the concept of the benefits of local government surfaced again as a result of continuing crime and growth problems in the area. The incorporation proponents established some basic premises such as; the airport and related commercial activity are the most significant impacts, or driving forces in the community. While these impact the community they also generate the revenue to solve problems. To solve the crime problem focused on the Pacific Highway corridor (Sea Tac Strip) which impacts our neighborhoods, would require that the community stay together. There has currently been no cohesive community -wide planning. To accomplish improvements through planning will also mandate keeping the community under one service provider. With this in mind, the incorporation proponents reviewed budgets and plans of surrounding cities. In the fall of 1987, sub- committees met with Des Moines, Tukwila and Kent, In addition, Councilman Kennedy of Des Moines attended many of the meetings. Kent said they might be interested in considering an 1 incorporation of the entire Sea Tac proposal. Des Moines. and Tukwila representatives said "no" due to lack of ability to serve such a large area and /or due to concern over the balance of power by accepting such a large population into their jurisdictions. The citizens for Sea Tac then asked King County to fund a study of annexation or incorporation of the entire area. They . were told it would be necessary to .provide a petition for incorporation to allow King County to fund a study. Over one thousand signatures were gathered and submitted to King County. Since December of 1987, there has been an all out attack on the efforts of the citizens for Sea Tac . to improve the quality of life in their community by the special interests of the cities of Des. Moines and Tukwila. (Note copy of Resolution 509 — City of Des Moines March 1988.) The City of Des Moines, Fire District #24 and the Sea Tac proponents have reached a proposed boundary agreement which will be presented as evidence to the BRB as revised. Sea Tac proponents have proposed a boundary adjustment regarding the proposed Tukwila annexation boundaries. It seems to meet with no acceptance from. Tukwila and may have to be resolved by the BRB. The study on incorporation disclosed that King County was removing approximately three million dollars' from the Sea Tac area for services elsewhere. As a result, King County has also expressed concern over the annexation and incorporation proposal. II. Service Problems in the Sea Tac Community * Dense population growth.- The study reflects a population density similar to Seattle with a much higher percentage of multi - family housing than the county average. Fire District 24 demographic study supports this as well. * Sea Tac has the largest concentration of hotel rooms in the state. This presents a benefit on the revenue or mitigation side of the issue. * The highest crime rates in unincorporated King County occur at Sea Tac. The type of crime is serious and spills over into neighborhoods. Fire District #24 has supplied response data indicating significant police response time issues. Fire District #24 operates a fully computer aided fire /aid dispatch center. As a result, we have been able to break response information into eight square block areas. For example, we have identified areas of drug related activity. The fire district by operating its own alarm center has taken steps to provide the fastest possible response time due to the very large and highly populated buildings. The slower average response time of the police department places our personnel in additional jeopardy, as well as the community. We support an increased presence of police officers in this community. We feel there should be better police /fire joint planning as well. For example, the 1990 2 Goodwill Games between communist bloc countries and the U.S. will significantly impact the Sea Tac area. We have asked the. County for access to the planning for this significant 17 day event. Thus far the fire district has not been involved. * Transportation - While the Sea Tac area lies in the hub of the regional transportation network it has no organized representation in regional transportation planning. The Puget Sound Council of Governments creates most air and ground transportation recommendations. The Sea Tac Update identified solutions on the airport and 509 side but did not address proposals from the valley which will have significant impact on Sea Tac schools and neighborhoods. For example, Tukwila has proposed bringing a new four lane road into a completely residential neighborhood leading past our largest elementary school. The PSCOG approved this project through the Valley Transportation Plan. In fact this is the only major C.I.P. identified by King County in this area, (south 176th street widening). * Planning /Land Use /Building - There has been a significant lack of total Sea Tac area planning. The McMicken Heights plan was adopted a few years ago but only addresses land use issues. Nothing related to traffic or crime, etc. was reviewed. The Sea Tac Update is before the County Council at this time. It did not address issues in existing neighborhoods or business communities. Rather the area immediate to the airport or the clear zones yet to be developed. The community needs sidewalks in many areas, pedestrian safety features and so on. (See enclosed response to County Executive Ravelle - 1985). There have traditionally been new construction code enforcement problems in the Sea Tac area. For example a multi- million dollar law suit was generated between builder, King County and the owner of a high rise office building. The result was a several million dollar remodel of a brand new building and an out of court settlement of a quarter of a million dollars by King County. Since the County is self insured, this came directly out of the tax payers pockets. This is only one of many instances of difficulty with King County B.A.L.D. In addition, there has often been poor coordination between B.A.L.D. and the Fire Districts. We feel strongly that building codes are part of the public safety program and as such should be married to the fire department such as the cities of Kirkland and Kent have done. This also streamlines the process for construction which has been a long standing problem in King County government. These are certainly not all of the issues in the Sea Tac Community but are some of the more significant. III. Conclusion 3 Fire District #24 stongly supports the concept of incorporation of the Sea Tac Community. This has been a grass roots movement by nany individuals who live and work in the area. The several enclosures we have provided should demonstrate that the fire 3istrict has attempted to take on a broader roll than just fire 3epartment issues. We also realize our efforts have been merely stop gap and the complexity of the Sea Tac area demands a full :ime local government. Since we have served the community in a )roader capacity we beleive we can offer significant assistance :o the city during the transitional phase. recognize incorporation of the Sea Tac area in all likelihood ;ill turn the assets of the District over to the City. The )oundaries for Sea Tac went to the existing City boundaries in )rder to eliminate "islands ". We anticipate the Boundary Review ;oard may modify those boundaries in some areas. One of those areas could be on the valley floor which at present is relatively undeveloped in the Fire District #24 area. If that modification .s made we do recommend that the line be established on the east ;ide of Orillia Road or at the west edge of the valley floor. since our services are closer to that area we can respond there n inclimate weather. In addition, the traffic on Orillia Road as signifcant impact on the Sea Tac area, our high school, fiddle schools and the north Angle Lake neighborhood. There is .lso a concern about the relocation of a few mobile home parks tich are adjacent to the airport south clear zone. There is a arge plateau area west of Orillia Road which could accomodate .obile home parks or multi-family housing without impacting xisting residential neighborhoods. This option should remain vailable to Sea Tac. ue to our history of dealing with the problems associated with arge buildings we believe we can offer full building code and lanning assistance to the newly incorporated area. All of the ther cities in the Valley have utilized our high rise technology ackground in designing life safety into high rise buildings in heir communities. We have been responsible for life safety esign and final inspections for the complex buildings in the Sea ac area even though we receive no renumeration from the King ounty permit system. e have been traditionally on the leading edge of fire service echnology in King County from the first fully automated dispatch ystem, direct monitoring of all high rise, motel and many other uildings in our service area, five (5) inch hose supply lines, ombination type fire apparatus which allows us flexibility and o on. The planning and improvements we have made over the years s vital to the Sea Tac community. As a result of those mprovements we have asked for a Washington Survey and Rating ureau analysis which we feel confident will allow us to obtain a lass 3 rating. This will result in significantly reduced nsurance premiums to businesses and reflects our ability to 4 provide a high level of service to the residents of the area as well. As you can see fom our enclosures we provide all the typical services of a fire department as well as those previously mentioned services which are unique to this fire district. We recognize that Fire District #2 and Fire District #11 will feel threatened by the incorporation: of Sea Tac. The proponents for Sea Tac have not wanted to disrupt any of the fire districts . and have continually felt contracts with those existing services is appropriate. Evidence of that is the fact the Georgette Study only included a portion of the property tax available to cities with the $1.50 per thousand being left for the fire districts. We have recommended to the City of Des Moines that we jointly pursue modifications to the R.C.W.'s to allow a city to annex to more than one fire district. We have offered testimony in the past that contracts for vital services can become abritrary, placing a community at some degree of risk. The concept of . allowing more flexibility in the annexation of cities by fire districts offers an opportunity to ensure service levels are maintained. In conclusion, Fire District #24 is of the opinion there is more than adequate resources in the Sea Tac area to support incorporation of the area. We have recognized for some time the community generates much more revenue than it receives in services. For example the County redistribution of the EMS tax provides Fire District #24 with only approximately the same revenue as Vashon Island. We feel there are shortcomings in the services received from the county wide 911 tax as well. The problem would be resolved in this community if the Fire District alarm center was the primary 911 receiving point for all Sea Tac police, fire, and medical calls. Since we have been aware of the shortcomings in the community we feel we will be able to assist the city in the transitional phase. It is unfortunate that the sincere efforts for Sea Tac . have been diffused by so many outside interests in this process. We are confident the future of the Sea Tac community rests in tnis issue. Problems cannot be resolved_ by splitting the community up. It is also obvious none of the surrounding cities can annex all of Sea Tac without creating a conflict with one of the other cities' magical spheres of influence. The only good long term solution is the citizens of Sea Tac forming their own local government which is responsive to the specific needs of this community. The taxes which are currently being spent elsewhere need to be totally focused on this community. Piece- meal annexations will only detract from that effort. James E. Adsley, Chief Administrator, King County Fire District #24 5 LLI 7 H I a 4 Cr) 3 cc POLICE VS. FIRE 003 RESPONSE TIME FOR 1988 THAU OCTOBER 1988 KING COUNTY POLICE RESPONSES AID :17:38 26 DRUG 17:09 20 ASSAULT :08:25 37 SUICIDE :08:30. 06 CAR-PED 17 :20: 04 D.O.A. :20:43; 07 MVA :09 :16 70 RESPONSES w 20 � H 15 H W 0 5 0. 25 AI0 OAUG ASLT SUM CPEO TYPE OF CALL DOA NVA ACCIDENTS ON P.H.S. / M.H.S. / 1-5 ao- 71)-1 sol 30-4 201 0 1 P.N.S. IM 1984 1985 1987 MIN 1988 002 M.A. S. 1-5 MAJOR NORTH ARTERIALS IN FIRE DISTRICT #24 rt Lo J. LJ L 1 r 1 18 r 160TH 170TH 176TH '180TH 188TH 192N3 200TH 204TH 208TH 216TH CROSS STREETS v1 1 1 j 1 _Lt 1 1 1 u 1 I'll 1 J.14 1 Lr1JLt1 11UIVJ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES MOINES, expressing the intention of the City Council to enter into an interlocal agreement with the City of Tukwila to establish potential annexation areas. WHEREAS, the City of Des Moines and the City of Tukwila have shown an interest in annexing areas of unincorporated King County in the vicinity of the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, and WHEREAS, the City of Des Moines has established its annexation areas in this vicinity without reference to the annexation areas of the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has established its annexation areas in this vicinity without reference to the annexation areas of the City of Des Moines, and WHEREAS, it has accordingly come to the attention of the City Councils of the . City of Des Moines and the City of Tukwila that an overlap may exist in the potential annexation areas of the respective cities, and WHEREAS, the City of Des Moines and the City of Tukwila find that it is in the interest of good government and good municipal planning to describe potential annexation areas in reference to those of other cities in close proximity; now, therefore: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES MOINES RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Des Moines that the potential annexation area of the City of Des Moines in the immediate vicinity of the Seattle - Tacoma International Airport shall constitute an area bounded on the north by the south margin of . South 188th Street, on the east by the east margin of Pacific Highway South, on the south by the City of Des Moines city limits, and on the west by 1st Avenue South. Section 2. It is . the intention of the City Council of the City of Des Moines that at the present time the City of Des Moines has no interest in any potential annexation area which is both north of the south margin of South 188th Street and east of 16th Avenue South. Section 3. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Des Moines that the following area will constitute a joint potential planning area for both the City of Des Moines and the City of Tukwila, and will be considered an independent annexation area: on the south by the south margin of South 200th Street, on the north by the south margin of South 188th Street, on the west by east margin of Pacific Highway South, and on the east by Interstate 5. Section 4. The City Manager of the City of Des Moines is directed to begin negotiations with the City of Tukwila leading to an interlocal agreement which expresses the policies contained in this resolution. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Des Moines, Washington this 31st day of March, 1988, and signed in authentication thereof this 31st day of March, 1988. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 509 • M A O R potential potential potential potential / / / -, ;.. o. Ev X6c i6i ' ,' / i/, CEfi. 1( ',/ 7144 P/ /; / ; 2 1, 3 C(./ /A1 4 4 / //, ',, !//, 1' e % SM I S * -44j / // /�' ' / / / / ? / IreiN>f/ /// % // // / / / / / / / /f 9/1‘/P///. • A. / / / / ,/ // / / / �/ / / r// // £/ / /// a / / ., /,1 , / / / s�ll4 SV 14 17 i / I4 no 1>' 5�1 14,1. / 31 / ! 1 / / / +'`' l / / ^/ // / / ; /// /,// / / ;/ / // // r/ /// %, / / / L 4 y1) 2� // 280 // � ��/ / /// / /# 2�� L� / • , // / / //,./// / .. / „ // ” / / // / / ♦/� A / / a .);(/1/4/// ''')// ▪ /// // 4•7 5 ' / // / // % J " / //, 2 / / / / / / // A / //, / S I7 /Tw / / / / / //� ` / s I..r / f 1 / / / / / .0 /' / / oi/ / // /� �; fi ''f" ///;///' , e DES MOINES 289 1 WIN S1 5. NI I 04 411N :6. FILE # bit # KENT 292.01 253 261 263 264 265 266 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 279 280 /HIT SHO !67 WSHFC- TARGET AREAS tract • PARK 281 282 284.01 284.02 292.02 297 305 306 307 Svi 171IN 1 276 113 � i 286 1 ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED ACED (partial) ACED (partial) ACED (partial) ACED (partial) ACED (partial) ACED 112 S +. R., L-oaa s1. // 11 :: D s uri: ORTH) SEATTLE L LING CO -- OUTSIDE OF IL L f 287 N ' i 1 (partial) ACED dA•r ACED 1frN r 4, 0 ••M• for L 288.01 ZENITH - SALTWATER 290 / 300 1 '• j nom ST 1 \� s PO1rLA*0 N egamos• 284.03 VALLEY I j RIDGE 288.02 j 1 j ' 1 ul I, r1 a f rliiN fr ? b S ^� .x..�w i' 1161, 1 1uW� 111 uT 298.01 St 17114 r "2 "I ' U� 1 1767, s7 ID 1' ;` NT (PAR f 25821 r s CAS( 29. 31 r To the King County Boundary Review Board, November 15, Madam Chairman and Members of the Board: My name is Cindy Grande. My husband, Dodd, and I own a home at 1900( 37th Avenue South, in the Angle Lake neighborhood. There are many important benefits that a city of SeaTac could offer to homeowners, such as better police protection. I would like to speak tonight, however, about some of the less obvious benefits of a city that can result when a local community cares about the quality of life of people who live and work in the area. In particular, a city could improve the physical appearance of the area, provide recreational activities particularly for children and teenagers, and organize community events. First of all, most towns and cities take some pride in their physical appearance, particularly in the downtown area. In the city of SeaTac, this downtown area would be Highway 99 and the maior cross streets. I don't think anybody would be able to call it "the beautiful city of SeaTac" as it stands right now. But with local control of spending priorities and the right to create ordinances, call for local ballots, and work with the county and state on behalf of the local residents, we could improve our self-image considerably in 10 years. Sidewalks alone would make a big qualitative difference, turning a commercial highway for cars into a real downtown where pedestrians are expected and welcome. People driving down Highway 99 may find it amusing to see businessmen in 3-piece suits walking along the dusty roadside from their hotel to a local restaurant, but I'll bet the businessmen getting their shoes filled with dirt spend some time considering where else they might stay on their next visit. What would hurt the local hotels would financially hurt all of us in the new city, so we would all benefit if the hotel guests are made to feel more comfortable and welcome. Another big improvement would be some landscaping such as a strip of grass and evenly spaced trees between the new sidewalks and the existing parking lots. Some businesses have already done some attractive landscaping themselves, notably the Red Lion and the new Ramada Inn, the SeaTac Office Center and Alaska and Horizon Airlines. It would be a welcome relief to the eyes to see even more green interspersed with so much black asphalt, WIMMOOm for the whole length of the new city. 1 Hiding the electric wires underground is. a third, way to mprove the city's. appearance. I work in downtown Bellevue, where :he absence' of overhead makes the streets look a lot less 'luttered than the ones around here.. The buildings in some parts ,f. that city ,are less attractive than many of the ones we have on :ighway 99, but the combination of sidewalks, landscaping and nderground wiring make even the most ordinary blocks look irosperous and cared -for. .I would guess that all 33,000 residents .plus the 20,000 ..eople who. work in the area spend .some time on:.Highway 99. every ?eek. We would all benefit from a. beautiful main street. Now I.want to just mention the other two categories that, nought up earlier, of how a city, could benefit the community:; Recreational activities for children and teenagers are of very expensive for a parks and recreation,.fdepartment to :anage, and.the return on the investment would be something most amilies would highly value. A summer tennis program at the ennis courts at Tyee High School would keep a lot of.kids out of .ischief. And how about outdoor swimming lessons at Angle Lake ark? As for community events, my husband and I always enjoyed our ommunities' annual summer festival. In Des Moines it is called he Waterland Festival; in Seattle it is SeaFair, and in my home own it was the Strawberry Festival. I think this is a project hat the. City of SeaTac could initiate, but citizens would do ost of the work. It would be fun for kids to participate in it, nd everybody would feel more of ;a bond with the community. I think that the subjects I've chosen to speak about are not oremost in everyone's mind when they talk about incorporation of city. Still, I hope I have shown that there are some extra hings that a community of 33,000 people cannot get from the ounty, which would improve our lives immeasurably. Thank you very much. 2 PRIMIP ID) MTV, l( , Prepared by CHARLES DIBBLE P. 0. Box 6189 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Tel. 206 - 363 -0879 July 30, 1987 Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovt. Revenue Charges for Svcs. Fines and Forfeitures Misc. Revenue REV NUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Expenditures City Council $56,E00 Administration 175,000 Pers /Ad. Svcs. 232,000 City Attorney 150,000 Finance 191,000 Police 3,017,000 Comm. Developmt. 246,000 Comm. Svcs. Public Works Non- Deptmt1. TOTAL CITY EXPENDITURES: $7,328,100 SURPLUS AVAILABLE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, RESERVES, ( UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES, ETC.: $367,900 Revenues CITY REVENUES: -- $7,696,000 Proposed City Sea -Tac Community /97 $5,037,000 235,000 1,944,000 168,000 300,000 12,000 • Pace 7 155,C00 1,945,ODO 1,160,600 UNINCORPORATED CITY Of eaTac Gateway City" DD OD DO 00 0O 4- GI irCal c am GJ Boundary Review Board Presentation Tuesday, November 15, 1988 I. INTRODUCTION - Mayor Gary Van Dusen B. • Outline presentation A. City of Tukwila positions 1. Favor annexation of citizen initiated annexations area and therefore against incorporation of Sea-Tac. 2. Favor annexation of Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke. 3. Request BRB approval of the ano�xations to Tukwila without delay. 1. 15 minutes oul why incorporation of this area does not meet the objectives of the BRB 2. 15 minutes outlining why citizen initiated annexation is better. 3. We feel benefits of annexation over incorporation will be demonstrated in presentation. C. Introduce staff presenters. II. ANNEXATION IS BETTER than iNCORPORATION - A. Assumptions of both Annexation and Incoporation proponents. 1. What incorporation and annexation proponents BOTH want is Local Governance a. Why they want it is to provide their neighborhoods with greater local determination 1. greater control on land use and planning decisions 2. closer relationship and more dialogue with the Port of Seattle on Sea-Tac Int'l Airport use and impacts 3. urban level of services for an urban area a. Police to combat the high level of crime on Pacific Highway. b. Engineering services that will concentrate effort on transportation problems and solutions in their area (Other truths held by all to be self evident) • 2. The area from Seattle to Des Moipes and Tukwila to the Sound is urban 3. Police service along Pacific Highway would best be served by one entity 4. The incorporation area as currently defined is fiscally capable of supporting itself. 5. The gradual annexation and incorporation of urban areas, which is encouraged by the King County Comprehensive Plan, will eventually change the structure of the County to more of a true areawide service provider. (unless they designate more areas as urban.) B. Why then is the method of annexation better than incorporation? The BRB's own legislation (RCW 36.93.115) allows review and approval of annexations BEFORE considering a petition for incorporation regardless of who files first. Why does this legislation exist? Because annexation to a viable municipal entity that can provide urban services makes more sense. Annexation is better for the following reasons: 1. Economy of scale A comparison of City of SeaTac costs to City of Tukwila costs has been outlined. It shows that it costs less for the City of Tukwila to provide a better level of ser'/ice to the entire service area than a new city. For example It seems obvious that overhead for new city departments would cost more than it would to annex to a City that has those departments in place. ` ie. mergers of Fire District 18 with 11, Fire District 1 with the Tukwila Fire Department, Highline and Sea-[ac Tukwila Chambers. 2. Less government for region not just one less suburban . community but one less fire one less police one less public works department etc. For regional problems this means less competing local interests 3. Less time and start up costs with annexation A comparison of total employees to a comparable city in size and makeup would indicate that the proposal is not a full service city. The time, money and dedication of the Sea-Tac proponents is admirable and commendable. They saw a need in the community and are pursuing a solution. They even met with surrounding city representatives to discuss annexation of Sea-Tac. Tukwila is fiscally responsible. .Representatives of incorporation came before the Tukwila Council in February of this year . The Council's response was to fund a study to research what the annexation costs would be to the City and to the •unincorporated residents of the entire annexation area. III. COMMUNITY IDENTITY The airport, Sea-Tac, is a regional service, a local _nuisance, revenue generator, a big landform, .and a barrier and to some a source of entertainment. A source of community pride and identity, not likely. It As a geograhical locator. "I live by the airport." City identity is built over time. Its born when a city receives legal • identity, its character however is not formed until it responds and starts taking action. For example, the City of Tukwila was born eighty years ago in 1908. It was a one neighborhood town with its commercial center along Interurban avenue which was also a rail corridor connecting Seattle and Tacoma. It had a post office, grogery store , high school and elementary school. Sixty year later a partnership was formed with the neighborhood that is now Southcenter. The community identity became more complex. The rural community now was suburban with climate controlled shopping freeeways and industrial parks. The high school and community shopping had moved west across I-5. The Tukwila identity actually extends beyond its current • boundary, in large part because of its close relationship with the School District. People who live in Tukwila go to the South Central Schools and the District relies on Tukwila for many municipal programs. For example, the Fire Departments sponsors first aid classes, the police department sponsors the Dare program and the Recreation departments holds classes and special events that are attended by the Districts Students. The community shopping, eating and some of the entertainment 15 along Pacific Highway for Tukwila residents and vice versus for Riverton Foster and Thorndyke. IV. APPROVE RIVERTON, FOSTER, THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS A. Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke identify with the Tukwila community. (1) Annexation would preserve natural neighborhoods and make Tukwila and these neighborhoods one community. The residents of Tukwila and the residents of Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke shop in the same stores, attend the same schools and go the same churches. The petitioners got percent, percent, and 16 percent respectively of the registered voters in their areas to sign the petitions for annexation The Tukwila/SeaTac Chamber of Commerce has formed an alliance with the Burien/Highline Chamber. Demonstrates that the Identity of the area is evolving, There will always be separate distinct areas within the community but that there is strength in union. (2) Streets and existing Tukwila boundaries were used as the physical boundaries for the three annexations. The annexation petitions were developed and circulated by residents who made a decision on where they thought their neighborhood was and on what annexation area had a good chance of success. For a western boundary, Pacific Highway does serve as a physical, distinctive edge between neighborhoods in the community. (3) Annexation of Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke would help the City create logical service areas. The Fire District No. 1 annexation would extend the City's service area northward and west along Pacific Highway and E. Marginal Way. The Riverton annexation fills in the gaps and squares off the irregular boundary of the old Fire District #1 legal description and would complement the BRB's previous approval, The Foster annexation area fills in the irregular gap between existing Tukwila limits and the I-5 corridor. The Thorndyke annexation merely extends the western edge established by Riverton and Foster and carries it down to 160th Street which is the southern limit of the South Central School District and the southern boundary of former Fire District 18. The Tukwila Planning Area was established in 1975. Because of the character of Pacific Highway, it would be more logical for both sides o+ the street to be in one jurisdiction. The City has accepted petitions for urban areas outside its planning area ie. Fire District #1. Therefore consideration and approval by the City of annexations outside its Planning Area are accepted. Cascade View, an area west of Pacific Highway, is circulating a petition to annexation to the City. Annexation of this area would put Tukwila police protection on both sides of Pacific Highway were vice activity is reported to be the highest. (4) Annexation of Riverton Foster and Thorndyke would get rid of abnormal and irregular boundaries. The annexation proponents have proposed readily identifiable and linear boundaries on the west. Their eastern boundary, an irregular western boundary for Tukwila, would be eliminated. Jr' �y C��^/ ~�����4-~ c�m�x`��. L»������������������ ���^~ met • The annexation, proposals have good INTERIM boundaries but for logical services, expansion west of Pacific Highway makes sense and annexations in this area would be supported. (5) Annexation of Riverton Foster, and Thorndyke would allow the relatively small City of Tukwila to grow and would discourage the incorporation of multiple small cities. Although the City of Tukwila is considered small due to its size and number of residents, the City's programs and services operate for a much larger population. V. 8. Tukwila is fiscally responsible 1. A study of service impacts associated with the three annexations was done. 2. There are estimated shortfalls in revenue over projected expenses but it is a logical service area and the City can still maintain much better response times from all departments in comparison to County service levels. SUMMARY - Mayor Gary Van Dusen A. Tukwila must look to the Future Willing to annex Planning Area and beyond for the following reasons: 1. We are impacted by the area Crime from Pacific Highway spills over into our residential communities 2. Tukwila relies on local participatory government Our size and residential population gives a false impression of our problems and the complexity of the issues we deal with The City is a fully functioning municipal government with professionally staffed departments Dedicated, informed and knowledgeable residents are needed to provide leadership and to articulate the communities goals and to serve on appointed and elected boards B. Questions from BRB City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 QOM 433 -1600 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: (10 /T2.MEMO) MEMORANDUM ci -r1 Cs�lSly�-- �c�� LO, 11. 81S Ky > C'L s. .� • MO■'E. pcoLxv42# i 42JsO f' '.z. S 2. et .sr. 3. ikt4F.M. USA ci skS A 'L 'tU qc CSSOVILS0e0 IBC .1c.._ 9CVNICES "jb . • .► `ICO L. hJlE-C- 11I1Sc-1, tat- ILL ', November 10, 1988 TO: Kin FROM: Steve Miller There are three major issues: AUDREY GRUGER LOIS NORTH PAUL BARDEN ou ty Councilmembers District 1 District 4 District 7 King County Council Gary Grant, Chair Calvin P. Hoggard, Program Staff Director Room 402, King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296-1673 MEMORANDUM RE: Tukwila's Proposed Annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster ( "Sea -Tac Annexations ") The Council has requested an updated analysis and preparation of revised motion on the proposed Sea -Tac Tukwila annexations. Staff recommends that the Council position regarding the proposed Tukwila annexations no longer request a delay by the Boundary Review Board (BRB). The BRB does not have the ability to order a delay unless it is consented to by Tukwila. Based upon the position of the Tukwila city council and its mayor, stated on November 7, 1988, to oppose any delay, we believe the annexation should be denied unless specific problems are remedied prior to BRB approval. 1. Tukwila's proposed use of Highway 99 South as the boundary on the west would split the commercial district bordering Highway 99 in half. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities is the first listed objective of the Boundary Review Board. A more logical boundary would be 42nd Avenue South, somewhat to the east of Highway 99. This would allow planning and development or redevelopment of these commercial areas in an integrated fashion. Use of Pacific Highway South as a boundary also presents public safety concerns. Criminal activity along the highway requires a significant public safety investment. Split jurisdiction of the highway and the immediate interior blocks would present enforcement difficulties for police personnel. Proposing the western side of 42nd Avenue South as the boundary for the annexations would also require the eastern Sea -Tac Incorporation boundary be modified to parallel 42nd Avenue South. This boundary modification would still allow opportunity for a viable incorporation to the west or for future annexations. CYNTHIA,SULLIVAN District 2 RON SIMS District 5 GREG NICKELS District 8 Printed on recycled paper BILL REAMS BRUCE LAING GARY GRANT District 3 District 6 District 9 ti King County Councilmembers November 11, 1988 Page 2 2. In order to ensure environmental protection, a surface water management program must be required as a needed urban service to this area prior to approval of the annexation. This could be satisfied either by Tukwila entering into a contract with King County or the city establishing its own utility, which would be functional at the time of the annexation. The County SWM has appropriated funds for the Southgate detention pond, and a future capital project was planned for a South Three Tree Point retention /detention facility. 3. The annexation will more than double the present 4760 population of Tukwila by adding approximately 7,000 people. A growth in this scale should not be done without Tukwila having submitted an acceptable plan for transition of services acceptable to the BRB to show that there will not be disruption of essential public safety services in the immediate aftermath of the annexation. This probably requires Tukwila to contract with King County for provision of police services until they are ready to take it up themselves. The County should work toward getting agreements with the cities on a range of issues. Because of the short time frame, it is probably not tenable to take the position on this annexation, that a complete interlocal must be entered into with the County prior to BRB approval. The conflict between Sea -Tac Incorporation and the three annexations must be resolved by the BRB in a fashion that allows the citizens of the affected areas the choices they desire. SM:mis 1918C cc: Tim Hill, King County Executive Calvin Hoggard, Program Staff Director Bob Williams, Section Manager Shelley Sutton, Section Manager •/908 Date: November 4, 1988 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor -• • - -_ W _ • 1- -- - - a a a • -- - - - - _ • For Release: Immediately -MORE- Contact: John McFarland City Administrator Mayor Gary VanDusen is in receipt of a letter from King County Executive Tim Hill suggesting that both jurisdictions jointly request delay of the review of the Riverton /Foster /Thorndyke annexation /incorporation question currently before the Boundary Review Board. Mayor VanDusen was surprised and disappointed with the contents of the letter and the staff report that accompanied it. In his letter, Mr. Hill stated that the County has had inadequate time to work out currently unresolved issues relating to the annexation or incorporation of the three communities. He cited the boundary dispute between the annexation and incorporation proponents, as well as the potential impact on County revenues and long range capital plans. Hill suggests the development of an interlocal agreement befiaeda the County and City to identify and analyze these impacts. Mayor VanDusen expressed frustration over the County's position. The City of Tukwila has repeatedly over the past 8 months attempted to gain the County's cooperation in discussing these issues. The Executive's staff as well as the County Council's staff has indicated an inability or unwillingness to do so. Now at what can only be termed as "later than the eleventh hour ", the County is attempting to derail the efforts of three neighborhood task forces, the work of the Tukwila Planning Commission and the Tukwila Council, and countless hour by the City's staff, all of which have diligently considered the impacts, advantages and disadvantages of the proposed annexations. The citizens of Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke should not be required to suffer the county's failure to react to these annexations in an timely and effective manner. Additionally, and in regard to the issue of disputed boundaries, the Mayor stated that it is issues such as this that the Boundary Review Board was constituted to resolve. News Release City of Tukwila November 4, 1988 Page 2 According to the Mayor, the City of Tukwila is not interested in joining with the County to further delay the process. The citizens of these County communities have requested annexa- tion to the City and we.intend to facilitate this request. The environmental impact assessments and staff analyses have been completed and the City is prepared to move forward without further delay. King County Executive TIM HILL 400 King'County Courthouse 51G Third Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 !:206l 344-4040 November 3, 1988 The Honorable Gary Van Dusen Mayor, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Tukwila's Proposed Annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster Dear Mayor Van Dusen: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the motion I sent this morning to the King County Council recommending the Boundary Review Board continue the city's proposed annexations and the proposed incorporation of Sea -Tac. I am taking this action to serve the public's need for a complete analysis of the annexation and incorporation proposals' costs, benefits and impacts on local and regional public service delivery. The Executive Departments of King County have worked together to identify major issues of the annexation and incorporation proposals which are unresolved and will still be when the Boundary Review Board holds its hearings on November 15 and 17, 1988. Among these unresolved issues are: (1) the boundary dispute be- tween Tukwila and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee which has resulted in each claiming that Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster belong in its jurisdiction; (2) the impact of annexation and incorporation on the County's ability to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's regional policy goals; (3) the impact of annexation and incorporation on County and city revenues and expenditures; and (4) the impact of annexation and incorporation on capital improvement projects. The King County Comprehensive Plan requires that the County be involved in the process of determining the annexation and incorporation areas' boundaries. It also provides that the County play a role in addressing the impacts of annexa- tion and incorporation on regional and local public services, on regional public policy goals, on revenues and expenditures, and on capital improvement projects. Because•King County is the only government which currently represents the citi- zens of these neighborhoods,.the County has an obligation to represent their interests throughout the processes of determining the annexation and incor- poration areas' boundaries and analyzing all the costs, benefits and impacts of annexation and incorporation. The Honorable Gary Van Dusen November 3, 1988 Page 2 The most effective mechanism for ensuring that the public interest is considered when the regional as well as local impacts of annexation and incorporation are identified and analyzed would be an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila. An agreement would enable the County and city to effectively join together to resolve the boundary dispute and address how annexation and incor- • poration will affect service delivery, revenues, expenditures and capital im- provement projects. It would also assure the citizens that there will be an effective partnership between King County and Tukwila to smoothly transfer program management and public service delivery responsibilities from one juris- diction to the other if annexation and incorporation are approved. I respectfully request that Tukwila join King County in recommending that the Boundary Review Board continue its hearing on the city's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster and Sea -Tac's proposed incorporation. I commit to you that the resources of King County shall be devoted to working with Tukwila, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee, the citizens of the proposed annexation and incorporation areas and other affected jurisdictions to establish the annexation and incorporation areas' boundaries. King County will also com- mit the necessary resources to working with Tukwila to adopt an interlocal agreement which addresses all relevant interjurisdictional issues and clearly states which jurisdiction will be responsible for public services, capital improvement projects, and ensuring that public policy goals are achieved. King County's goal is to have adopted an interlocal agreement with Tukwila when the BRB reconvenes the public hearing so that the BRB and the public see evidence that both our jurisdictions addressed all issues and agreed on how they should be resolved. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the County's proposal, please call Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department,at 296 -7503. Hill King County Executive TH:JR:pr S:LTR2 Enclosure cc: King County Councilmembers ATTN: Cal Hoggard, Program Director Jerry Peterson, Administrator Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division BACKGROUND PROPOSED TUKWILA ANNEXATIONS AND SEA -TAC INCORPORATION The Boundary Review Board (BRB) will hold public hearings November 15 and November 17 on three annexation proposals by the City of Tukwila (Riverton, Thorndyke. Foster) and the proposed incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac. If the voters approve all three annexation proposals. Tukwila's population would increase by 137%. from 4,780 to 11,363. The estimated population of the City of Sea -Tac is 33,000. Because the boun- daries of the proposed incorporation area and annexation areas overlap, the BRB is con- sidering them at the same hearing. The BRB could: 1. Approve the incorporation proposal with its current boundaries, which include the Foster and Thorndyke areas and a portion of the Riverton area, thereby denying the Tukwila annexation of those areas. 2. Approve one or more of the proposed Tukwila annexations and deny the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal. 3. Approve one or more of the Tukwila annexation proposals and approve the Sea -Tac incorporation with boundary modifications. 4. Approve one or more of the Tukwila annexations with boundary modifications and approve the Sea -Tac incorporation with boundary modifications. 5. Deny all annexation proposals and incorporation proposals. 6. Continue the public hearing to a later date if all parties concur. BRB approval in November could put a proposal on the ballot as early as February 1989. The County Council is responsible for setting the election date following BRB action. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT It is King County policy to support annexations and incorporations when public services can be adequately provided and when the principles of the King County Comprehensive plan are supported by such actions. It would therefore be King County's intention to support Tukwila annexations and incorporations of new cities such as Sea -Tac when the above goals can be met. Because the areas under consideration are currently with King County's jurisdiction, it is the County's responsibility to assure citizens that the facts are compiled, analyzed and made available for public review so that an informed public vote and an orderly transition can take place. This analysis should address: O What are the optimum boundaries for most efficient and cost - effective service deli- very? o What public services shall be the responsibility of local (city) government and which shall remain the responsibility of regional (County) government? S:SEATAC 1 11/3/88 o How will Countywide, Comprehensive Plan goals for regional needs such as environ- mental protection, a diversity of housing opportunities, and an adequate transportation network be assured through the proposed actions? o What are the revenue and expenditure impacts to the citizens of each jurisdiction? o How will budgeted and planned capital improvement and maintenance projects be carried out under the proposed actions? The purpose of this report is to lay the groundwork for answering the above questions by defining the issues and preliminary County staff proposals. A number of County departments have identified local and regional services provided to the subject areas, revenues. capital improvements, and regional policy issues that should be addressed in negotiations with Tukwila or a new City of Sea -Tac. Cost and revenue estimates are rough, as service districts do not conform to the annexation /incorporation boundaries. Some Departments' data is incomplete at this time and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Study prepared for the BRB by the Georgette Group was not available while this information was being compiled. The Office of Financial Management is reviewing all Department estimates for consistency and will supplement this report. SERVICE DELIVERY Departments reporting on October 27, 1988 estimate the annual cost of delivery services to the entire area is nearly $5 minion. Local urban services such as police, park and recreation, building permits and inspections, land use planning, and road maintenance are provided by King County. In addition, King County provides surface water management. public health, emergency medical services, district court and public defense, housing rehabilitation services, and transportation planning, all services which could be considered regional. There has been no formal discussion with either the City of Tukwila or Sea -Tac cityhood proponents regarding the transfer or continuation of services. It is assumed that services transferred to another jurisdiction would need to continue during a transition period and a number of services could be contracted by a city on a longer term basis. Those services that could be provided under contract include: 1. District Court: cities generally contract with King County for criminal cases. 2. Public Defense: Seattle and other cities currently contract with King County for ser- vices. 3. Police: DPS reports that Sea -Tac intends to have a 49- member force in one year and could contract with the County in the interim, but feels that it would take longer to establish full services than Sea -Tac proponents estimate. DPS currently provides crime lab and SWAT team services to cities at no charge. 4. BALD: permit services, inspections, and arson investigation could continue by contract on an interim or long -term basis. Access to the BALD data system could also be contracted. S:SEATAC 2 11/3/88 �` ' :.. �: :88ri ::�:.:c�v.�•..o.:..,....., 5. Roads: road maintenance, transportation planning, and electrical charges. 6. Health: The County has a fee for service contract with Tukwila for public health ser- vices and would recommend contracting with a new city. SERVICES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED TO CONTINUE Departments recommended the following regional services that King County should nego- tiate and continue to provide: 1. Regional parks. pool facilities, trail systems . 2. Surface Water Management for cities without their own utilities 3. Housing rehabilitation services 4. Land Development Information System data services 5. Historic Preservation 6. Regional Transportation Planning COUNTYWIDE SERVICES UNAFFECTED BY ANNEXATIONS /INCORPORATION THAT WOULD CONTINUE 1. Flood Control Planning and Management (SWM) 2. Public Health Services, Emergency Medical Services 3. Community Development Block Grant Administration (legal responsibility) 4. Public Defense for cases filed under state law (legal responsibility) 5. Police (legal requirement until implementation) 6. Road maintenance (legal requirement until implementation) IMPACT ON SERVICE NEEDS: DPS reported that Sea -Tac incorporation would reduce the calls to the SW Precinct by about 1/3, and that the nature of criminal activity in the Sea -Tac area requires staff from vice and narcotics units. Unincorporated islands reduce response effectiveness, empha- sizing the importance of boundaries which do not compromise service delivery. District court cases in the Airport District Court would decline if a new Sea -Tac city established its own municipal court. BALD reported that annexation or incorporation would have little effect on its workload because of building activity in other parts of the County. REVENUES Funding for the services identified in Department reports comes from Current Expense, property tax revenues, gas tax revenues, fees. sales tax, service charge revenue, and levy revenue. The proposals before the BRB would result in revenue reductions (presumably partially offset by service cost reductions) in a number of those sources. S:SEATAC 3 11/3/88 The approximate total revenues loss to the departments reporting the first year following annexation or incorporation would be nearly $1 million for the Tukwila annexations and nearly $7 million for the Sea -Tac incorporation area. There is also some estimate of longer term revenue impact of the annexation and incorporation. Roads Division reports the first year and 1989 -2000 impact on property tax revenue as follows: 1st year 1989 - 2000 Tukwila - 254.500 - 2.51 million Sea -Tac - 2.7 million - 29.78 million The decline of assessed valuation and earlier arrival at the $2.25 levy lid as a result of annexation /incorporation are incorporated into the model used in these estimates. The impact on gas tax revenue is not available at this time. The reduction in service cost that may accompany the revenue loss is not necessarily equal, particularly over the long term, according to the Roads Division. Some levy revenue is Countywide and would not be affected by annexation, such as the River Improvement levy which funds some SWM services. Revenue from liquor excise tax, liquor profits, motor vehicle fuel tax, and real estate excise tax would not be distributed to another jurisdiction in the year of annexation or incorporation. The Office of Financial Management estimates the revenue loss from sales and road district taxes the first year would be approximately $417,000 for the Tukwila annexations and $3 million for Sea -Tac. Because the distributions would be split the year an incor- poration or annexations become effective, the annualized revenue impact would be higher ($533,00 for Tukwila, $6.5 million for Sea -Tac). Following negotiations, revenue estimates would be modified to reflect service cost reductions, fee for service contracts, and other items to be negotiated by the jurisdictions. None of the departments reported that the annexations or incorporation would result in any new or additional revenues other than continued service provision by King County on a fee for service basis. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Negotiations should address the funding of capital improvement projects (CIPs) that have local and regional benefit. Departments provided information on projects for which funds have already been appropriated and those planned in the next six years with no appropriation. According to the Department reports received October 27, the County has appropriated $600,600 for CIPs in the Tukwila annexation areas and over $5 million for the Sea -Tac area. Capital projects are planned in the next six years costing $105,000 in the Tukwila annexations and over $6.77 million in the Sea -Tac area. In addition to projects listed, Natural Resources and Parks reports that development of North Sea -Tac Park, located in the Sea -Tac incorporation area, is a major capital project. Negotiations with the Port of Seattle which are near conclusion will determine the extent of County commitment to developing this regional park. SWM projects in the subject areas for which funds have been appropriated total over $1.25 million. Tukwila is currently involved in the Green River Management Agreement S:SEATAC 4 11/3/88 and would be expected to increase its level of participation in financing flood control improvements if areas are annexed. A new city could also be party to the agreement. Road improvements costing over $6.3 million are planned for the Sea -Tac incorporation area in the next six years. Not included in the Roads Division report is the Road Improvement District arterial south of Sea -Tac Airport which would connect the airport with the state's extension of SR -509, a project of regional significance. OTHER ISSUES FOR NEGOTIATIONS King County should ensure that regional and Comprehensive. Plan policy goals are main- tained in areas that incorporate or are annexed to another jurisdiction. Issues identified by departments in addition to service delivery, revenues, and capital projects include: o LAND USE: Housing and employment densities to encourage transit use, key goals of the Comprehensive Plan, should be encouraged by the other jurisdiction. Land use policies in the Sea -Tac Area Update which will be adopted by the County Council in early 1989 should be supported. o HOUSING: Affordable housing policies and programs and fair housing protection should continue if areas are annexed or incorporated. Housing issues and services should remain responsibility of King County until Tukwila and Sea -Tac adopt similar policies and ordinances or King County could permanently retain them as regional responsibilities. o ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: Surface water management could be required unless a city had its own utility. Protection of open space, wetlands, and streams should also be ensured. o HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Tukwila does not have policies or an ordinance to pre- serve historic landmarks. King County should provide the service as a regional government unless Tukwila and Sea -Tac adopt similar preservation ordinances. o COMMITMENT TO SOLVE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS: Land use and design standards that promote transit use and other measures such as Transportation System Management ordinances should be discussed. o LEGAL ISSUES: The allocation of long -term legal responsibility for areas annexed or incorporated and other legal issues need resolution. S:SEATAC ANNEXATION /INCORPORATION BOUNDARIES The . annexation and incorporation proposals of Tukwila and Sea -Tac are characterized by boundary, disputes. Efforts to annex Foster and Thorndyke to Tukwila commenced after those areas were shown within the Sea -Tac incorporation boundary. The City of Des Moines has also reacted to the incorporation and annexation proposals by initiating its own increased annexation activity. The 1985 Comprehensive Plan discusses the impor- tance of public and agency participation in identifying potential annexation areas. Logical boundaries that eliminate islands of unincorporated territory are necessary for efficient and cost- effective service delivery. Reactive annexation activity does not provide jurisdictions with ample opportunity for careful planning and analysis of how they want to grow. The apparent race to the BRB and ballot risks leaving voters without sufficient information on service delivery and reve- nue requirements. A vital and necessary prerequisite to annexation or incorporation is the mutual agreement . on boundaries of proposed incorporations and annexations by all affected jurisdictions. In this case, boundary discussions should involve Sea -Tac proponents, Tukwila. Des Moines, King County, Kent, and other affected jurisdictions. S:SEATAC CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The questions identified regarding boundaries, service delivery, capital projects, financial impact, and regional policy issues in the proposed annexations and incor- poration must be resolved by agreement before King County supports the proposed incorporation of Sea -Tac or the Tukwila annexation of Riverton, Thorndyke, or Foster. Agreements that clearly define responsibility for local and regional services and how regional goals will be supported are necessary for residents of the affected areas to make informed decisions at the voting booth. Boundary disputes do not serve the goal of efficient service delivery or the develop- ment of coherent long -term annexation plans. It is recommended that King County recommend the Boundary Review Board continue Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke, and Foster and the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation until: (1) King County, Tukwila, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and other affected government agencies agree upon the boundaries of Tukwila's proposed annexa- tion areas and the proposed new city of Sea -Tac, and (2) King County and Tukwila adopt an interlocal agreement defining: (a) the city's proposed annexation boundaries; (b) which public services each juris- diction will provide; (c) how the Comprehensive Plan's regional public policy goals will be achieved; and (d) each jurisdiction's responsibility for capital improvement projects in the annexation areas. (3) Agreement is reached on a specific negotiation period following an incor- poration election and before the incorporation becomes effective so that a negotiating team for the new city can be formed, and an agreement may be adopted defining (1) how public services will be provided, (b) how regional public policy goals will be achieved, and (c) responsibility for capital improvement projects. King County will attempt to gain the concurrence of the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and Tukwila on recommending that the BRB continue the public hearing until the above conditions are met as an alternative to denial. S:SEATAC 7 11/3/88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 October 31, 1988 INTRODUCED BY: MOTION NO. PROPOSED NO. A MOTION expressing King County's interest in working with Tukwila, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee, the citizens of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster, and other - affected parties and jurisdictions on Tukwila's three annexation proposals and the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal. WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County and its cities should work together to identify future annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should play an active role in municipal annexations, SUPPORTING THEM WHEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, AND OPPOSING THEM WHEN INCONSISTENT," and . WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should support incorporations when formation of cities is appropriate to assure adequate facilities and services for growth consistent with the Comprehensive Plan," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "interlocal agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within agreed -upon annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states the processes of identifying future annexation areas and adopting interlocal agreements "should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, landowners and other governmental agencies," and WHEREAS, both Tukwila and the Sea -Tac incorporation Committee claim Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster should be within their jurisdiction, resulting in a dispute which, as the Comprehensive Plan states, King County should play an active role to resolve before the annexation and incorporation proposals are submitted to the voters, and WHEREAS, King County has identified many issues within the categories of: 1) regional and local public service delivery; 2) achieving Comprehensive Plan regional policy goals; 3) capital improvement projects; 4) revenues; and 5) expenditures, which have not been addressed by Tukwila's annexation proposals or the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal, and • WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila which addresses the issues named above would enable the county and city to assure ATTEST: S:MTNINC PASSED THIS Riverton's, Thorndyke's and Foster's residents that they will receive optimal public ser- vices, programs and facilities, and WHEREAS, addressing the issues named above would enable King County, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and the residents of the area proposed for incor- poration to understand the costs, benefits and impacts of incorporation, and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Sea -Tac following the incorporation election but before the effective date of incorporation which addresses the issues named above would more effectively provide for the transition of program, management, public service delivery and capital improvement project respon- sibility from one jurisdiction to another; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The King County executive and council hereby request the boundary review board continue Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster and the pro- posed Sea -Tac incorporation because: A. King County and other affected jurisdictions were not parties to drawing up the proposed annexations and incorporation areas boundaries, and B. The boundary dispute between Tukwila and the Sea -Tac incorporation committee is unresolved, and • C. The costs and impacts of annexation and incorporation on public service deli- very, revenues and expenditures, capital improvement projects and regional public policy goals have not been adequately identified and addressed, and D. No interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila has been adopted which would assure the residents at Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster that they will receive optimal public services, programs and facilities. Clerk of the Council day of , 1988. KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Chair November 3, 1988 ' King County Executive TIM HILL 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 12061 344-4040 The Honorable Gary Van Dusen Mayor, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mayor Van Dusen: RE: Tukwila's Proposed Annexations of Riverton Thorndyke and Foster Enclosed for your information is a copy of the motion I sent this morning to the King County Council recommending the Boundary Review Board continue the city's proposed annexations and the proposed incorporation of Sea -Tac. I am taking this action to serve the public's need for a complete analysis of the annexation and incorporation proposals' costs, benefits and impacts on local and regional public service delivery. The Executive Departments of King County have worked together to identify major issues of the annexation and incorporation proposals which are unresolved and will still be when the Boundary Review Board holds its hearings on November 15 and 17, 1988. Among these unresolved issues are: (1) the boundary dispute be- tween Tukwila and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee which has resulted in each claiming that Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster belong in its jurisdiction; (2) the impact of annexation and incorporation on the County's ability to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's regional policy goals; (3) the impact of annexation and incorporation on County and city revenues and expenditures; and (4) the impact of annexation and incorporation on capital improvement projects. The King County Comprehensive Plan requires that the County be involved in the process of determining the annexation and incorporation areas' boundaries. It also provides that the County play a role in addressing the impacts of annexa- tion and incorporation on regional and local public services, on regional public policy goals, on revenues and expenditures, and on capital improvement projects. Because'King County is the only government which currently represents the citi- zens of these neighborhoods, County has an obligation to represent their interests throughout the processes of determining the annexation and incor- poration areas' boundaries and analyzing all the costs, benefits and impacts of annexation and incorporation. The Honorable Gary Van Dusen November 3, 1988 Page 2 The most effective mechanism for ensuring that the public interest is considered when the regional as well as local impacts of annexation and incorporation are identified and analyzed would be an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila. An agreement would enable the (County and(city to effectively join together to resolve the boundary dispute and address how annexation and incor- poration will affect service delivery, revenues, expenditures and capital im- provement projects. It would also assure the citizens that there will be an effective partnership between King County and Tukwila to smoothly transfer program management and public service delivery responsibilities from one juris- diction to the other if annexation and incorporation are approved. I respectfully request that Tukwila join King (E in recommending that the Boundary Review Board continue its hearing on the (Cj ty's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster and Sea -Tac's proposed incorporation. I commit to you that the resources of King County shall be devoted to working with Tukwila, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee, the citizens of the proposed annexation and incorporation areas and other affected jurisdictions to establish the annexation and incorporation areas' boundaries. King County will also com- mit the necessary resources to working with Tukwila to adopt an interlocal agreement which addresses all relevant interjurisdictional issues and clearly states which jurisdiction will be responsible for public services, capital improvement projects, and ensuring that public policy goals are achieved. King County's goal is to have adopted an interlocal agreement with Tukwila when the BRB reconvenes the public hearing so that the BRB and the public see evidence that both our jurisdictions addressed all issues and agreed on how they should be resolved. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the County's proposal, please call Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department,at 296 -7503. Sincerely, TH:JR:pr S:LTR2 Enclosure Hill King County Executive cc: King County Councilmembers ATTN: Cal Hoggard, Program Director Jerry Peterson,' Administrator Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division BACKGROUND S:SEATAC PROPOSED TUKWILA ANNEXATIONS AND SEA -TAC INCORPORATION The Boundary Review Board (BRB) will hold public hearings November 15 and November 17 on three annexation proposals by the City of Tukwila (Riverton, Thorndyke. Foster) and the proposed incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac. If the voters approve all three annexation proposals, Tukwila's population would increase by 137%, from 4,780 to 11,363. The estimated population of the City of Sea -Tac is 33.000. Because the boun- daries of the proposed incorporation area and annexation areas overlap, the BRB is con- sidering them at the same hearing. The BRB could: 1. Approve the incorporation proposal with its current boundaries, which include the Foster and Thorndyke areas and a portion of the Riverton area, thereby denying the Tukwila annexation of those areas. 2. Approve one or more of the proposed Tukwila annexations and deny the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal. 3. Approve one or more of the Tukwila annexation proposals and approve the Sea -Tac incorporation with boundary modifications. 4. Approve one or more of the Tukwila annexations with boundary modifications and approve the Sea -Tac incorporation with boundary modifications. 5. Deny all annexation proposals and incorporation proposals. 6. Continue the public hearing to a later date if all parties concur. BRB approval in November could put a proposal on the ballot as early as February 1989. The County Council is responsible for setting the election date following BRB action. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT It is King County policy to support annexations and incorporations when public services can be adequately provided and when the principles of the King County Comprehensive plan are supported by such actions. It would therefore be King County's intention to support Tukwila annexations and incorporations of new cities such as Sea -Tac when the above goals can be met. Because the areas under consideration are currently with King County's jurisdiction, it is the County's responsibility to assure citizens that the facts are compiled, analyzed and made available for public review so that an informed public vote and an orderly transition can take place. This analysis should address: o What are the optimum boundaries for most efficient and cost - effective service deli- very? o What public services shall be the responsibility of local (city) government and which shall remain the responsibility of regional (County) government? 1 11/3/88 o How will Countywide, Comprehensive Plan goals for regional needs such as environ- mental protection, a diversity of housing opportunities, and an adequate transportation network be assured through the proposed actions? o What are the revenue and expenditure impacts to the citizens of each jurisdiction? o How will budgeted and planned capital improvement and maintenance projects be carried out under the proposed actions? The purpose of this report is to lay the groundwork for answering the above questions by defining the issues and preliminary County staff proposals. A number of County departments have identified local and regional services provided to the subject areas, revenues, capital improvements, and regional policy issues that should be addressed in negotiations with Tukwila or a new City of Sea -Tac. Cost and revenue estimates are rough, as service districts do not conform to the annexation /incorporation boundaries. Some Departments' data is incomplete at this time and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Study prepared for the BRB by the Georgette Group was not available while this information was being compiled. The Office of Financial Management is reviewing all Department estimates for consistency and will supplement this report. SERVICE DELIVERY Departments reporting on October 27, 1988 estimate the annual cost of delivery services to the entire area is nearly $5 million. Local urban services such as police, park and recreation, building permits and inspections, land use planning, and road maintenance are provided by King County. In addition, King County provides surface water management. public health, emergency medical services, district court and public defense, housing rehabilitation services, and transportation planning, all services which could be considered regional. There has been no formal discussion with either the City of Tukwila or Sea -Tac cityhood proponents regarding the transfer or continuation of services. It is assumed that services transferred to another jurisdiction would need to continue during a transition period and a number of services could be contracted by a city on a longer term basis. Those services that could be provided under contract include: 1. District Court: cities generally contract with King County for criminal cases. 2. Public Defense: Seattle and other cities currently contract with King County for ser- vices. 3. Police: DPS reports that Sea -Tac intends to have a 49- member force in one year and could contract with the County in the interim, but feels that it would take longer to establish full services than Sea -Tac proponents estimate. DPS currently provides crime lab and SWAT team services to cities at no charge. 4. BALD: permit services, inspections, and arson investigation could continue by contract on an interim or long -term basis. Access to the BALD data system could also be contracted. S:SEATAC 2 11/3/88 5. Roads: road maintenance, transportation planning, and electrical charges. 6. Health: The County has a fee for service contract with Tukwila for public health ser- vices and would recommend contracting with a new city. SERVICES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED TO CONTINUE Departments recommended the following regional services that King County should nego- tiate and continue to provide: 1. Regional, parks, pool facilities, trail systems . 2. Surface Water Management for cities without their own utilities 3. Housing rehabilitation services 4. Land Development Information System data services 5. Historic Preservation 6. Regional Transportation Planning COUNTYWIDE SERVICES UNAFFECTED BY ANNEXATIONS /INCORPORATION THAT WOULD CONTINUE 1. Flood Control Planning and Management (SWM) 2. Public Health Services, Emergency Medical Services 3. Community Development Block Grant Administration (legal responsibility) 4. Public Defense for cases filed under state law (legal responsibility) 5. Police (legal requirement until implementation) 6. Road maintenance (legal requirement until implementation) IMPACT ON SERVICE NEEDS: DPS reported that Sea -Tac incorporation would reduce the calls to the SW Precinct by about 1/3, and that the nature of criminal activity in the Sea -Tac area requires staff from vice and narcotics units. Unincorporated islands reduce response effectiveness, empha- sizing the importance of boundaries which do not compromise service delivery. District court cases in the Airport District Court would decline if a new Sea -Tac city established its own municipal court. BALD reported that annexation or incorporation would have little effect on its workload because of building activity in other parts of the County. REVENUES Funding for the services identified in Department reports comes from Current Expense, property tax revenues, gas tax revenues, fees, sales tax, service charge revenue, and levy revenue. The proposals before the BRB would result in revenue reductions (presumably partially offset by service cost reductions) in a number of those sources. S:SEATAC 3 11/3/88 The approximate total revenues loss to the departments reporting the first year following annexation or incorporation would be nearly $1 million for the Tukwila annexations and nearly $7 million for the Sea -Tac incorporation area. There is also some estimate of longer term revenue impact of the annexation and incorporation. Roads Division reports the first year and 1989 -2000 impact on property tax revenue as follows: Tukwila - 254,500 - 2.51 million Sea -Tac - 2.7 million - 29.78 million The decline of assessed valuation and earlier arrival at the $2.25 levy lid as a result of annexation /incorporation are incorporated into the model used in these estimates. The impact on gas tax revenue is not available at this time. The reduction in service cost that may accompany the revenue loss is not necessarily equal, particularly over the long term, according to the Roads Division. Some levy revenue is Countywide and would not be affected by annexation, such as the River Improvement levy which funds some SWM services. Revenue from liquor excise tax, liquor profits, motor vehicle fuel tax, and real estate excise tax would not be distributed to another jurisdiction in the year of annexation or incorporation. The Office of Financial Management estimates the revenue loss from sales and road district taxes the first year would be approximately $417,000 for the Tukwila annexations and $3 million for Sea -Tac. Because the distributions would be split the year an incor- poration or annexations become effective, the annualized revenue impact would be higher ($533,00 for Tukwila. $6.5 million for Sea -Tac). Following negotiations, revenue estimates would be modified to reflect service cost reductions, fee for service contracts, and other items to be negotiated by the jurisdictions. None of the departments reported that the annexations or incorporation would result in any new or additional revenues other than continued service provision by King County on a fee for service basis. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1st year 1989 - 2000 Negotiations should address the funding of capital improvement projects (CIPs) that have local and regional benefit. Departments provided information on projects for which funds have already been appropriated and those planned in the next six years with no appropriation. According to the Department reports received October 27, the County has appropriated $600,600 for CIPs in the Tukwila annexation areas and over $5 million for the Sea -Tac area. Capital projects are planned in the next six years costing $105,000 in the Tukwila annexations and over $6.77 million in the Sea -Tac area. In addition to projects listed, Natural Resources and Parks reports that development of North Sea -Tac Park, located in the Sea -Tac incorporation area, is a major capital project. Negotiations with the Port of Seattle which are near conclusion will determine the extent of County commitment to developing this regional park. SWM projects in the subject areas for which funds have been appropriated total over $1.25 million. Tukwila is currently involved in the Green River Management Agreement S:SEATAC 4 11/3/88 and would be expected to increase its level of participation in financing flood control improvements if areas are annexed. A new city could also be party to the agreement. Road improvements costing over $6.3 million are planned for the Sea -Tac incorporation area in the next six years. Not included in the Roads Division report is the Road Improvement District arterial south of Sea -Tac Airport which would connect the airport with the state's extension of SR -509, a project of regional significance. OTHER ISSUES FOR NEGOTIATIONS King County should ensure that regional and Comprehensive Plan policy goals are main- tained in areas that incorporate or are annexed to another jurisdiction. Issues identified by departments in addition to service delivery, revenues, and capital projects include: o LAND USE: Housing and employment densities to encourage transit use, key goals of the Comprehensive Plan, should be encouraged by the other jurisdiction. Land use policies in the Sea -Tac Area Update which will be adopted by the County Council in early 1989 should be supported. o HOUSING: Affordable housing policies and programs and fair housing protection should continue if areas are annexed or incorporated. Housing issues and services should remain responsibility of King County until Tukwila and Sea -Tac adopt similar policies and ordinances or King County could permanently retain them as regional responsibilities. o ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: Surface water management could be required unless a city had its own utility. Protection of open space, wetlands, and streams should also be ensured. o HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Tukwila does not have policies or an ordinance to pre- serve historic landmarks. King County should provide the service as a regional government unless Tukwila and Sea -Tac adopt similar preservation ordinances. o COMMITMENT TO SOLVE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS: Land use and design standards that promote transit use and other measures such as Transportation System Management ordinances should be discussed. o LEGAL ISSUES: The allocation of long -term legal responsibility for areas annexed or incorporated and other legal issues need resolution. S:SEATAC 11/3/88 c ANNEXATION /INCORPORATION BOUNDARIES The annexation and incorporation proposals of Tukwila and Sea -Tac are characterized by boundary disputes. Efforts to annex Foster and Thorndyke to Tukwila commenced after those areas were shown within the Sea -Tac incorporation boundary. The City of Des Moines has also reacted to the incorporation and annexation proposals by initiating its own increased annexation activity. The 1985 Comprehensive Plan discusses the impor- tance of public and agency participation in identifying potential annexation areas. Logical boundaries that eliminate islands of unincorporated territory are necessary for efficient and cost - effective service delivery. Reactive annexation activity does not provide jurisdictions with ample opportunity for careful planning and analysis of how they want to grow. The apparent race to the BRB and ballot risks leaving voters without sufficient information on service delivery and reve- nue requirements. A vital and necessary prerequisite to annexation or incorporation is the mutual agreement on boundaries of proposed incorporations and annexations by all affected jurisdictions. In this case, boundary discussions should involve Sea -Tac proponents, Tukwila, Des Moines, King. County, Kent, and other affected jurisdictions. . i5lian:: i�ti4:_ F': S:: F•: tE, 4iwnm.+.. ti......_._....._ �.._._»_.. ._..__...«._._..._.�.�___._..,. _.�__ —'_ __ �...__.. �_.____._..._... _....�......,........— ... —....� CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The questions identified regarding boundaries, service delivery, capital projects, financial impact, and regional policy issues in the proposed annexations and incor- poration must be resolved by agreement before King County supports the proposed incorporation of Sea -Tac or the Tukwila annexation of Riverton, Thorndyke, or Foster. Agreements that clearly define responsibility for local and regional services and how regional goals will be supported are necessary for residents of the affected areas to make informed decisions at the voting booth. Boundary disputes do not serve the goal of efficient service delivery or the develop - ment of coherent long -term annexation plans. It is recommended that King County recommend the Boundary Review Board continue Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke, and Foster and the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation until: (1) King County, Tukwila, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and other affected government agencies agree upon the boundaries of Tukwila's proposed annexa- tion areas and the proposed new city of Sea -Tac, and (2) King County and Tukwila adopt an interlocal agreement defining: (a) the city's proposed annexation boundaries; (b) which public services each juris- diction will provide; (c) how the Comprehensive Plan's regional public policy goals will be achieved; and (d) each jurisdiction's responsibility for capital improvement projects in the annexation areas. (3) Agreement is reached on a specific negotiation period following an incor- poration election and before the incorporation becomes effective so that a negotiating team for the new city can be formed, and an agreement may be adopted defining (1) how public services will be provided, (b) how regional public policy goals will be achieved, and (c) responsibility for capital improvement projects. King County will attempt to gain the concurrence of the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and Tukwila on recommending that the BRB continue the public hearing until the above conditions are met as an alternative to denial. S:SEATAC 11/3/88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 • 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 October 31, 1988 INTRODUCED BY: MOTION NO. PROPOSED NO. A MOTION expressing King County's interest in working with Tukwila, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee, the citizens of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster, and other - affected parties and jurisdictions on Tukwila's three annexation proposals and the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal. WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County and its cities should work together to identify future annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should play an active* role in municipal annexations, SUPPORTING THEM WHEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, AND OPPOSING THEM WHEN INCONSISTENT," and • WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should support incorporations when formation of cities is appropriate to assure adequate facilities and services for growth consistent with the Comprehensive Plan," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states " interlocal agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within agreed -upon annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states the processes of identifying future annexation areas and adopting interlocal agreements "should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, landowners and other governmental agencies," and WHEREAS, both Tukwila and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee claim Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster should be within their jurisdiction, resulting in a dispute which, as the Comprehensive Plan states, King County should play an active role to resolve before the annexation and incorporation proposals are submitted to the voters, and WHEREAS, King County has identified many issues within the categories of: 1) regional and local public service delivery; 2) achieving Comprehensive Plan regional policy goals; 3) capital improvement projects; 4) revenues; and 5) expenditures, which have not been addressed by Tukwila's annexation proposals or the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal, and • WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila which addresses the issues named above would enable the county and city to assure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Riverton's, Thorndyke's and Foster's residents that they will receive optimal public ser- vices, programs and facilities, and WHEREAS, addressing the issues named above would enable King County, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and the residents of the area proposed for Incor- poration to understand the costs, benefits and impacts of incorporation, and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Sea -Tac following the incorporation election but before the effective date of incorporation which addresses the issues named above would more effectively provide for the transition of program, management, public service delivery and capital improvement project respon- sibility from one jurisdiction to another: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The King County executive and council hereby request the boundary review board continue Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster and the pro- posed Sea -Tac incorporation because: A. King County and other affected jurisdictions were not parties to drawing up the proposed annexations and incorporation areas boundaries, and B. The boundary dispute between Tukwila and the Sea -Tac incorporation committee is unresolved, and' C. The costs and impacts of annexation and incorporation on public service deli- very, revenues and expenditures, capital improvement projects and regional public policy goals have not been adequately identified and addressed, and D. No interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila has been adopted which would assure the residents at Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster that they will receive optimal public services, programs and facilities. ATTEST: S:MTNINC PASSED THIS Clerk of the Council day of , 1988. KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Chair • B.2.0 • ell S Propoai ..• • Group Meeting Thur. 00/24, 7:00 pm Tukwila. Comm. Center Boom 7. • s;s:s 8 . 8 .' 8 :•:.: (contacts) TUKWILA POLICE DEPARTMENT Dean Shirey: 433 -1825 MAYOR'S OFFICE Mayor, Gary Van Dusen: 433 -1800 Address: 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 • Primary Contacts (as of 09/24/87): John & Kathy Stetson: 243 -7504 Address: 13258 40th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 Bill & Janice Scheffler: 246 -4130 Address: 4033 S. 128th Seattle, WA 98168 Allan & Trish Ekberg: 241 -6904 Address: 4123 S. 130th Seattle, WA 98168 INFORMATION SOURCES CITY OF TUKWILA TUKWILA PLANNING_ DEPARTMENT - ZONING /PLANNING Moira Bradshaw: 433 -1848 RIVERTON HEIGHTS ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP - RHAP GROUP (mission) RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Supported by the Riverton Annexation Proposal Group - (RAP Group) MISSION STATEMENT The RAP Group's intention is to encourage our residential community to join with the City of Tukwila and to facilitate the annexation process. ABOUT ANNEXATION Annexation occurs at the request of the residents, by means of a petition or election. Our annexation proposal will be by election in order to allow all members of our community the opportunity to have his or her say. Tukwila welcomes new residents who wish to annex. ABOUT THE RAP GROUP The RAP Group consists of Riverton community residents who are in-favor of annexation. These participants desire to keep their homes'in a primarily residentially zoned area. HOW ELECTORAL ANNEXATION WORKS Annexation involves the City of Tukwila, King County, the State of Washington and voters /property owners in the area to be annexed. The following is a simplified outline* of the annexation process. - The annexation applicants meets City officials to discuss the annexation process. - A petition calling for election is prepared and circulated by the applicant among registered voters in the area. The election petition must be signed by 10% of the voters in the annexation area in the last state general election. - The election petition is given to the City Council for decision whether to accept the proposed annexation, and if so under what conditions. - If the City Council accepts the annexation petition, their staff submits a Notice of Intent to the King Country Boundary Review Board (BRB). The BRB holds a public meeting to decide if the annexation proposal should be approved. *The complete petition election information sheet can be found at the Tukwila City Hall or ask a RAP Group participant to see one. 1 • ,. :. �'�:. RUMOR CONTROL INFORMATION SHEET rumor: "widely disseminated belief having no discernible foundation or source." Webster's Third New International Dictionary. This information sheet is to provide insight into some common and uncommon concerns of some concerned residents. Tukwila has a mayor /council form of government. The council consists of seven members, elected city -wide, who are responsible for establishing policy, appropriating funds and other legislative duties. The mayor is responsible for administration of the city, the chairman . of the City Council and also the enforcer of policy. The Mayor and the City Council together are responsible to the citizens of the community for governing the City as well as planning for the future. Pub l is Safety /' Annexation would provide public safety enforcement through' the Tukwila Police Department. Annexation does not affect electricity and gas provisions. Annexation does not affect sewer or water districts. Street Improvements Street improvements are subject to voter discretion. Annexation areas can obtain street improvements through a Local Improvement District. that residents create themselves. You vote and pay for what you want. . RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Taxes (South Central School District) • Examp l'e : Motorhomes Schools $61,300 RUMOR CONTROL INFORMATION SHEET,••con't. A . A 'County tax rate per $1,000 of assessed property value: $ 11.46 City of Tukwila, per $1,000 of assessed property value: % 11.14 (No additional taxes or fees are assumed by annexation residents unless voted for by those residents. All current city bonded indebtedness is included in the lower City tax rate figure.) Issue of Indebtedness All current City indebtedness is included in City taxes. See Taxes, below. Tax savings, $ .32 per $1,000 of assessed property value. i it ,y Total Property Value County City (Average Assessed Valuation) (Before Annexation) (After Annexation) $ 702 $ 684 Note: All tax figures based on McMicken annexation information of 1986 from the City of Tukwila. There are no restrictions on motorhomes being parked on resident property, off of public streets. Only commercial vehicles of over 8,000 lb gvw have restrictions. Annexation does not affect school districts boundaries. (form) NAME RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP - CONTACTED PEOPLE FORM This form is used to identify who within the Riverton annexation area has been contacted. This information is used for follow-up purposes or to identify those individuals who wish not to be contacted. ADDRESS PHONE OKAY TO F/ANX CONTACT (Y/N) F/ANX = For annexation? OKAY TO CONTACT = Okay to contact person in the future regarding annexation proposal? 001 09/22/87 RIVERTON ANNEXATION FOSTER ANNEXATION �••== THORNDYKE ANNEXATION - - - - SEA - TAC INCORPORATION POTENTIAL CASCADE ANNEX PATROL': DISTRICTS:. September 16, 1988 City by Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Dear Residents and Property Owners: GLV /sjn (26 /NTC) *ILA 8 • Moe City of Tukwila MANNING DIIPAITMINT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98188 GOO 433 -114, Sincerely RIVERT.ON ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NOTICE This Public Notice is to remind you that the Tukwila City Council will be holding a public hearing on the zoning for the Riverton Annexation area. On the . back of this notice is the proposed zoning recommended to the City Council by the Tukwila Planning Commission. CITY COUNCIL HEARING September 19, 1988 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Further information can be obtained at the Planning Department located in Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you wish to call, the Planning Department phone number is 433 -1849. y ary L. Van Dusen Mayor PROPOSED RIVERTr I ANNEXATION ZONING. AS AMENDED BY THE TLi:, MLA PLANNING COMMISSION " AUGUST 2, 1988 ' TSvn ra rlas R -1 in R -4 RMH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (7200 S.F.) LOW APARTMENTS MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY ® C -1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS pq C -2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C -M INDUSTRIAL PARK P -0 OFFICE M -1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M -2 HEAVY INDUSTRY ... \ r E 'r A r /\ C J A F / -` • • . `. �.,�* (< N r e , ' 9 i • r fi U` r . \ te• / � \ "-N - r'. . iT.,./..=, 1 •U- • �! .1. • 14 1908 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM SEP 161986 i Jack Pace, Senior Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer September 15, 1988 King County Vacations (34th Avenue South, 125th Street, 124th Street) Those streets appear to be without probability of future connection. Utilities are not provided by Tukwila so Public Works has no comment on their vacation. RC /kjr (.• Notice of 1 7 1988 !Petition for Vacation of a Courty Road Road Name or Ave So,So 124th St. _, c 129th St Sabey Corporation c/o Berkley Engineering 2203 Airoort Way So Suite 300 Seatt?.e WA 98134 Council iistFict i Date of Letter from Council A ng n r 1 q8 8 Road Classification Reason for Vacation Vacation requested by Section SW1 3 wp. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. Area of Vac. Description of property to be vacated: Is right of way maintained? RECOMMENDED VACATION: YES M iMr King County As shown below OPERATIONS DIVISION REPORT Nature of public utilities, if any, on right -of -way Is right -of -way improved for travel? (Surfacing, etc.) Is right -of -way necessary for present or future road system, either for travel or public utilities? funds expended? And for how long? I • ;l ND DIVISION ENGINcEn / t , II I _ .. • . ....1 . • • 13B Has it been maintained or County •5 I rot .M ` .it. OF J i • IL IS r_S..a 124TH L a A sI Or I = 126THC! v .I N sq. ft. [Date MI r t' .l • N.. iIl 'tp 4 'IZSTt+ T. 37 S i. ....... .- AGENCY REVIEW REQUESTED Ov ►/ PUG,ET SOUND POWER R LIGHT COMPANY V SEATTLE CITY LIGHT " NATURAL GAS COMPANY TELEPHONE COMPANY PAIS WATER DISTRICT I /SEWER DISTRICT OIL VL E. /METRO BUILDING b LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION I / COUNTY REAL PROPERTY DIVISION "COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC SECTION ( Trans. Planning Section y' MAINTENANCE DIVISION ✓Nat'1 Resources & Open Sp. C.i' of TUkatflLA We request a statement within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice furnishing the following pertinent information: 1. No easement is desired. 2. Easement has been secured. 3. Easement is in process. Call Jim Bergsma at 344 -4134 if additional information is required. Please address reply to: Louis J Haf f , P.E. County Road t 500 - 4th Avenue, Room 900 Seattle, WA 98104 a4 4 4 • V" I " y Y. f 0 w 1 - J Ct ! , ` — ' � , , . �• .. I .. ° . W i I I. IS • • f' g •∎∎ 'HM also , 126T V -2007 FILE NQ V Z3 / s' .I.. I .. LI . /Is 7 Ht. ort 14 N I 11 I o ° pg 11 • 1....I • %E.. .✓! • L j�.7 KING COUNT'S' A F F l D A V I T JOANNE JOHNSON hereby o Notice of Public Hearing [I Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project RIVERTON ANNFXATTON File Number $$ - 1— A OF OI STR I( declare that: UT ION O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [] Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [I Notice of Action O Official Notice C I Other ® Other I` FTTERS OF NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN ZONING IN w map RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA THIIRS_ 9/15/8$ 19 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 14, 1988 Bill Turner 13435 48th S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Mr... Turner: Sincerely, ack Pace Senior Planner The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8,. 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 14, 1988 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Mr. Kaehler: Steven Kaehler 13456 48th P1. S. J545(0 LI$ ANe S. Tukwila, WA 98168 The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has bad a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, \ MIL Jack Pace Senior Planner :: �XSia li?iU:.,3ztL`idui•5'�� :veaavw t,7�,.,,.:..,.,.,..�...,.. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 14, 1988 Ronald B. Phelps 13370 48th Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Mr. Phelps: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner September 14,, 1988 Occupant 13432 48th P1. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Occupant: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 ack Pace Senior Planner September 14, 1988 Occupant 13406 48th Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Occupant: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre - annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. S incerely, City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 14, 1988 Occupant 13430 48th P1. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Occupant: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, ierA ack Pace Senior Planner September 14, 1988 Occupant 13441 48th P1. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Sincerely, ack Pace Senior Planner Dear Occupant: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 14, 1988 Occupant 13445 48th P1. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Occupant: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre - annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. ack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 14, 1988 Occupant 13442 48th P1. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Occupant: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre - annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, tvz Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 14, 1988 Occupant 13382 48th Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Occupant: The. City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, L ck Pace Senior Planner � City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 • September 14, 1988 Mr. Peter Gatto 13400 48th Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Mr. Gatto: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, J J ck Pace Senior Planner September 14, 1988 Yvonne Carey 13404 48th Abe S. Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Riverton Annexation /Zoning Dear Ms. Carey: The City of Tukwila received an annexation petition for the Riverton area. As part of that petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. The Tukwila Planning Commission has had a public hearing on zoning for this area. Their recommendation is before the Tukwila City Council. On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission amended their proposed zoning and recommended the area southeast of 48th be zoned C -M, Industrial Park - Light Industrial instead of R -1, Single Family Residential - Low Density (See attached map). The Tukwila City Council has scheduled a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning of this area on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, Jtck Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 matitritimommommommow ligiONMERMURUMMMINIMMI MINKNEEMMEREMMEMOIMEM TWEIMMINIMMEMMEMMEMML iii' ■■■UMNI■... — ■UM A.aFE kin MEM AXE.. R• ■ ■.. U. MUMENI MUM u■■., ■ ■ ■ ■I torn tbITC0 • $ DUWAMISM '•� Awe NUS O nArnI It IVEtITOM .EST': C[�ETE�r I ATTACHMENT H tl i R -1 SINJLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (7200 S.F.) - R -4 LG_ APARTMENTS E. RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C -1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C -2 RF^IONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C -M IPSkISTRIAL PARK P -O OFFICE ® M -1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M -2 HEAVY INDUSTRY VA MOM u ■ ■I E w • A / r �n E 7 �:/ R / V N T C q .•e 4 1" I .. F''D I d yl•_+ "�r I,n } d . \ PROPOSED RIVERTON - ANNEXATION ZONING AS AMENDED BY THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 1988 4 • 1 1 .. , NOTE: A LARGER SCALE MAP IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NORTH • . 1' AREA AMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION . SEP. 8,1988: ✓.•- ♦ ,• • 1 Eg Notice of Public Hearing [I Notice of Public Meeting AFFI"AVIT OF DISTRI I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: J Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet a Short Subdivision Agenda Packet a Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project File Number 88 -1 —A Q Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice O Other NOTICE TO RIVERTON TASK FORCE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13,1988 , 19 1909 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: September 13, 1988 TO: RIVERTON ANNEXATION TASK FORCE FROM: JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER ( SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION CHANGES TO RIVERTON AREA ZONING On September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the public testimony from the public hearing for the Foster Annexation. Based upon this testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the area east of Macadam and south of the Riverton'annexation area be changed from R -1, Low Density Residential to CM, Light Industrial. The Planning Commission then recommended the portion of the Riverton Annexation which is located approximately southeast of 48th and abutting I -5 and 136th be changed from R -1 Low Density Residential to C -M Light Industrial. (See attached map). The Planning Commission recommended this change to eliminate an island of R -1 uses surrounded by industrial uses. If you should have any further questions, please feel free to call or write. P.S. The City Council will hold their final hearing on the Riverton Annexation on September 19, 1988, at 7:00 pm, in the City Council Chambers. `•RIVERTON 'S: • ANNEXATION el 41$ 16;51 /37TH Ar a• t o • 1 • R ID 1 •.. V . v 1 4;t411' YV• ST Ja �r:•: i (I) NIMOSIAROMMMOMMUESID Nmemommor ■ ■a■■■■ • ?t * 4: • . iZrjg # • : 24+' 1 44 s" DL.:ILJL MUMMIES MEM, ■t &uiI■ ■a■ ■I M w S■■■■MMaU.J ■■■■■■■CLEMa ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ I ■■■■■a■■■■■■r,v aO r,a■■■i q ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Pa■■■I 1 Z ■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■1 I - b a■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ra■■■I . 1 ■■■■■■■■■ ■V■ ■■il O ••••••••••••••110110••1111 a.r:E T!1 ■■I1IIJ■ FNIIS Z ■■■■■a■■■■■■■■■■■u a ■I O •u uai os x iMEL��MAIN ■■■■raa■ ■■■IMAM■■■a Z Z ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Mc■■■■■ I■■■■■■■■u■ ■OM■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■w■■Lii ■■r iaarM■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■4■■■ Nalal. • R 3 v •I C • A 107 v FO S T • • 8TH • • � l P S L9 Y v t■■■■ •■■■ /■■■■■w■a■ /■ ■■■■■EI 4CIIII■■s■r. OWAS ■■■Oa �' MINIMUM ' ■U■■■L• M CC 4 6. cf) W }. ~ a' w� ��� ■■ ■13111■ ■ ■M ■u wYal • ■••••z.: . :.. 0 R•1 • D 3�AG.,S Tukwila City Council - City of Tukwila c/o Jack Pace - Senior Planner Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: September 6, 1988 Keith J. and Nancy S. Tiede 7209 S. 180th St.. _ Kent WA 98032 ., :i_.'M; SEP 7 1988 i i We own the property delineated on the attached map. Recently we were informed of an annexation by the City of Tukwila that would include our property. This information did not come from the City of Tukwila via mail. Rather, a friend noticed approximately July 28 and later informed us. We suspect that this is not the proper procedural process, and may consult legal advice pending feedback from the City on this matter. We are hereby requesting complete up -to -date information/ status /proposals. We may be contacted at the address and phone numbers shown below. We purchased our property some time ago with the hope that the site would someday be excavated /leveled to a more practical and usable site. Having been unofficially informed that the annexation /zoning proposal shows our property, along with the acreage property to the west as being residential zoning, we absolutely cannot agree, and do not understand the logistics of that selection. We cannot foresee am type of residential development on this hill. No certified real estate appraiser, developer, banker, lender or prudent knowledgeable person would ever consider home or apartment development on this hill, which is surrounded on three sides by commercial /industrial (Tukwila's C -M and M -1 designations). Even if we wanted to, no mortgage lender would finance any kind of residential development here. "Amenities ", as defined by Webster, include convenience, attractiveness, and desirability. The surrounding C -M properties have these amenities. This hill has these C -M amenities. Homes and /or apartments on this hill do not, and will never, have "amenities" conducive to residential areas (schools, retail shopping, parks, and suitable traffic patterns - as all surrounding arterials and accesses are truck and out -of -area commercial employee /patron traffic infested). This will never change since commercial and industrial transition areas never change back into yesteryear's residential areas. Such areas continue to change in the direction they are going, and their ultimate destiny - which in this case is C -M. A few residences to the south of this hill (along the north side of S. 128th between Marginal Way and 42nd Ave. S., are this area's only property owners that may be concerned. Are they pro C -N, pro residential, or mixed? A quick consensus will tell and should not take much time. Will you, or should we, do this? Or is it even necessary? Without a doubt we know that C -M development on this hill will be compatible with the few residences along the north side of S. 128th. There are setbacks, landscaping, foliage and fencing barriers that provide more than adequate screening and in most cases the over -all appearance is upgraded. C -M development here could only upgrade this area. Tukwila City Hall itself is compatible with residential and we consider it to be C -M development (office building). The opportunity for the City of Tukwila to save time and working manhours is now, at this point in time of proposed zoning and annexation. A future rezone of this hill from residential is inevitable and will cost the City and property owners valuable time, money and energy if not addressed immediately. Furthermore, retaining residential zoning of this hill without legitimate /understandable reason is denying its owners of development rights. Development is a positive improvement from every aspect. Barring this development through zoning will freeze this property; and as a result may cause problems for both the City of Tukwila and the property owners - and will undoubtedly cause a waste of time. It is obvious which zoning is the most prudent and fair. The positives of C -M zoning far outweigh residential zoning in this unique area. We look forward to becoming a part of the City of Tukwila and to working with the City in the future. Please investigate this issue. May we hear an early response? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Keith J. Tiede and Nancy S. Tiede 7209 S. 180th St. Kent WA 98032 Phone: Daytime (Nancy): 251 -5945 Evenings: 255 -0883 • i. czar iimG.a..r.......rr ■agavor..r..r.r..r.r..rl ■Si =),I.r......arRf9a.■ ■..A ...all■rr.ral.Ii>■rar.a..r■ I..rtl.r......rr..r.ra.r.► mismrummummimmmommisnma I....•ar..r.......r....!.■ I..r........r.r..r.... -' Imam .t,llaa a.aaa..a. -'. _ MOM I -amlr Imam mum LD.UI u.�al I1 .ya.1►nF • - _ rn_ I� MUM R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R -4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSIT C -1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS L - REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C -M INDUSTRIAL PARK M -1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M -2 HEAVY INDUSTRY t • o o . 0 '• 7.1t ,l..,.,, - Af .A• 01. U* l?LI sem 010 ,at' Ow'1 LAO 4 3t Rue/ RIVERTON CREST . I CEMETERY • I :i PROPOSED TUKWILA ZONING - - " 1YORT H A/r £ W A / , C a R // 1 /* r E .i R 111:s Imo, •Q., LARGER SCALE MAP AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN PLANNING DEPARTMENT RIVERTON • • as •sues- • II • 1 JOANNE JOHNSON AFF( AVIT Notice of Public Hearing EI Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit : Shoreline Management Permit (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project RIVERTON.ANNEXATION File Number 88 -1 -A OF 0ISTRI ,_.JTION hereby declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance E] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice El Other • Other Signatury was mailed to each of the following addresses on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 , 19 . September 16, 1988 City ofTukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Dear Residents and Property Owners: PUBLIC NOTICE This Public Notice is to remind you that the Tukwila City Council will be holding a public hearing on the zoning for the Riverton Annexation area. On the back of this notice is the proposed zoning recommended to the City Council by the Tukwila Planning Commission. GLV /sjn (26 /NTC) CITY COUNCIL HEARING September 19, 1988 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Further information can be obtained at the Planning Department located in Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. If you wish to call, the Planning Department phone number is 433 -1849. Sincerely City of Tukwila PLANNING CIIPARTMENT 6200 Southcentrr 8oulward Tukwila, Washington 98188 Ca) 43 -1889 RIVERTON ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING y ary L. Van Dusen Mayor 9. 0 0 PROPOSED RIVERTON ANNEXATION ZONINO3I AS AMENDED BY THL rUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 1988 NOTE: A LARGER SCALE MAP IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ _—....10111111111111•111111111111111•1 VIIiiHMAIIIIM111111111•11•111111111111111111 U. ‘1111111•1111M0111111111111111111111111101111•11111 liM111111111111111111111111111!MINININ•11 1111111M11111111M111111•111111111•11111B111. if•111111111•11111111111111111111111111111111111101111111 um lip 111111111n11111MINIMINIWP PhFal EMI AMIN. 11111110111•• : • 4it • 1411111.•■••• c=a-: • •■ .1.1a101011•■••• J•••••• •NMI••MM.I•Ma•••SW,M111fVl•Ift,...owldB 111111•M■ mr.■••■ we. •••-•=••• • 18•11 T.....•••••• • •-■•••••ILIEW.1.1.5 ...NM Waal oi ••••■M MUIN•,■4 INIMANIISIM .16•11.•0• 11. •• •••■■•••11..-1,111• 'h. id,. • MII0J. re. MEW •• ., .mwoe -Irmo MIIIM=01 ire le.e LMEI 0 ■11110.11.1..-aae r ormor -- ir■ =OA • •-• en, r11.• f am alwal. . • 11•1101=1 IN 1WW1/MINO• . 4 •. ..../f ..... ••••• . ..4f4.. —.ii• •••.. •■ 1 .00..... wr ....-.■....*. ... MB mi•C ..i,., VOINNICJI.1 MIMI 1. c ••11,0 Or. IM. •.......r.....4 I IrMre. .1 ••••■•■•:Fll NNE:. ai •,••r7MINIP ....... .1•Mr11• =4, ......X ., =MI • ■1•"1 ••■•■ ..11MIO4 .7. 7 4: ••■-.. . . 4 ... u r .■ sms AIM ••■MIC : . i . .....,.... ...... ...• J sm. bin runli.ers• !.. —=- , ar .r...... r - WET.= r MT. • .1••• • o ..1•It.• 4.• • • •11111=Mar.••■••••■••■PI••=1111.1,.. Ir• ••• ••••• •■••••••••••■■•14, •011•1.01 • ••• .... 11 Mer."4.4".. -,•.• V.I./ • • •1•■••••• Ir-milere • serl MUNI Ai ir n wfoli . = Is HM - TO TI4O1 OP IIIATTLI •t•s ...op* MM. em.er 41 17j1T..■/ ULU: 011100rrin arc 11../ 1...11••■ =M.." • 4,1 am II :•• ■•■.••■• MED/ • • •••••■••111•• .L2.111 • • • ...15 . smillencrosa I • • I ••■•11. ..0111110..0 tr • .3 sr*. • • :roof. S o l lIrce IOC. • 4 -tromovrr r, lt 22 J 21 110. C R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (7200 S.F.) in R-4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY II C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS F;771 C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK P-0 OFFICE Eg M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY ••• 111•01 I • • • M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY r • . A ••■ ". .1.. August 22, 1988 C City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor �lv Councilman Greg Nickels King County Council 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Councilman Nickels, This letter is written in response to your verbal request at the Council's August 19th Committee of the Whole meeting; and to a series of comments contained in an August 18, 1988 correspondence by Mr. James Adsley, Chief of King County Fire Protection District #24, to Councilman Greg Nickels. In that letter, Mr. Adsley states that the only significant issue surrounding a 1985 annexation of a portion of Fire District #24 by the City of Tukwila was fire department response time, and further that the City of Tukwila's decision not to maintain fire protection through the services of Fire District #24 was apparently motivated by reasons other than the interests of the community. I am disappointed by Mr. Adsley's apparent lack of awareness of community attitudes regarding the 1985 annexation, as well as his rather selective recollection of the facts regarding the issue of fire protection for the area. To set the record straight for the benefit of you and your colleagues on the Council, the issues motivating the citizens of the affected area were much broader than just fire protection, and included concerns such as law enforcement, access to government and land use. In regard to fire protection, the City of Tukwila, immediately following approval of the annexation by the voters, established an ad hoc citizens' committee to study the issue. The committee, which worked with Mr. Adsley and agency representatives from Fire District #18 and the Tukwila Fire Department, identified four options. The continuation of service through Fire District #24 was ultimately rejected as a final recommendation by the committee for the following reasons: 1. The station at McMicken Heights (closest in proximity to the newly annexed area) was principally manned by volunteers. 2. District #24 has a very high potential for emergency problems in the Sea -Tac strip area. This may dilute the ability to respond in a timely fashion to the residences area within the annexation area. August 22, 1988 Page 2 There were several other points made by the committee in their analysis of the option of affiliating with Fire District #24. Their recommendation was, however, to retain fire protection through the City of Tukwila. It should again be stressed that this recommendation came from a citizens' committee representing the residents of the newly annexed area. It was not a decision orchestrated by my office or the City Council. I have enclosed a copy of the committee's report for your perusal. It is particularly distressing and unfortunate that Mr. Adsley should charge the City of Tukwila with a disregard for the lives of the citizenry. It was for precisely this reason that the ad hoc committee was formed. The City of Tukwila was and is, first and foremost, dedicated to providing the best possible quality of life for its citizens. This of course includes the provision of fire protection. It is comments like Mr. Adley's that cause unnecessary concern. We all certainly agree that the citizens should have a choice regarding how and by whom they are governed. It has been the long standing policy of the City of Tukwila that voters make these choices based on an understanding of the facts and not on self- serving, emotional pronouncements. Fire protection for the McMicken Heights annexation was resolved to the satisfaction of the community. The raising of this non -issue by Mr. Adsley can only serve as a distraction to the real issues now before you. Citizens of the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke are now looking to the City of Tukwila for improved public service. I can only state once again, the citizens of these three areas are expressing a grass roots desire to annex to Tukwila. If this is not true, I would ask the proponents of the Sea -Tac incorporation to factually demonstrate otherwise. Sincerel Gay . VanDusen Mayor, City of Tukwila Enclosure cc: King County Councilmembers 3. It was the expressed desire of the voters that a greater voice in governmental affairs by achieved through annexation. Contracting with Fire District #24 would have precluded any opportunity to for the voters to affect district matters. Honorable Councilman Greg Nickels King County Council 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Page 1 of 3 August 20,1988 Dear Councilman Nickels: Sometime ago, when you were campaigning for your present Council seat, I had the privilege of meeting and talking to you at the Ed. Bauch residence in Tukwila. At that meeting I expressed to you my disenchantment with the •incuntbent and at that time your opponent, as it seemed to me, was one with whom one could not communicate. You assured me that you would talk to me if I called about a matter of importance to me. Up to now I have not had a reason to call you. Now that I have a concern I believe it is better to put it into writing, Therefore my request is that you please read all of my letter and the attached report to which I will, from time to time, make reference rather than rewriting the report in this letter. Yesterday I had the opportunity to read Chief Adsley's letter to you August 18, 1988. In it he made a number of allegations which simply are not true. Some of those concern the contents of a report by an ad hoc committee of which I was the chairman. It is apparent that he has not read the report or chooses to interpret it in a manner that fit his perceived needs. Some background on the above mentioned committee and its report: On February 5,1985, an area containing portions of Fire Districts 18 and 24 was annexed to the City of Tukwila as the result of an affirmative vote of the people within that area. Shortly thereafter Mayor Van Dusen appointed an ad hoc committee to study and make recommendations of emergency service levels of this annexation. See page one (1) of the attached report. At this point it is important to state that after the above charge and appoint— Page 2 Of 3 ments were made neither the mayor nor any member of the City Council of Tukwila was in any way involved in the study or in making the recommendations. The com- mittee was on its own, and we had no further contact with the administration or Council until I personally laid the completed report on Mayor Van Dusen's desk on August 15,1985. The entire responsibility for the report in its entirety rests with the four committee members. As chairman I wrote the report with the concurrence of the other three members. That same report is being submitted to you unchanged. I was appointed chairman due to my many years of experience with fire services (over forty years). More than seventy -five (75) percent of it was in a manage- rial capacity. Dennis Robertson had previously had considerable experience as a firefighter for the City of Renton. R.W. Johnston with his many years of heavy equipment work was relied on for advice on moving fire trucks and traffic. Jim McKenna, a banker, provided financial advice and good judgment. Mr. Johnston and I were, at the time, residents of the area protected by Fire District 18; Dennis Robertson and Jim McKenna were residents of the area protected by Fire District 24. Now back to Chief Adsley's letters Paragraph three (3). He presumes a great deal, and the only severely impacted citizen would be Mr. Adsley as he perceives his area of authority eroding. The truth is that all services including fire are superior in the City of Tukwila in respect to the area of the proposed annexations. Page two (2). paragraph four (4). His first statement is false as response time was only one issue. Read page three (3) and item h at the top of page four (4) of the attached report. Also, he states that Tukwila told the citizens,if they came into the city, a con- tract would be made with Fire District 24 for emergency services. If anyone from ( Page . 3 of 3 Tukwila made such a s it certainly was no one with, authority. This has surfaced before from Chief Adsley, but our committee found nothing but his state- ment. In the remainder of the paragraph he bemoans the imagined plight of the people who, he alleges, are not getting the services they need. This is completely false. On the last paragraph of page two t2) his statement about Tukwila officials' disregard for lives is, again, completely false. I feel much safer now than I did prior to the annexation, and I am sure that feeling was and is shared by the ad hoc committee members. Consider that all of us on that committee were, at the time in 1985, just ordinary volunteer citizens and residents of the area. I am still only a vol- unteer and available when my services are called. In conclusion, we have many times been made aware of a statement by Chief Adsley that the committee, when we met in 1985, allegedly promised h.i* as we met with him that we would recommend that Fire District 24 be given the contract. We did not promise anyone anything, nor were we in authority to do so. We met with each agency concerned, and then made our recommendations. As I mentioned earlier in this letter it is clear that Chief Adsley perceives an erosion of his territory. ctfu it Curtis Nesheim 15828 43rd South Seattle, Washington 98188 Phone: 243-+701 ;1908 Citi-T- Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor M EMORANDUM TO: City Council � j/ FROM: Mayor VanDusn:t DATE: October 3, 1985 SUBJECT: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON FIRE /MEDICAL SERVICES FOR THE RECENTLY ANNEXED AREA TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA The Ad Hoc Committee appointed to make recommendations for fire services for the McMicken annexation area has completed its task. The Committee worked very diligently and proficiently in forming their recommendation that Tukwila provide fire services for the McMicken area. I concur with their recommendation that the City provide this essential service. We will present any additional fire service requirements to support and provide fire protection for the City as a whole during the 1986 budget preview at the September 23 C.O.W. If you have any questions or concerns related to this report or providing service, please feel free to contact the Committee or myself. GV:ELC Attachment Page 1 of 5 REPORT TO. : The Honorable Mayor VanDusen and The Honorable Council Members of the City of Tukwila FROM : The Ad Hoc Committee on Fire /Medical Services for the Recently Annexed Area to the City of Tukwila SUBJECT : Recommendation of Emergency Service Levels for the Recently Annexed Area to the City of Tukwila DATE : August 15, 1985 This Committee was appointed by Mayor VanDusen on May 1, 1985, and is composed of two (2) members from the recently annexed area now served by King County Fire District *24. They are Mr. Jim McKenna, 16045 48th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98188 and Dennis L. Robertson. 16038 48th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98188. Also appointed were two (2) members from the recently annexed area now being served by King County Fire District *18. They are Mr. R. W. Johnston, 4216 160th Street, Tukwila, WA 98188 and Mr. Curtis Nesheim, 15828 43rd Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98188. Mr. Nesheim is serving as Chairman. In the interest of simplicity and saving space,. the following terms shall be used: City shall mean City of Tukwila. Mayor shall mean Mayor of Tukwila. The Committee shall mean McMicken Heights Emergency Services Advisory Committee. We shall mean The Committee. Valley'Co. shall mean Valley Communications Center. District 24 shall mean King County Fire District *24. District 18 shall mean King County Fire District *18. Council shall mean Tukwila City Council. The Committee was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the current fire /medical emergency services of the recently annexed area to the City, plus the former City area west of I -5. In addition we were instructed by the Mayor to report our findings and make recommendations to him and the Council. To begin, we would like to take this opportunity to state that we have received outstanding courtesy and cooperation from District 18, District 24, City Fire Department, City Administrator, City Executive Secretary, the Mayor, and Valley Com. We deeply appreciate the assistance rendered to us by these people and their organizations. It has made our job much easier. OPTION 02 Page . 3 of 3 (1) It is felt by Chief Adsley of District 24 that his people would have an advantage since the McMicken station is above the recently annexed area and would have better access to the area during winter conditions. (2) The Committee agrees that Chief Adsley is a capable pro - fessional and we feel that his firefighters are also. (3) The Committee also feels that District 24 has some potential problems that concern us, namely: (a) Station at McMicken Heights is principally volunteer. At this point we should state the,volunteer firefighters have a place and do good work. However, they simply cannot equal a paid professional in level of expertise. (b) At the Angle Lake station where the paid firefighters are stationed, a portion of them are used as dis- patchers. (c) Only one person is on duty at a time at District 24 dispatching center. (d) District 24 has a very high potential f.or emergency Problems with highrise buildings, 4,000 hotel rooms, 3,500 apartment units, and backup for the airport. An emergency relating to one or more of these problems might leave an inadequate staff to quickly respond to our problems. (e) There is an access problem to our area from the Angle Lake station during busy hours due to heavy traffic. (f) If the recently annexed area were to be contracted to District 24 our residents would not have a vote in any district matters. One of the main reasons for annex- ation was to have a voice in all aspects of our area government. (g) District 24 has a fiscal problem as do all of the other districts. Due to a Supreme Court ruling an increase in overtime pay will be experienced and it will have to increase millage rate or lay off some personnel. Under State law $1.50 per thousand is as high as a district can go without floating a bond issue. Since State law provides for this limitation, a fire district may be unable to adequately maintain services within its budget. Page p of 5 At the rate of f1.50..per thousand of valuation and assuming a total valuation . of the area in question'is *15,000,000, it would result in a cost of #22,500 per year. We feel.that it is safe to assume that a. district would not provide emergency services for any more or less than to its own. members. We offer the suggestion that rather th paying out these monies each year a fund be established toward the construction' of a fire station west of 1 -5 some time in the future. Respectfully submitted, im McKe na Curtis Nesheim, Chairman Dennis L. Robertson *ILA City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor August 19, 1988 King County Council RE: PROPOSED MOTION 88 -611 .._ Dear King County Council: The City of Tukwila has submitted to the Boundary Review Board the Notices of Intent to annex by election the petitions that are the subject of this motion. While it is clearly within the purview of the County Council to request the Boundary Review Board to hold a hearing on these petitions, the strong support of residents for annexation to Tukwila indicates that another route is more appropriate to request a Boundary Review Board hearing. These petitions are not petitions of the City, but petitions of the residents of the annexation areas. These people submitted two, four and five times the required signatures needed to place the annexation question on the ballot. Many of the signers were responding to the Sea -Tac incorporation petition, that was filed a short time before the annexation petitions. Tukwila has been working with task forces from each. of the annexation areas on pre- annexation comprehensive plans and zoning. The Tukwila City Council passed resolutions approving and supporting the annexations. The task forces consist of 60 citizens and property owners, a significant number in view of the size of the annexations, that have worked favorably to determine the annexation issues that affect them. If residents in the annexations, or the surrounding area, wish the Boundary Review Board to hear the petitions, options are available other than the County Council's intervention. A petition of 5% of the registered voters in the annexation or adjacent areas, may be filed with the Boundary Review Board. This option provides an opportunity for a very small number of affected residents to exercise their choice. It is most appropriate that the City and County defer to such self - determination by the residents of the area. August 19, 1988 'Page 2 Resse ful r G. � y . VanDusen Mayor cc: Tukwila City Council King County Executive Tim Hill These annexations are within Tukwila's planning area, which has been legally defined since 1975. Tukwila should and will logically grow in this direction, the only direction we can grow other than to the north where we now have another annexation petition under consideration by the Boundary Review Board. Any annexation to the west of. Tukwila meets the state annexation criteria and your own adopted King County Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the above, the City of Tukwila respectfully requests that the County Council withdraw the proposed motion. Let the people themselves decide their preference by the petition method available to them. The people, by any petition method, should be allowed to determine their destiny. x'4';1 ".cl ;•',: {r I:�S' ; ;.�: ;'� "'- ..i n.. .��.. +,. 2gSl g l One G3n13338 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600 736th S. E., Suite 122 Bellevue, IVA 980X Telephone (206) 296-7096 August 16, 1988 TO: BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS FM: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary RE: FILE NO. 1537 - CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Riverton) FILE NO. 1538 - CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Thorndyke) - CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Foster) The Riverton and Thorndyke notices were received on July 19th and of this writing the Foster notice is expected by August 18th. The Foster action was delayed due to a flaw in the petition detected by the Prosecutor's Office and since corrected. These annexations were initiated by petitions of resident electors calling for elections. Each annexation overlaps the Sea -Tac Incorporation area. Prior to 1982 these actions therefore could not have been filed. However, Ch. 220, Laws of 1982, introduced the following amendment, codified in RCW 35.02.150 and RCW 36.93.115: "A boundary review board, county auditor, county legislative authority, or any other public official or body may act upon a petition for annexation before considering or acting upon a petition for incorporation which embraces some or all of the same territory, without regard to priority of filing." There was a legal question as to whether the Board had the option of accepting the proposals for filing or, in the alternative, could only decide to act or not if jurisdiction were invoked after the filing of a notice. It was concluded that the second interpretation was most reflective of legislative intent. The concern which naturally followed was that no request for review would be received, resulting in a default decision in favor of annexation versus incorporation. Because of the magnitude of the annexations it is possible that, if approved, the result might be to render the incorporation impracticable. The population of the three areas, (6,600) is 20% of the estimated Sea -Tac population, and the assessed value ($151 million) is about 10% of Sea - Tac's. However, Councilman Nickels (District 8) has introduced Motion 88 -611 which would invoke jurisdiction. It is on the agenda for the Committee- of -the- !VA: .Yi224 tL %ks ti�awRwwrtaf MEMORANDUM, Cont. August 16, 1988 Page Two :, ':.= a∎17A Whole meeting on Friday, August 19th. The Executive Secretary will attend. The timing of the request, it adopted, will permit the Board to conduct simultaneous hearings on the incorporation and annexations in mid - November. The incorporation study is scheduled for publication by November 1st. The end of the 45 -day review period for Riverton and Thorndyke is September 2nd and the 120 -day decision limit, if triggered on August 19th, will end on December 17th. It is recommended that the Board act on September. 8th to schedule the incorporation /annexation hearings in early -to -mid November, facilitating decisions on December 8th. This would permit elections, either for incorporation or annexation, in February. GBM /pr C The Honorable Gary Van Dusen, Mayor, City of Tukwila Ms. Barbara Blake, Chair Sea -Tac Committee August 15, 1988 Tukwila City Council TUKWILA CITY HALL 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear City Council Members: COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY SBEY C'( )RP( )1(x l'l( )\ _203'• ;crt •e200 The Sabey Corporation has been pleased to have been included in the Riverton Annexation Citizen's Task Force charged with reviewing and recommending Comprehensive Plan designations, pre -. annexation zoning districts, and zoning code amendments. We worked closely with the citizens and home owners in the area to address their concerns and with Tukwila City staff to protect the residential neighborhoods as the commercial areas developed in the East Marginal Corporate Park. We feel the process has been a very positive one and has allowed everyone to better understand and respect each other's needs. It has been a unique experience for us and has led to nearly a group consensus of support for the recommendations. The Sabey Corporation supports the proposed recommendations of the Planning Commissioners and asks the Council to approve them as written. We would however, like to amend the C -M zoning code pertaining to the restriction of 1/8" metal thickness for metal fabrication. Restricting fabrication to only 1/8" metal parts was appropriate years ago but due to changing technology, most cities and counties no longer regulate commercial uses by metal thickness. The staff has proposed and the task force approves deletion of the 1/8" metal thickness restriction from the M -1 zoning code and is adding a performance standard to ensure impacts end at the edge of the property. we respectfully ask the Council to delete the 1/8" thickness restriction from the C -M zoning code and add the same performance standard. The Boeing Company, who is Sabey Corporation's tenant at the East Marginal Way Corporate Park, is supportive of this recommendation as they require the ability to handle larger than 1/8" thickness metal parts. We have planned future buildings within both the proposed M -1 and C -M areas in order to meet the expansion plans of the Boeing Company. Your support of deletion of the 1/8" thickness restriction in the M -1 and C -M zoning code is an Seatt'e 98•34 .� Tukwila City Council TUKWILA CITY HALL August 12, 1988 Page 2 VI important element in the ability to accommodate Boeing's requirements. The City staff has suggested they would support this change to the C -M code and, thus we ask the Council to include it in their . consideration of the other proposed recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important process. The Sabey Corporation looks forward to a successful annexation and to a long - lasting, mutually supportive relationship with the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, BM:tc cc: Jack Pace Frank Waterworth Mike Dunne Friedheit '& Ho Barbara E. Moss Marketing and Development 11 6e7 /, 1 T2 zLc r Ce- t V-1 I- / / iM 4 - - --‘< e/ - 771 / 4 d, f •V L-'q Zttf/Li / 6' Zi 7 ,.-ty ',4 , c h ,..,-, j,toc 71 e, A / i•4 -/ /,,2 6 A • `--614v' /5; /ell Ld :20e/ / Z er-17,A ,/) /317 y Z (4'; RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, T23N, R4E, W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22, Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the west line of said right -of -way, 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10 -11 -61 (Tukwila Ordinance 276), to the south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the east margin of South 131st Place (East Marginal Way South); thence southeasterly along said east, margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street,respectively, to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the northwesterly line of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, records of King County, WAA thence north 40'17 east along said north line 220.32 feet; thence south 49 ° 43 1 east, 91.43 feet to the northwesterly line of the southeasterly 0.86 acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40'17 east, a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 ° 43 1 east, 10 feet; thence north 40 ° 17 1 east, 119.11 feet; 12 AUG 88 REV. 7 -2- thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or less to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin, respectively, to the west line of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence southerly along said west line to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south Iine of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south line, respectively, to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15, Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County, WA; thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north line to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence easterly along said thread of the Duwamish River to the west l i n e of Section 10, T23 N, R4E; thence southerly along said west line to the south line of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south Iine to the west margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its intersection with the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said north line of Lot 1 and its extension to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to the extended east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of Riverton Addition as recorded in Vol. 13 of Plats, Page 36, records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said extension and east line, and the east line of Lot 9 to the north margin of South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along the easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said east margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ro 'YU, a n} tiZAVA n "w.N vim'�1AVAArryt. u. v�.. a. s o....... w.,. nw +.w.wdwuai.+nc+ewwc isaviE'Y4nm'dti sure '' iV011M3 4 PAR Ref. 9.30 i TO: Jack Pace, Sr. Planner, City of Tukwila FROM: PAULA ANNE RUSSELL, Adm. Asst. IN RE: NOTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FILING FILE NO. 1537 - CITY OF TUKWILA - Prop. Annex. (Riverton) CC: Clerk of the Council, ATTN: Helene Mociulski Dept. of Public Works, ATTN: Rex Knight Dept. of Assessments, ATTN: Diane Murdock Dept. of Parks, Plannina and Resources• - ATTN: Mr. James C. Tracy, Deputy Director. . '�i4Xil'�AVT.¢4: 1F+.}h.00etM'^dtk7.'.7+7urtVaa n.'ictou uus-ora.r..iat. a. in your final ordinance resolution filed with the King County Council. • ( AUG 111988 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 August 10, 1988 The Notice of Intention transmitted to this office is now acceptable for filing and has been filed effective July 19, 198R and assigned File No. 1537. You will be kept advised of all transactions affecting this action. As you are aware, a copy of your Notice was transmitted to the King County Council by this office. This was under date of July 20. 1988 An revisions to the le al descri s tion subse cent to that date must be incor ' • rated August 10, 1988 1214C:SM:mis INTRODUCED BY: 4116 4141CLW PROPOSED NO.8 8 - 611. MOTION NIP: 7285 A MOTION requesting the Boundary Review Board to review proposed specific pending annexations pursuant to RCW 36.93.100. WHEREAS, the Boundary Review Board (BRB) was created to provide a neutral forum for the public hearing and the review and determination of proposed annexations and incorporations to avoid competition to extend municipal boundaries, to prevent the haphazard boundary extensions, and to create and preserve logical service areas as set forth as purposes and objectives of the BRB in RCW 36.93.010 and RCW 36.93.180, and WHEREAS, conflicts between proponents of competing jurisdictions to claim territory for municipal growth should be resolved on their merits, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has filed notice of intention to annex several areas which were also included in the SeaTac incorporation proposal, and WHEREAS, RCW 36.93.100 provides for the BRB to review proposed annexations, and King County ordinance No. 8389 provides for a means of requesting such review, and WHEREAS, the public is best served by open public hearing and review of these issues; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County is requested to review the following specific actions: A. The City of Tukwila proposed annexation (Riverton) BRB File No. 1537; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 B. City of. Tukwila proposed annexation (Thorndyke) BRB File No. 1538; and C. City of Tukwila proposed annexation (Foster). PASSED this 2.24...day of ATTEST: C oteounci KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON alma 7 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 1214C:SM:mls -2- City of Tukwila 13/08 41st South Seattle, Wash. August 9, 1988 Planning Department Zoning Commission 15 1988\ 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Dear Sirs: I attended my first ever public commission meeting on July 28th the Tukwila Zoning Commission meeting -- and it may be my last! I commend you for your patience, but I would call you to task for too much patience' with the "motor-mouths" and "broken records" who appeared before you at that meeting. Many citizens are interested in participating in the democratic processes of government because we know that what is decided affects all of our lives. However, intelligent, working people who have work and family committments and can't afford to stay up half the night get turned off real quickly by intelligent, discourteous people who probably don't realize the monopoly they exert on the time of all who par- ticipate in public hearings. Everyone who spoke at the meeting said what they had to say in the first five minutes they spoke. Anything after that was either boringly repetitious or not to the point at all. You would not be denying anyone's. right to express his or her opinions if you made a real effort to limit the time before the microphone. (An ordirarrkitchen timer set for 10 to 15 minutes -- and used -- would bring a lot of relief to tires ears!) In fact, such action would make it possible for more people to give their own ideas. Allowing a public gathering to drag on for hours kills the desire in many people to participate -- and that cEn be a very dangerous thing. There's no excuse for allowing a few people to "run the show". I appreciate all the time and effort put into the zoning proposal presented by the Task Force Committee. I realize everyone will not be completely satisfied but I think the proposal is a fair one for all. If I could effect a change, I would put back the single family status to the two lots at the northwest corner of S. 139th and 41st S. There is already a single-family residence on the corner lot. When I moved into my house six years ago -- the street is a two- block long dead-end street at the very south end of the Riverton Annexation several houses on the street were ratty - looking with unkept yards. Since then, several new fences have been built, ,houses and old fences have been repaired and painted, yards landscaped, and there is less traffic on the street. We have plenty of noise from Sea -Tac and Boeing Field flight paths, Highway 99 and I5 from across the valley. We don't need more noise, air and people polution which would come with a higher density area. Our street is a good place for kids and pets (and there are lots of them right now) -- and they are reasonably safe. Let's keep it that way! I am dead -set against clearing any more land of trees (here or any- where else), thus destroying homes for small animals and birds, just to increase the population density. Sacrificing single- family lots and tree - filled buffer zones to benefit someone's pocketbook -- individual, corporate or municipal (and that's the real bottom line) -- makes little sense at any time and means the eventual deterioration of a quiet, resi- dential neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, C / Y \ 0.ALD-L Marilynn J. an Hi�se a"n i4-t;a-c- ' .ei e;ShitH�l`/.7CifY I� JOANNE JOHNSON ❑ Notice of Public Hearing [[ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit A F F I` :A V I T O F ❑ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [] Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [] Planning Commission Agenda Packet ❑ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet hereby declare that: DISTRI"; T ION O Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Mitigated Determination of Non - significance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Official Notice ❑ Other fia Other LETTER REGARDING RIVERTON ANNEXATION MAP CHANGES was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, AUGUST 5,1988 (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Bill Lewallen Theodore L. Linde Louvern L. Lautenschlager G. Mattson Sharon Mann Donna Meagher Barbara Moss Les Olerich Debbie Rue Janelle & Bob Scarber Bill & Janice Scheffler Philip R. Smith Elizabeth Springer Kathy & John Stetson Eileen Balzarini Richard Barene Robert & Sharon Bernhardt Jeff Bohall • Ramona Crossen Alan & Patricia Ekberg Robert Fadden Betty Gully Craig & Donna Jeanne Gully Name of Project RIVERTON ANNEXATION TASK FORCE & COMMENTEES File Number 88 -1 —A Elling Halvorson Bruce Hansen Philip Hemenway James Holmes Bill Kirkland Patricia & Laurel Lang 1906 J, c : A ,4 d " Jt. } e,; - h flu, Z►• Patricia and Laurel Lang 12801 - 35th Avenue. South Seattle, WA 98168 Subject: RIVERTON PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING Attached to this letter is the proposed Riverton Annexation zoning as amended by the Tukwila Planning Commission at their August 2, 1988 meeting. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the four categories of text amendments to the Tukwila Zoning Code (CM Buffering, Height Exception, M -1 - Light Industrial Use, and Design Review). The Planning Commission recommendations will be forwarded to the Tukwila City Council for two public hearings. Further information can be obtained from the Planning Department located in Tukwila City Hall. If you wish to call, my phone number is 433 -1847. JP /sjn attachment City fit' Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 • August 5, 1988 CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS ON ZONING /ANNEXATION REQUEST August 15 1988 / September 19, 1988 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Sincerely, ejte Ji ck Pace Senior Planner mifikammommilmommom IMWMMOIMMUMUMESMEMMI 1 RROMEMRERROARIUMEMMI MINIMMEMMERERREMMEMM. REMMEMEMMERMEMMOMMEL mgoll IR 111111M1111111111MIRIMINMIw ENE RFR R&M AMMI RIKRW MIDS. 1111111R. IMMW M•• SZEMMI VESSIMI 8 Y VET= a a f-1/1111 41r,= ■41. IM....11■•■••• IN mom arrow waloaur... monomion.n■- c•maw.•....-■awaris ■•••■;.• .1111* MIME: 111111a7■11:r7r =4. ... ■•= IN MP 1,•■■ se ..." :74 R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (700 SF, R-4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY P-0 OFFICE I '''" Ulawm.mmom''' '''''''''' tr:C=4 .- := "'...= —.,...,<• —..,,....... ._-_. ■■■••• • womIWINEMI6,1111.311M=1,16v...747..„ . ■...e333.....■ u em„.,...........-.331.w 11tLAS OP ap •••■ ell■■••• ••••• OM," ,1 .1. irrfrr • , 1...m I S I .9 IT? 'Pc 41 AMISH 'AV. ATTACHMENT H - • wA G A C R PI /7'A N r \ •- NORTH • --- • ••,., , • • • • - • • • •t"/ • s " PROPOSED RIVERTON ANNEXATION ZONING AS AMENDED BY THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 1988 NOTE: A LARGER SCALE MAP IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION 05 AUG 88 REV. Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in, the southwest 1/4 of Section 10► T23N► R4E. W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way. 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22► Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10. Page 74 of Plats. Records of King County. WA► and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the west line of said right -of -way► 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10- 11 -61► to the south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the east margin of South 131st Place; thence southeasterly along said east margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street►respectively. to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the north line of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Vol 9 of Plats. page 95► records of King County. WA; thence north 40'17' east along said north line 226.52 feet; thence south 49'43' east. 91.43 feet to the north line of the southerly 0.86 Acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40'17' east. a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 east. 10 feet; thence north 40 east. 119.11 feet; -2- thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or less to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin► respectively. to the west line of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence southerly along said west line to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south line► respectively. to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts► recorded in Volume 15. Page 53 of Plats. Records of King County. WA; thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north line to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence easterly along said thread of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10, T23N. R4E; thence southerly along said west line to the south line of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south line to the west margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its intersection with the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said north line of Lot 1 and its extension to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to the extended east line of Lot 16. Block 4 of Riverton Addition as recorded in Vol. 13 of Plats. Page 36, records of King County. WA; thence southerly along said extension and east line. and the east line of Lot 9 to the north margin of South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along the easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said east margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ..c,r...: >xk'.;•r rfi.C!i4.iiatil :tn _ ea..us,.. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department 1108 Smith ibwer 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-7503 August 4, 1988 JT:AK:mg CPO49 /Inter .mn..v� . +M.�«,ax• •�:,�x�r�aun: -w., %., �* e« ..K.•nnaear;ur,.w.ra:.eu,rz;;r; r-, vv..aw,ae.+,. _•r.+a.v.Y.vna p@IIDNE 0 AUG 9 898 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING CO TO: G. Brice Marti Executive Secretary, Boundary Review Board FM: James C. Tr y, Deputy Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department RE: City of Tukwila Proposed Annexation: Riverton, File No. 1537 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Boundary Review Board Proposal and supporting materials for the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation by petition of approximately 223 acres in an area known as Riverton. The proposed annexation is included in Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and joins Tukwila at its northwest city limits. Municipal services are available to the area. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as urban with Southgate Park designated as park. The Highline Community Plan land use designations in the proposed annexation are Industry, Light Manufacturing, Single Family, High /Maximum Density Multi- Family, Neighborhood and Community Business, Park and Recreation, and Low /Medium Density Multi- Family. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan currently designates the area as Light Industry, Commercial, Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Parks and Open Space. A pre- annexation zoning ordinance will be used to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses. The proposed annexation is consistent with King County Comprehensive Plan Policy PI -303, which states: "King County should play an active role in municipal annexations, supporting them when consistent with land use plans, and opposing them when inconsistent. King County and the City of Tukwila should work together on the proposed annexation, as directed by King County Comprehensive Plan Policy PI -304, which states: "King County and its cities should work together to identify future annexation areas. Interlocal agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within agreed upon annexation areas. This process should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, landowners and affected governmental agencies." In accordance with this policy, King County and the City of Tukwila will adopt an interlocal agreement to resolve issues of regional significance. cc: Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division Craig Larsen, Chief, Community Planning Section Anne Knapp, Community Planner 1 14= afAW ai&nh3ifG;+.i Miss+ w: hr1... ,-...-...—... ed..ao .+am.+,a..nosm., scrMaaMr� cmkxrescrsktr114uvnnanvarnmav,14NMxiaet^.0 King County Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director 900 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 244 -2517 August 2, 1988 Mr. G. Brice Martin Executive Secretary Boundary Review Board B6 RE: Proposed Annexation to CITY OF TUKWILA (RIVERTON) Temporary File No. 1537 Dear Mr. Martin: Engineering Services staff have checked the legal description of the attached proposed annexation and find it satisfactory. The attached copy of the legal description is marked with several typographi- cal errors and clarifications that the city must incorporate into the fina- lized version when the city ordinance is passed on this matter. The related Assessor's map appears to be for the same area as described in the legal description. This annexation does not appear to include a portion of a County park nor conflict with any other city in the vicinity. Very r y y ex Knight, P.E Manager Engineering Services RHK:JRB:cic WP:(ES)L92 cc: Helene Mociulski 402 Courthouse Enclosure: Entire File V �VgS AUG 9 19 v 14SNINe�p ASTgTF6 UN PCA KNG CO Cp • RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION At:; chment B 03 MAR 88 REV. Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 In the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, T23N, R4E, W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22, Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the west line of said right -of -way, 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10 -1 1 -61A; `"'" o d south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the east margin of South 131st P I ace(a4sr Matvumt. wqy scores); thence southeasterly along said east "margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street,respectively, to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence' easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the northullne of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, records of King County, WA; thence north 40 ° 17' east along said north line 'iiitiP-F5ef x-120.32 thence south 49 ° 43' east, 91.43 feet to the north of the south ` Acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40'17 east, a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 ° 43' east, 10 feet; thence north 40 ° 17' east, 119.11 feet; • thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or less to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin, respectively, to the west line of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence southerly along said west line to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south line, respectively, to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15, Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County, WA; thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north line to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the north line of the Duwamish River; .thence easterly along said north line of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10, T23N, R4E; thence southerly along said west line to the south line of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south line to the west margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its intersection with the north tine of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said north line of Lot 1 and its extension to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to the extended east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of Riverton Addition as recorded in Vol. 13 of Plats, Page 36, records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said extension and east tine, and the east line of Lot 9 to the north margin of South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along the easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said east margin to the TRUE POINT OF. BEGINNING. RIVERTON TASK FORCE OPENING REMARKS TO THE TUKWILA.PLANNING COMMISSION 07/2e/19G9 Speaking on behalf of the Riverton Task Force, we appreciate Tukwila's interest in our petition for annexation to the City of Tukwila. We also appreciate having the opportunity to be involved in the pre- annexation zoning decision making process. Our appreciation extends to the . professional guidance that we received from the Tukwila Planning Department. :. This pre-annexatidcilyropidg7imoceisas,a real eye opener about the complexities of respgn .that: land use issues involve within our community. Annexation was origirnall•y:.motivated .by what seemed to be a hodge podge of spot zoning attempts by. various commercial interests in and around our residential neighborhood. This effort seemed to be supported by county agencies. We felt our quality of residential community was being threatened by this hodge podge attempt_at spot zoning. We feel that our Riverton community is unique because there are many advantages to living in Riverton, such as: - One of the best - funded and most accessible school districts in the state. - We enjoy a semi - rural, natural setting in close proximity to larger, more developed and industrialized areas, which affords relief from those areas. - We enjoy ease of access to major freeways for convenient commutes. - And, we are surrounded by employment opportunities for current and future residents. We feel that annexation to Tukwila would preserve the advantages while offering new opportunities, such as: - Better representation through locally elected officials. - Better public safety enforcement. - Provide for the re-establishment of our community as a viable residential neighborhood. au4 : t: i2: a14Mt4i[ Pt..^.:: .:?�.itrf.'4c�:T:avtu[uts+rv�ewo RIVERTON TASK FORCE OPENING REMARKS TO THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION 07/28/1988, Cont. f 2 Our goal as members of the Riverton Task Force was to develop a comprehensive zoning plan for our annexation proposal. We achieved this through . much discussion and with some discontent. Our objective was to . retain our residential community while supporting commercial development where. appropriate. We wished to develop transitional zoning between commercial interests and residential interest. We feel we achieved this through the proposed zoning plan and accompanying ordinances to be considered here tonight. In closing, the Riverton area seems to be a forgotten pocket of ; residential homes, . with mostly established,, long term residents, who feel : should. be heard. Because this area is transitional state, we would appreciate the transition to be as orderly as possible. We feel that an orderly transition can be" achieved'through:the leadership of the City of Tukwila. cc: Riverton Annexation Proposal. Group Riverton Task Force Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila Planning Department Presented by: Allan Ekberg - Riverton Task. Force 4123 South 130th Seattle, WA 99169 241 -6904 netwf ai:Ewes Y._ mwsn Page 2 �n�na' I�a��. Efah 1! Ziil; fi9F. C\ JCKaV.+! webaesw+ �. M. aw. �wwnwavwnre toc. Wa. WSA. su: niml inGlnC GKax: WACCMGtli: YNfYa. SYO: N' 1.." W4tSZb17T. 7! 2S' S' R7E0w dKP. M. �ti:*.." Yw{. �. 3Y }AClil.C.( City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor G. Brice Martin, Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 - 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: RIVERTON AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS TO TUKWILA Dear Brice: Because the Sea -Tac Incorporation Notice of Intent was determined to precede these annexation petitions per a recent change in your rules, this is a formal request that the Boundary Review Board consider the option in RCW 36.93.115 of processing the annexations ahead of the incorporation. Please review the filed annexation Notices of Intent and process them expeditiously so that the people can express their preference. The spirit and intent of RCW 36.93.115 indicates that annexations should be given the opportunity to vote to be omitted from incorporations. We are respectfully asking for your earliest consideration of this request as a service to the annexation petitions which we have so earnestly and expeditiously processed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. GLV /sjn cc: Tukwila City Council Tukwila City Attorney.. July 28, 1988 Sincerel a f . Van Dusen Mayor a�A'Y•R: {ZR fACM ~10 . Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: July 28, 1988 We have just found out that the annexation task force is recommending that the zoning be residential for the area between the existing City limit, 134th Street, 48th Avenue, and 135th Street. Please see the attached map. This property is located next to two major freeways and is extremely noisy. Residential use of this property is poor planning. There is already industry in the area and the boundaries described above are a logical place to have M -1 zoning. We, the undersigned, hereby request that our property be zoned M -1 when annexed to the City of Tukwila. M -1 is consistent with other properties located in the immediate area which are currently in the City of Tukwila, as well as follows the existing comprehensive plan of this City. Respectfully Submitted, `fe i nde Ric ar. Barene t , JUL 28 1988 f24S. Ww'.' K: SLSSJt' A5' XH04 : WKF4t{['s ltKJnt'f NSirfAlt: . Fm.+ Yl 6'. IYV'. tfb! 4':> fS lf{ Y,', iC( Y? WCriNrf :er.V.rwrwrsacYUe 'r.Xr,romN'a4.YtaxMxb4t4tYNr. July 28, 1988 Planning Commission CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Commissioners, S A» 4 E Y C( 1 )1t:11I( )N a 7 , 2 - g ' ) ] The Sabey Corporation, as a member of the Riverton Task Force, has been working closely with members of the community and with the Tukwila City staff to arrive at a group concensus on proposed zoning and comprehensive plan amendments for the Riverton annexation area. The organization and leadership provided by Jack Pace, Senior Planner, and the open- minded constructive attitudes of both the community and Sabey Corporation have produced a responsible and workable set of recommendations for the Commissioner's consideration. The Sabey Corporation fully supports the staff and task force recommendations for zoning and comprehensive plan amendments for the Riverton Annexation area. As the staff and community members are aware, we plan to continue to develop the existing East Marginal Way Corporate Park for our tenant, the Boeing Company. Throughout the task force's work, we have conferred with Boeing to be certain their needs were addressed. Additionally, Boeing participated extensively throughout Fire District #1's pre - annexation task force meetings. The Riverton proposed recommendations are consistent with those, which were adopted by the Planning Commissioners and the Tukwila City Council as part of the pre- annexation zoning and comprehensive plan amendments for the Fire District #1 annexation. We are pleased to have been a part of the annexation task force, and we encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve the proposed changes as written. Sincerely, L / Barbara E. Moss Marketing and Development COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY 2203 Airport Way South • Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98134 206.628.3100 • • • Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Subj: Riverton Heights Annexation Dear Mr. Pace: July 28, 1988 I JUL 28 1988 Just yesterday I was informed that the Riverton Annexation Task Force is recommending that the area which my property is located on be zoned residential instead of M -1. In my opinion this area will be best served by the M -1 zoning, for it will act as a noise buffer from the two major freeways, which combined cause a tremendous amount of noise. This same noise is an excellent example of why this area should not be zoned residential. It is far too noisy for this type of use. In addition to the noise issue, there are a number of other businesses in the immediate area. The bordering properties to the North are currently zoned M -1. It seems logical to end this zoning at 48th Avenue, rather than in the middle of a block. The majority of the homes on this block are very old and several are rentals. I don't believe that new residential in this area is realistic. So with a residential zoning we would be creating a depressed neighborhood. I have attached a map, highlighted to indicate my property to be annexed. I currently own the building on the property labeled "subject" and a parking lot next to it, which are both now in Tukwila. We have recently improved our building and have planned to develop another building next to our existing structure. At this time we request that the City annex this property with an M -1 zoning. A use that is better suited for this area and that is consistent with the current comprehensive plan. :V / truly yo Elli Halvorson Property Owner 10628 NE 38th Place, Suite #110 Kirkland,. WA 98033 - 'YEWS & 411100 TL11 Tukwila City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 w+•.. • ,, ra. etw .e,..,..........n...»..iemasiwo *k July 27, 1988 L ,, f UL 28 1988 This letter is to discuss my continued desire that my property be zoned M -1 when annexed into the City of Tukwila. The address is 4625 South 134th, Seattle, Washington, legally described as the northeasterly 252 feet of the southeast .86 acres of lot 14, Fostoria Garden Tracts. There are several justifications for that reasoning: o The property directly adjacent to mine in Fosteria Garden Tracts is zoned M -1 with large buildings on the property. It should be mentioned that my driveway abuts the fence of the commercial property. o To zone the property residential changes the current Tukwila Master Plan. o There are several lots being purchased in anticipation of developing the area for commercial buildings. Thank you for your consideration doe Theodore L. Linde Owner 4625 South 134th Seattle, Washington _ • X firte. • z. ; 4.0 ea_ J20 (0 ,..e .zeteleA.._et%2e 941 6e.Ate_e.c, _afaeS2 7io a ,e_44/ra.,w_eze.ez,e_ye ■ A743 , K. 0 6 Mi,z- fo it-r,e, 4-4.tett-- El Notice of Public Hearing C1 Notice of Public Meeting [j Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit A FFIAII I T I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet was mailed to each of the following addresses on (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) BUSINESSES: Name of Project THORNDYKE. RIVERTON & FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA File Number 88-1—A OF 0 ISTRI ''UTION Q Determination of Nonsignificance [� Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice O Other Other MEETING NOTICE - WED AUGUST 3, 1988 MONDAY, JULY 25, 1988 , 19 . City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor July 22, 1988 TO: THORNDYKE, RIVERTON AND FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA BUSINESSES SUBJECT: MEETING - WEDNESDAY AUGUST 3, 1988 - 2:00 P.M. MERIWEATHER DINING ROOM - LEWIS AND CLARK BOWLING CENTER, 15838 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH Dear Businessmember: Tukwila has received annexation requests from residents of your community. More and more members of your area feel that Tukwila City government is better able to address police, fire, land use and other major issues than King County government. As Mayor, I enthusiastically endorse these annexations. Improved public services make sense to provide more representative government and logical boundaries for you. As in any annexation or major change, rumors or statements will be started or made. The impact will only confuse or make people misinformed if not challenged. My staff and I are prepared to work closely with your community to answer any questions you may have regarding the annexations and its effect on you. I am ready to meet with you in any forum, as a committee, in small groups or individually. We have scheduled a special meeting for businesses of all three annexation areas so that we can address your specific questions about City services and changes that might affect you. We will have maps of the annexation areas and handouts describing City services. The combining of your community with the City of Tukwila will enhance our mutual ability to deal with and solve our regional problems. Tukwila is committed to making the community a better place for all to live, work and play. If I may be of further service in answering your concerns, or simply being involved as a neighbor, please feel free to contact me personally at 433 -1805. Sincerely ry L. Van Dusen Mayor • ;AFF( AV I T OF 01 DISTRILIUTION JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1988 19 (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project RIVERTON ANNEXTION File Number 88 -1 -A Q Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Other Q Other PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: JULY 22, 1988 TO: RIVERTON TASK FORCE MEMBERS FROM: JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF JULY 26, 1988 This is to remind you of the "last" task force meeting scheduled for: JULY 26, 1988 5:30 p.m. Conference Room #3 Tukwila City Hall Attached to this memorandum is the Staff Report for the Riverton Annexation. This report will be reviewed and discussed at the July 26, 1988 meeting. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call at 433 - 1847. AAa ^,i]:X lay' ii .nr;a.yF,4'Y:YCr.�' :tu:1U:t. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor July 22, 1988 TO: THORNDYKE, RIVERTON AND FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA BUSINESSES SUBJECT: MEETING - WEDNESDAY AUGUST 3, 1988 - 2:00 P.M. MERIWEATHER DINING ROOM - LEWIS AND CLARK BOWLING CENTER, 15838 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH Dear Businessmember: Tukwila has received annexation requests from residents of your community. More and more members of your. area feel that Tukwila City government is better able to address police, fire, land use and other major issues than King County government. As Mayor, I enthusiastically endorse these annexations. Improved public services make sense to provide more representative government and logical boundaries for you. As in any annexation or major change, rumors or statements will be started or made. The impact will only confuse or make people misinformed if not challenged. My staff and I are prepared to work closely with your community to answer any questions you may have regarding the annexations and its effect on you. I am ready to meet with you in any forum, as a committee, in small groups or individually. We have scheduled a special meeting for businesses of all three annexation areas so that we can address your specific questions about City services and changes that might affect you. We will have maps of the annexation areas and handouts describing City services. The combining of your community with the City of Tukwila will enhance our mutual ability to deal with and solve our regional problems. Tukwila is committed to making the community a better place for all to live, work and play. If I may be of further service in answering your concerns, or simply being involved as a neighbor, please feel free to contact me personally at 433 -1805. Sincerely _ w ry L. Van Dusen Mayor a ? 7� �s1' oil %rlJC z'L IL,; ca •.: .uR, q �:..,a c me rrxtrv�:m¢v ti wr a vY� : t f,x�J1 ?.'Rti..?;h: fi) t:..5 rFru c x:?xi�rMrh HEARING DATE: July 28, 1988 FILE NUMBER: 88 -1 -A, 88 -3 -R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA INITIATED BY: Riverton Annexation petitioners REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments 2. Pre - annexation zoning 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments LOCATION: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared July 21, 1988 The general location is east of the current City limits and Fire District No. 1, north of 139th Street, south of the Duwamish River, and east of Pacific Highway South (99) (See Attachment A) ACREAGE: Approximately 223 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments B and C ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment D SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - Significance ATTACHMENTS: (A) Riverton Annexation Area Boundary (B) King County Comprehensive Plan Map (C) Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (D) King County Zoning (E) Study Area Map (F) Sabey - Riverton Community Plan Study Summary of Survey Results (G) Tukwila Amended Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (H) Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map (I) Tukwila Proposed Height Exception Area ±pU% � �;% ..:�.. , ..Y 't' d,. ^:xan p.., u... .ts.::�:.,,...:�,+�..�< ..,.:toJ.�:�Ltv�f:Si. 7 CwV1k75�U/.:' �. rttwM.+.., �.-,... a, urK. wavJmam! it: x" tr:_ WS:: SiS CS'. Z+ 3. ti� , JY;..3.int 5:u:�f�..';sn_T;::y' • STAFF REPORT to the (- Planning Commission BACKGROUND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT REPORT ORGANIZATION FINDINGS r471.L: :2 88- 1- A; "-Cd -3 -R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA In January 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition signed by residents for annexation with a request for simultaneous adoption of pre- annexation zoning for the area shown on Attachment A. The petition contained 77 signatures, 60 of which were found to be valid signatures of qualified electors within the area proposed to be annexed. The 1987 General Election had 158 voters for the pro- posed area, therefore only 16 signatures were needed to qualify the petition. After the Planning Commission makes their recommendation, the City Council will hold two public hearings. The public hearings are scheduled for August 15 and September 19. After the second hearing, the City Council w i l l adopt by ordin- ance Comprehensive Plan amendments, the zoning and zoning code amendments, to become effective upon annexation. The annexation is scheduled to go to the voters on February 7, 1989. In developing the pre- annexation zoning for the area, there has been extensive opportunities for residents, property owners and businesses to be involved. On April 26, 1988, the City held a public informational meeting, which approx- imately 60 people attended. At that meeting, the staff asked if any of the people attending wished to serve on a task force to assist the staff in develop- ing the pre- annexation zoning for the area. A task force of 19 people attended six meetings in the months of May, June and July. The task force recommendation in this report reflects a balance between residents' concerns to protect single - family areas, and business concerns for redevelopment or new development in the area. The task force recommendations for the most part reflect a consensus of the group. For the Planning Commission public hearing, notices were mailed to property owners and a notice appeared in the local papers. As part of the public notice, hearing dates for City Council hearings were also mentioned. The report contains three sections. The first section briefly discusses the proposed annexation. The second section (blue) addresses the Comprehensive Land Use Map amendments and proposed zoning districts. The last section (green) reviews the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code. `�i ii'�ti'y'3J : �F "G " c .7 '� T. VfR ��1w- i{s? ° •wry c..rl��.*uN k sGiSni .k+T:�.c:�.'2. t: S r.. g f,,c : .,ti;ne �, ..;�!Aara+ruun em r •�.:.s,c,smexr: " :l�?£ iA*CGS:4'o ' `Y!&'tU C.r «;U ct� :. PA34v+snl2r6 :ru nnrar,:,�:rtw»., STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission ANNEXATION 88 -1 -A, b8 -3 -R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA As shown on Attachment A, the Riverton Annexation request is within the Tukwila Planning area for annexation. This annexation ties in with the Fire District No. 1 annexation to the north and east, and the Foster and Thorndyke annexations to the south. The Riverton annexation area has a population of approximately 1,224 people. There are approximately 597 housing units, of which 90% are single - family units. As part of the environmental review process, the City examined capital and operation costs to the City. Based upon that information provided by the con- sultant and additional research by City staff, a supplemental budget will be adopted by the City Council this fall to address the additional service needs if the voters approve the annexation. STAFF REPORT to the (•., Planning Commission King County COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING COMPARABLE ZONING CATEGORIES Tukwila SR -1500, RS -7200 Single Family Residential (2.8, 6 dwelling units per acre, respectively) RM -1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling (24 dwelling units per acre) RM -900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling (48.4 dwelling units per acre) B -N Neighborhood Business C -G General Commercial M -P Manufacturing Park M -L Light Manufacturing M- H.Heavy Manufacturing 88- 1- A,:'6a -3 -R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA As part of the Riverton annexation petition, pre- annexation zoning was re- quested. By requesting pre- annexation zoning, the property owners and voters will know before the election what land use regulations will become effective upon annexation. In developing the pre- annexation zoning, the Riverton Task Force and City staff reviewed a variety of planning documents. Attachment F is a summary of community response to a King County community meeting in Riverton to determine community concerns for a King County Community Plan revision. Task Force members were briefed on Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and zoning regulations. This material was then compared to King County's Community Plan and land use regulations to identify conflicts and potential land use issues. Tukwila zones do not exactly duplicate King County's. For example, the County's RM -900 Maximum Density Muntiple- Dwelling Zone allows office uses in the zone, while Tukwila's RMH Multi- Residence High Density zone does not allow any office uses. The following table provides the most comparable zones with refer- ence to uses. R -1 -12.0 R -1 -7.2 Single- Family Residential (3.6/6 dwelling units per acre) R -4 Low Apartments (21.8 dwelling units per acre) RMH Multi - Residence High Density (29 dwelling units per acre) C -1 Community Retail Business C -2 Regional Retail Business C -M Industrial Park M -1 Light Industrial M -2 Heavy Industrial After reviewing the comparable zoning, the zoning was overlaid with Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Several conflicts between the zoning and the City's Comprehensive Plan were identified. Attachment E depicts those areas where revisions in either the City's Comprehensive Plan or zoning were examined. Each of these areas identified are discussed in greater detail in the following pages. DISCUSSION CONCLUSION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 1 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Heavy Industry TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Light Industrial KING COUNTY ZONING MH - Heavy Industry COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING M -2 - Heavy Industry This area's use currently consists of METRO bus parking and storage and vacant lots. A portion of the properties are split between Fire District No. 1 annexation and the Riverton annexation. The City has zoned the portion in Fire District No. 1 as M -2 - Heavy Industrial. The Task Force and staff have concluded that the M -2 - Heavy Industry zoning is consistent with the existing use of this area, as well as earlier City decision for the abutting property in Fire District No. 1. Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial and zone the area M -2 - Heavy Industry. Planning staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. DISCUSSION CONCLUSION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION (26 /RA.AREA2) Staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 2 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Single- Family Residential TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Light Industrial KING COUNTY ZONING RS - Residential Single - Family COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING R -1 - Single - Family Residential This area begins the visual transition between the industrial uses of METRO and Boeing facilities to the north and single - family neighborhoods to the east and south. Tukwila's Comprehensive Land use Plan designates this area Light Industrial, which conflicts with what would be comparable zoning of R -1 - Single - Family Residential by Tukwila. The Task Force has had lengthy discussions concerning this area resulting in the agreement that 126th Street is an appropriate transition point between industrial and residential uses. C -M district designation would provide tighter restrictions on development which would be more compatible with the adjacent residential uses. However, the task force still believes addi- tional standards are needed to provide a better transition from residential to industrial. A C -M text amendment is proposed in conjunction with the C -M. zoning designation for this area. See text amendment section. Retain the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation - Light Indus- trial - and zone the area C -M - Industrial Park with the text amendments proposed in Section #3. (LR_07/20/88) DISCUSSION CONCLUSION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION (26 /RA.AREA3) Staff concurs with the Task Force recommendation. RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 3 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Highway- oriented commercial/ Single Family TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Commercial KING COUNTY ZONING C -G - Commercial R -S - Single - Family Residential COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING C -2 - Regional Retail Business R -1 - Single - Family Residential The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates this entire area for commercial use. King County Comprehensive Plan splits the upper section as commercial and the lower as residential. The site is divided into two sections by a steep (100 %) slope at a height from 75 -100 feet. The uphill portion of the site abuts 99 and the lower section - vacant at present - fronts a residential neighborhood. Zoning decisions for this area were based on two key elements - topography and orientation. The part of the site which is oriented to SR -99 and separated physically by topography from the residential use area is desig- nated commercial. The part of the site with orientation and physically connected to the residential neighborhood should be designated single - family residential. The Task Force recommends that the upper section of the site remain commercial but the lower section be amended and designated residential on Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan Map, the zoning would be C -2 and R -1. 4 - 1130TH 03" AREA (. I AREA 4 1 � ��R o� n . n i1a1 It AREA 6 AREA 7 1 n. N DISCUSSION The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this entire area as commercial. The King County Comprehensive Plan designations range from light manufacturing to commercial and residential. The existing uses include an auto repair business, moving and storage business, second -hand and small grocery stores and a barbershop along East Marginal Way. The surrounding residential area consists of older, well -kept, owner- occupied homes. CONCLUSION The current Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not reflect existing uses nor change in topography. The task force would like to encourage redevelopment of the commercial area, while also providing a better transition from single - family to commercial use. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION The task force is recommending the Tukwila-Comprehensive Land Use Map be amended to reduce the commercial area and designate an area on the west side of East Marginal Way as Light Industrial. The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning are shown on Attachments G and H. In conjunction with this recommendation, the task force is recommending text amendments to the zoning code to provide better buffers (see text amendment section of this report). STAFF RECOMMENDATION a' 4 Staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. (26 /RA.AREA3 -7) - 8 - RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 4,5,6/7 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Industrial Single- Family Residential Neighborhood /Community Business TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Commercial KING COUNTY ZONING M -L - Light Manufacturing B -N - Neighborhood Business C -G - Commercial General COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING M -1 - Light Manufacturing C -1 - Neighborhood Commercial C -2 - General Commercial (LR07/20/88) DISCUSSION CONCLUSION (26 /RA.AREA8) STAFF RECOMMENDATION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 8 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Residential TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Commercial KING COUNTY ZONING RS - Single- Family Residential COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING R -1 - Single - Family Residential Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this site as commercial, while King County has designated it for residential use. The property is approximately 6,000 square feet in size. The site is predominantly vacant except for a METRO bus stop. The site is oriented toward SR -99 and then drops to the north and east. As shown on the map, the site is surrounded on three sides by road rights -of -way. This site is surrounded on three sides by roads and as a result is noisy and unattractive. The current single use is for a METRO bus stop with the remainder of the lot vacant and overgrown with weeds. Its primary orientation is to Highway 99. Based on the facts that this site is oriented to Highway 99 and is surrounded by roads on three sides, this site should be viewed as commercial rather than residential property. The Task Force recommended retaining.the Tukwila Comprehensive Land use Plan designation of commercial. The zoning will be C -2 to allow for a variety of commercial uses. DISCUSSION CONCLUSION The site encompasses approximately two acres. The existing use is a single - family residence. The topography of this site is oriented to the residential neighborhood. Highway 99 is at a much higher grade and as a result, is physically and visually separate from the lower residential development. Both the Task Force and the staff agree that due to the orientation of the buildable portion of the site and its topography, Low- Density Residential is the appropriate designation. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. (26 /RA.AREA9) RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 9 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN High /Maximum Density Multi - Family Housing TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Low- Density Residential KING COUNTY ZONING RM -1800 - High /Maximum Density Multi - Family Housing COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING RMH - Multiple- Residence High Density The Task Force recommended retaining the residential designation as stated in the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The zoning under this designation will be R -1 Single - Family Residence. (LR 07/20/88) DISCUSSION CONCLUSION (26 /RA.AREA10) TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 10 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN High /Maximum Density Multi- Family Housing TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Low Density Residential KING COUNTY ZONING RM900 - Maximum Density Multi- Family Dwelling COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING RMH - Multiple- Residence High Density Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this area for low- density residential. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates it as High/ Maximum Density Multi- Family Housing. Topography changes at the edge of SR -99 determine its orientation to the surrounding residential development as opposed to the commercial uses on SR -99. The property is currently vacant but there has been a proposal to build a nursing home which is still in the County review process. The proposal has been required to provide an Environmental Impact Statement. Based on earlier discussions regarding topography and existing uses, it was determined that they were again key decisive elements. Highway 99 is located approximately 100 feet above the buildable site with access through the residential area. As a result, City staff and the Task Force concluded that single - family residential would be the most appropriate use. The Task Force recommends that the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation for Low - Density Residential be maintained. The zoning will be R -1 - Single - Family Residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. 11 - - DISCUSSION CONCLUSION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with. Task Force recommendations. RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 11 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN High /Maximum Density Multi- family Housing Highway- oriented commercial Parks and Open Space TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN High Density Residential Medium - Density Residential Parks and Open Space KING COUNTY ZONING C -G - General Commercial RS7200 - Single - Family Residential COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING C -2 - Regional Retail Business R -1 - Single - Family Residential There are several conflicts between Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and King County's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the zoning in some cases conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan designations. The South Central School District owns approximately 3.6 acres, of which approximately 1 acre is designated commercial and the remaining is designated open space in the County. The portion that abuts Highway 99 has a topography consisting of steep slopes down from the highway. As discussed in other areas, those properties abutting Highway 99 which are at a lower level than the highway should be designated for less intensive uses. The task force recommends that the. Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map be amended and designated single - family residential. The zoning district would then be R -1 (Single - Family Residential). (26 /RA.AREA11) (LR 07/20/88) 12 - NW 11 a� i 11101A iP J lI Jl 19 J .v` bit> 1 .1, » •nss a �. is .Iru.r 4n) 112 n 1 u .U� I.I wi r : t AREA 13 -ctj AREA 12 C. LC./J � .....'.wt —r nerve �. ilemm POI h a.4 ' :. /37TH Of ST 1.1 V u: • 0 O I' ye ww L - 1 CIIN IrV0. l „r i I i J :• ' Il1.�U1�CMIO. ION. '=- DISCUSSION CONCLUSION (26 /RA.AREAl2) 40114!7: TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 12 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Single - Family Residential TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Light Industrial KING COUNTY ZONING RS - Residential Single - Family COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING R -1 - Single - Family Residential Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this area as light industry and King County's Comprehensive Plan designates it residential. The existing use includes nine single- family dwelling units and is surrounded by single - family dwelling units in all directions, except the northwest. Designating this area single - family residential is consistent with the existing use and would prevent a "pocket" formation of uses. This decision would predetermine use to the south of this site, but it is not anticipated as inconsistent with present and future development. The Task Force felt that designating this area as residential would be the best use based on current use patterns and topography. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan will be changed from light industrial to single - family residential. The zoning will be R -1 (Single - Family Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. - 13 (LR 07/20/88) DISCUSSION CONCLUSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION (26 /RA.AREA13) TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with Task Force recommendations. RIVERTON ANNEXATION - AREA 13 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Light Manufacturing TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Light Industrial KING COUNTY ZONING RS - Residential Single - Family COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONING R -1 - Single- Family Residential The site abuts the freeway interchange and the Interurban right -of -way to the northeast. The area to the northwest is zoned and in current use as light industrial. To the southeast, the area is zoned M -1 with existing light industrial use as well as a building used as a residence. Due to the small size of the site, its proximity to the freeway, and abutting high industrial uses, this site should be designated and zoned for light industrial. The Task Force concluded that the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of light industrial should be maintained. The zoning should be M -1 - Light Industry. STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission 88 -1 -A, " - -3 -R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA CONCLUSIONS Currently in the single - family residential areas, County zoning for minimum lot size varies from 15,000 square feet to 7,200 square feet. The Task Force is recommending that the minimum lot size for single - family areas be 7,200 square feet. They felt by recommending this lot size that they would encourage new single - family development in those existing established single - family neighbor- hoods. The new development would further establish this area for single - family development and encourage improvements to the existing houses. In staff meetings with the people in this annexation area, common concerns have been expressed. The concerns are: - Preserve and enhance the existing single-family areas. - Provide a better transition between residential uses and nonresidential uses. - Provide opportunity for redevelopment and new development of existing commercial areas. - Provide opportunity for expansion of industrial uses. The work that has been done in this annexation area should be viewed as a Comprehensive Plan update. By working with residents, property owners, and business people, the staff has tried to identify the land use issues and work with the various affected parties to develop a consensus on a solution to the issues. The land use plan proposed does not always up -zone or down -zone properties. The proposal in this report tries to balance a wide variety of concerns. Due to the short time schedule, every issue could not be resolved prior to annexation. After annexation, further refinement in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code will be needed. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning staff recommends approval of Attachment G - Tukwila. Amended Comprehen- sive Land Use Plan Map, and Attachment H - Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map. STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 88- 1 -A, ; -3 -R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA This section will review the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code in conjunction with the pre- annexation zoning discussed in the preceding section. The proposed amendments would be approved through an ordinance that would become effective upon annexation of the area to Tukwila. The proposed amendments are grouped under three categories: Buffering, Height Exception, M -1 - Light Indus- trial Use and Design Review. Proposed additions are shown in bold print and deletions are in [ ]. BUFFERING Section 18.52.020 C -M Industrial Park - Setback Standards EXISTING: Front yard - 50 feet; side yard - 5 feet; rear yard - 5 feet. PROPOSED: Minimum setback of 50 feet when adjacent to a residential use. Section 18.52.030(4) C -M Industrial Park - Required Landscape Area EXISTING: Front yard - 15 feet; side yard - 5 feet; rear yard - none. PROPOSED: Fifteen feet of landscaping shall be provided when development in the C -M zone abuts residential uses. Section 18.60.030(2)(B) Design Review Requirements for the C -M Zone EXISTING: Design Review is required if the proposed structure exceeds 10,000 square feet. PROPOSED: When C -M development is adjacent to residential uses, Design Review is required. Discussion These three amendments are intended to provide a better transition between residential uses and industrial uses. Currently in the City, the C -M Industrial Park zone does not abut any residential areas. The proposed standard would not . affect existing uses in Tukwila, but would affect the new development north of 126th in the Riverton area. The proposed standard improves the existing stan- dards for buffering, while at the same time providing the opportunity for greater standards if needed through the Design Review process. STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Discussion 88- 1- A,•--3 -R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA HEIGHT EXCEPTION Section 18.50.020 M -1 Light Industrial EXISTING: Maximum Building Height - Four stories /45 feet PROPOSED: See Attachment I for areas to be added to the Height Exception Up to and Including 115 Feet. Section 18.50.040 Building Height Exceptions Up to and Including 115 Feet Authorization of building height greater than the heights contained in Section 18.50.020 (Table 1) up to and including 115 feet in the areas of the City as designated on Map shall be made by the Planning Com- mission acting as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the guidelines and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60. Any application for a proposed structure exceeding 100 feet in overall height and located north of Interstate 405 shall be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration for an advisory report. The report of the FAA shall be submitted to the BAR as part of the Staff Report. Discussion The proposed height exception is similar to the text amendment made in Fire District No. 1. The height exception would extend to the area north of 125th Avenue which has a proposed zoning designation of M -1. M - 1 - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES EXISTING: Section 18.40.020(8) Principally Permitted Uses Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling previously prepared metals or plastics including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal [not exceeding 1/8 inch in thickness], engraving, galvanizing, and handforging. PROPOSED NEW: Section 18.40.070 Performance Standards Use, activity, or operations within a structure shall not emit odor, noise, dust, smoke, gas or vibration which are discernible to a person at normal sensitivities at the edge of the property. The proposed amendment would affect all areas in the City zoned M -1. Over the last year, several businesses have commented on the limitations of metal thick- ness. Due to changing technology, most cities and counties no longer regulate light industrial uses by metal thickness. The 1/8 -inch thickness is being removed and a Performance Standard is being added to ensure the impacts of light industrial use will end at the edge of the property. STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission (22/88 -1 -A) RECOMMENDATIONS ..88-1--A,\.-3-R, 88 -3 -CPA, 88 -3 -CA DESIGN REVIEW PROPOSED NEW Section 18.60.030(2)(H) Scope of Authority All proposed developments along East Marginal Way. between 125th Street and 131st Street in all zone districts, excluding single - family homes. Discussion This amendment would only affect non - single family uses along East Marginal Way in the Riverton annexation area. As mentioned earlier, the task force would like to encourage redevelopment of their commercial area and assurance of better transition between single family uses and non - residential uses. The design review process provides for the opportunity for residents to be informed of what is proposed and comment. Planning staff recommends.that the text amendments discussed above be adopted as part of the Riverton pre- annexation zone proposal. R ® ., II W11 1 1 1IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII!!I IIIIIIIIIIIIi 11111 1111111 1 II. IiI!,. IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII iI i��: �' lIIIII!I !IIIII;:I;IIIIIIIIIIIiiiiii1111 i i,„,I� � ©�! f I. Illlllllllll.,�, I �Ilu� . ..,,,.. ��....,, � � . � ��� RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREAS FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 © SEA -TAC INCORPORATION RIVERTON ANNEXATION FOSTER ANNEXATION 1IIIIIII THORNDYKE ANNEXATION in TUKWILA CITY LIMITS TUKWILA PLANNING AREA , 1011111111111014 ralml4 NimallIELSN- • .: � III�IIlIIIIIIIII P .s.,+o. Be 1 1 6 ATTACHMENT A If./. OUWAMISH ?;1; /we," _- RIVER •4 /Yu ATLAS M uumu = 1 • • 1' )01 PIa -#PING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGEND •(,NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BUSINESS HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY f •)Nr -I' ° :I . •1.9 11. 13 t n MANUFACTURING ® HIGH /MAXIMUM DENSITY HOUSING ® LOW /MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING Lei SINGLE FAMILY PARK AND RECREATION AIRPORT FACILITY r E p A r c p- - > r E ' NORTH-- • . 1 1! � — ': �t i y. y i t i Lf; ATTACHMENT B ~ 7 "CP.:1P■Ir rliinfs5r. "=:111•:":".■". 1.0 z. law me. ,./ R/VEA r. 0 0 ATLAS OP SIIATTLI oux‘autfOZL:r174 .6Z DUWAMISH • ,'. • .t 71 •vey 1 ‘,., . I P ..•.. , . RIVERTON CREST ' ■A%;,, 1.',..- CENETERY • . -. . 1 :34 " ?O' '.. ".-; 0......1.2. r . %.' ::.° : : , .". I C“..t•--43 ! . .., Y.11 6 , , ,,_,•I[I I '• ±....P t. '= :: al•e•-• ittd ... 1 ; t•'"j rr. L.i -d . r'' ''-'-'- , 4. i ti \t•• 4 40 , tti \ , I 7 " ,' t • ''.. ‘" :-.. .i.•.; :" \ .1 1 4 ,rM X Miles' Er6 -1 • O.- EA 1 1 1 . O LEGEND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRY HEAVY INDUSTRY • e. '.N., N..!..„' \ A T r 9 g P f • ' r -\, r r / • q / _,,,,, (.\::: )E r4 - ,,, / / 14 ' ,`..,',...- ' •••• , NORT,.._,_=- .e , . • ,,, 4 / t - -....-- • - -.-----v-............ is ..., ..<, ‹. ,.. , • `-,!`•,'N. Y . 1 .. ,''' ".. . • -77 '.-- 43 ...._-__i_.... 1 " 1 ,,..,......s. .,t,.... .,..., ,„„.... i n • 0 i • .0 i • • 0 , t ...Z. • .... TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN • ) if ,, . - ATTACHMENT C .1 ....... " mi.. or marma r. - • a fili17 4 2;7726 . e...t. 1 6 i t -- 39 Svo \ . , IllvE R10; CREST . 3.4; 1 , • . ,,, I - CEmiTENT -"--- . -" • .i....4.1 I ? ...- " + • 1 • - • -E' i ' • - : •gi t i. a [ - • j , e I t t. r te. ;4■1-?.. •""1 (3 44 : :43 „ KING COUNTY ZONING '11■"• • • • . LEGEND M-H HEAVY MANUFACTURING M-P LIGHT INDUSTRY C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL M-L NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS S-R SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL RM 900 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL ......4 . c. I N G`A r E W A ),N • it. "N., _ • N--...N r E N ‘ 0 . , r.N. •,. ' `-• ,) r i / R ,, ,' NORTH '-- • . i ,..I ,, . , J., -./...... — ... ,. \ - _.• • .rei •":' ./. .•:/... „... , ,---:. 1.. (..'./• .... 3 ' f. . .. 7 ' - ., i>,,.... ‘•,..,:`,",-,-.:•••!: .s .4 •--..:, :::/!. -• D ' : ". - , ...-;•-- '1... ,.<• , ' " 4v - .ij • • I • , 1 ' 41. • 1 1, • .t.. • 4, - L.P.- , - -; , ..t= . • • 11%4 41: (" ATTACHMENT D ■\‘'‘ \ ••• Z A-t-e- 1-16- • •••5.•t Du wAM /SH cb• atvER •••••7•;* 4 4 k a l tip 4 !I X i; I • , A • OF: • O 14 • '• 13 0 I: Y • at. — /:. 4 cc 4 —GNI( — at , 1 ' . •• • .: :, '.. . ;:: 4E .7.- '!•.-.... I. ;.-••• _______ iti. I. 79 . , ., a go . • , ' I • lea • LI a: MI I _ 7- 5,rovrP9° f 2A■ King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tbwer Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-7610 RE: Community Plan Revision Studies, Riverton Area, and Northeast Highline Community Plan Dear Northeast Highline Community Residents: The King County Council requested that the Parks, Planning and Resources Department initiate two plan revision studies (Sabey- Riverton and Whitlow) for properties within and adjacent to the Highline community planning area. In March 1988, Community Planning staff held a community meeting in Riverton to determine whether or not to recommend pursuing a plan revision and if so, what the scope of the plan revision should be. A summary of community response to these issues is enclosed. In April 1988, the Council considered a third plan revision study (DeRuyter) in the Riverton area. After reviewing the issues raised by these three plan revisions, the King County Council directed that all three be folded into the upcoming Northeast Highline Community Plan update. The Riverton, Allentown, and Skyway areas are all included in the update, which is scheduled to start this fall. A map of the Northeast Highline Community Plan boundaries is enclosed. The Northeast Highline Community Plan will incorporate a broad range of issues and community concerns. Important elements of the plan will include economic development, water and sewer service, transportation, housing, parks and recreation, and cultural resources. Community Planning staff will work with local residents and business people, representatives from the City of Tukwila, and others to develop the Northeast Highline Community Plan. I will send you more information about the plan update process as work begins this fall. If you have any questions please call Anne Knapp, Community Planner, at 344 -4266. Sincerely, Craig sen Chief CL:AK:mg CPO46 /H /3 Enclosure May 2, 1988 cc: Ron Sims, King County Councilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division ATTN: Anne Knapp, Community Planner ATTACHMENT F April 1, 1988 8• SABEY - RIVERTON COMMUNITY PLAN REVISION STUDY SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS Sabev- Riverton Plan Revision Study The King County Council has requested that the Parks, Planning and Resources Department initiate a community plan revision study in the Highline Community Plan area for properties located in Riverton. Community Planning staff asked local residents to help them decide what area to study and what, if any, land use changes should be considered. Community Recommendations and Responses Questionnaire A questionnaire, mailed to local residents and distributed at a community workshop, was part of the information gathering process. Fifty -three residents completed the questionnaire; their responses are summarized below. 1. What description beet fits the Riverton community? l.$. A. A stable, single- family neighborhood. B. An area in transition from single- family homes to other uses. 1Q C. Other (please describe). Riverton is also described as a blighted residential area changing to industrial and commercial uses. 2. What would you like the community to be in the future? Za A. A stable, single- family neighborhood. 1$ B. A manufacturing, commercial, and office area. $ C. A combination of A and B. 1 D. Other (please describe). Responses indicate mixed preferences for residential. commercial, or industrial. 3. What are the most severe problems facing the Riverton community? Please rank the problems from 1 to 5, with 1 being most severe. 1 2 3 4 5 1. Q 6. Q A. Truck traffic. 6. Q Q Q 1. B. Traffic congestion. ZQ Q b. Q. Q C. Changing single - family homes to other uses. a i a. D. Few opportunities for economic development. . 3. a a a E. Other (please describe). The most severe "Other" problem§ are poor communication L _betyeer_ the County and _ i den , drug; problems. lack _. 1 e1I• 1 J r _ � ! r.o _ • i obtaining home loans. and Metro Base noise And air pollution. Less severe problems include depressed residential property values, traffic, a deteriorating neighborhood, unattractive land uses, encroachment of industrial and commercial ventures, need for urban services, zoning problems, and prostitution. 4. How can the County help Riverton resolve these problems? The community has reached no concensus on possible Solutions. Recommendations include rezoning the area to manufacturing or commercial, maintaining the . existing residential zoning, postponing the study until the issue of annexation to the City of Tukwila is settled, a quick plan amendment study, enforcement of trucking laws, and better police protection. Boundaries of the Sabey Riverton Plan Revision Study Community residents reouested a wide range of boundary alternatives for a plan revision study. Options varied from a small two block area to an extensive area bounded by State Route 599 to the north and east, Highway 99 to the west, and S. 144th Street to the south. B. Addition 1 Community Response Community Planning also received letters, phone calls, and petitions from residents and developers about the proposed study. Developers support rezones to permit manufacturing uses. The majority of residents are opposed to an amendment that would change the current land use and zoning. The community is quite divided on the issue of changing land use and very sensitive to all County actions in the area. 1. Riverton Annexation Proposal Group In January a group of local residents submitted petitions to Tukwila requesting an election to annex. The group of over 70 residents requests that the County postpone the study until after the outcome of the election. 2. Petition From Riverton Community Residents These 98 residents do not favor anv amendment to the family land use designation. 3. City of Tukwila _ Gary Van Dusen. Mayor. requested that the County postpone the plan revision study until after Riverton residents vote on annexation, tentatively scheduled for the February ?, 1989 ballot. The City is already conducting a pre- annexation zoning study of the area under consideration. 4. Additional phone calls, individual letters, and visits from Riverton residents and interested developers over the past several weeks indicate that the community is still very divided over the extent of a plan revision study and the desired outcomes of any such study. In addition, residents are very concerned that they have an opportunity to fully participate in any future County decisions in their neighborhood including rezones, plan revision studies, and plan updates. u urien • • AN mem h Tit it 1 r I �l���I�IEEI1 ut NORTHEAST HIGHLINE PLAN Riverton - Allentown • Skyway ••••• • •••••••■ •:71•••••• •••••••••• ••••••••• S *.SOIN •..••••■•••••• 11•••••■••• 1= • ••=..., 1•••••• 0/0.-•••■■••• ■•••••••••• VW MN Ihr•IS,••••••• I= • _ Ms, -1. • •••••=1 •••■ -2 1•••••••-• -.....•1•■••••■ mi 1M •••• ••■ a•••••••• rata IMMO. ■■•••■ ••■M •■••••• ••••••••• • • /11M■ .....M. wing= WANE= ••■••• '.•-■••■ -MN= ••.! •■••••••■•■,■••••■ a. It •■••■•• 11•••■•••••• •••.C.•• • • •■•••••■•••■ 1 ..“,.••••■■•■••MWEIMIIIIIPa IM•11•11=•■•• • 011•1 ■••••••0711■•••■•••1 • 0•N•w••■••■•■ • Ins.. ■•••••■•••••■•••••••■•••:•••••••••••- •••• "VS," ••■•••••••.=.••••••t97,-r-Srl••••••••••• , MOW. c: .......100.•••,■•••■ +NM. • •••• •Oo• 1••••■ ..,••••■•-104 w• 11••■••••• 1.1,.••■•••••••••-• -........••■•■•• El ••■••• •••■••• -„„. .••••••■ .• • . tr. ' 1 0 7 .......••••••■•• r• Va. •••• ••■•■•• ........-. •■■••••1. AS 1.••••- prmg .■ • • • 1=•.0SMSW ..... ••• insai ••■••• Is 9 •,••• - ATM ogs•• • _ 111 r■•••,••••.• ••■•■••■••••■•••• OW 41■M Make ...MEN • IM 111•10•■• • •••••• 1•11•1•••• ■••• 1••■•••■•1= 1M • ••■•••• L.IN■ - •••■•••■•■• ••••••••••••■•••■• • •••-•• ••••■• • ■••••■••....I.• urrIm•MUM• =AM. .1••04.••••• ■101=6,•••■••■••• •N.7•••••■• •• -- •■1....7 •••••••••• l••■Me. mmmm •S • • $ • 7.; • ...;•.Z.;;;;;;;:=■;:f.*:•;.. .7=••• 1. or, •- •••• • MI I .1•1••==../ av ••••••• •••■■••■••••••■•• •.■•••■•■ - mini•• • •■•••••• alirl•Ms•••••••• ••••■•••./ :.•••••• •wls•••■••••••••L .111111••••,,,,=•1••■••■••■•• torlm••••••••••••••••=r ••••••• •■•••••• -•••■•■••••• •■••■••• •••••• • ••=114..•••• ••• 1 ••.=•••■••-.. V., •S•.mors 111•■••■••••■•••••• FM, : L. - ••■r.L.=-• - •■••••• • • .7 •II,1•0• 14=11.• ••••••••■••■•••••••■ 1.1,•••••••=11., •-,-.47•Jammms .. •••■•••awn • ....•.. Immaimr •.- 11■•••••• •womagomm■ ummormln... • ••••••••••Nr1 •■•1••••■••■••••• maw =moo ••ru., •■•■•••• ■••••■•• • ••••••••1 im --••••••••- ariaml •■••- ,M1Mwe • ,1••■ 1•I• .■••••••••■•••■ m•••■■••1 •• *.11-,/ Tig• • • ••• 1••••• •••••■• ■•■• • 4.60A U. ••• N•le.•=er•mmrs,...• \K Rive," f RIVER //. . U V... ri• - • ATLAS OP SIIATTLI I 0 ..■"„1 • 1 , IIIVE1ITON MST : 1 . - •Ciii I 1 • DUWAMISH Coo LO • 7$ •••• • " ' '•.•P '14P, e LEGEND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE EJ COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRY HEAVY INDUSTRY 11111111 E W A__ C \ g p ";:n' A 0 N r / TUKWILA AMENDED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP NORTH r r • „.• •-• • .NA • ..' .11 ■ • • • q, t 1 • W •. \ 1 ATTACHMENT G • .1 I s...\ • • .7\ 111 RIVER imstmiiimmmmummummommem 1 112t031111•111MMIIMIIIIIIPIMMIIMNIM1111 IMMOPIMMMIIMMIMMIIMM1111111111111 IIIIIMIONIMOINIM11•1111111111111•111111111111115•11 111111111 11111•WM1111KWIIMIIMMIIIMIN11111 "— UMW WIIMM UMW AMU MMIMI9 MUM MINIMO WIENS =MU__ imseitmiin mummy US•MMIN MINIM •ACM115 R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R-4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY •JSIW .J ATLAS Of flATTLI 1111•MS DUWA MISH \ VAitiMfartity I --21... • I.f - I Cs..L.4 • —111 3f Ay.* RIVERTON CREST:: 1.1.tr CEMETERY ' .., , -• • I 0 .'" :LI • 1" 4, . ._, ,!! . • ATTACHMENT H ,wA r G 'A-r - f r'A c R ?E r g / ' < • \N ''••• "NJ f * • ;RIVERTON ANNEXATION BOUNDARY 0 T • • • • • :•••■or :.•• PROPOSED PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING MAP .• , • ""'", A's • SUBO: L0 & 9 / s k• NORTH . • !!!!!! / • 3 ATLAS 0 r■11A M .F.:: 011, DUWAMISH I 1 a ALLOWABLE HEIGHT UP TO 115 FEET f 1 — 7:!■: - ; Li- . f 2: • , • I 1 1 lir i- '‘:• 4 r - •0 Z2 * — 4 l MIMI 6-sez A.' "il• IS,YP.: ..".• hr 4. , A If . ril /lit Inef .1 r 4 i I . C .. $ ". ".1 f 1: fl V4 n . . ..row -....., ...fr . i 4I■Jr• JAI 4 , uir, a 12151117011.5. ... 73.1180Til Zs .1. ! 'NW : • z; I V ..‘. .I ••• • , , ..., :,, '"-' -' : t rr -- ... _.. E • 41 ! Gi"- ' (3 13 4 : - 4 ve — — ■ 4 ., ••:,.3%., 4 ..• • -- lir - "7.--.- 1' . I ttt ii4.l.. J .••■1* . 1 • 3-.4 . 1 .40 1 cAr "x- fl ) N 1E• r TUKWILA PROPOSED HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA 0 r • ATTACHMENT 1 =7 6 -;. ..—• .4 • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Mr. Brice Martin, Executive Secretary King County Boundary Review Board Room W378, King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Subject: NOTICES OF INTENTION - RIVERTON ANNEXATION AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Dear Mr. Martin: JP /sjn enclosure July 19, 1988 This letter is to officially notify the Boundary Review Board that the City of Tukwila has received two petitions for the annexation of areas referred to as "Riverton" and "Thorndyke" to the City of Tukwila. The petitions are for the election method of annexation, and have been certified for correct- ness by the King County Prosecuting Attorney's office and certified for sufficiency by the Tukwila City Clerk. Enclosed are the Notices of Intention on the two annexations, along with eight copies of each and a $50.00 filing fee. If you have any questions or require additional information at this time, please call me at 433 -1847. Sincerely, ck Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 RIVERTON ANNEXATION NOTICE OF INTENTION As required by RCW 36.93, a Notice of Intention is hereby given to the King County Boundary Review Board by the City of Tukwila. Enclosed are eight copies of the Notice and its attachments. 1. Background Information: Tukwila is responding positively to a petition by residents in the Riverton area for election- method annexation to the City with pre- annexation zoning. This petition was signed by 60 quali- fied voters, representing 38% of all area voters in the 1987 General Election. The City has held several public hearings and information meetings, as well as working with a 19- member citizen task force to resolve community concerns and establish area zoning by October 1988. The Riverton Annexation area, as defined in the petition for annexation to the City of Tukwila, is mapped in Attachment A and legally described in Attachment B. As shown in Attachment A, the annexation is generally bounded by SR -99 on the west, SR -509 on the east, South 139th Street on the south, and the Duwamish River to the north. This area is linearly shaped and joins Tukwila at its northeast City limits. 2. Attachment C is a certified copy of a Tukwila City Council resolution expressing intent to proceed with its consideration of the Riverton Annexation. 3. Attachment D is a copy of the SEPA Checklist and Determination of Non - Significance issued on July 1, 1988. 4. The City of Tukwila proposes annexation by the petition- initiated election method of the contiguous land area described in Attachments A and B. This action is proposed under the applicable provisions of RCW 35A.14.020, 050 and 100; and 36.93.100 and 160. 5. Attachment B is a legal description of the area involved in the proposed action. 6,7,8. See Attachment E. The annexation area is served to urban standards by the following providers: Water District No. 125 (Attachment F), the Val -Vue Sewer District (Attachment G), and the South Central School Dis- trict (Attachment H), and Fire District No. 11 (Attachment I). King County provides general governmental administration and rural standard police service. No changes in provider responsibility are anticipated after annexation except that Tukwila would assume responsibility for general governmental administration, providing urban level police service and fire protection. Police protection would be provided from 6200 Southcenter Boulevard upon annexation by the City of Tukwila. Tukwila would also assume road and storm sewer maintenance. Maintenance service would be provided from the City Shops at 600 Minkler Boulevard. Primary fire protection service would be provided by Tukwila Fire Station No. 52 at 5900 South 147th Street. 9.A. The annexation area population is estimated at 1,224 persons on 223 acres, yielding a population density of 5.49 persons per acre. The 1988 assessed value for the area is $43,039,670, therefore, per capita assessed valuation is $35,163.13. NOTICE OF INTENTION " Riverton Annexation Page 2 9.B. Existing land use is predominantly single - family residential with a low- intensity commercial strip along SR -99 and low- intensity commercial centers at the South 130th Street and South 126th Street intersections with S.E. Marginal Way. King County land use designations are shown in Attachments J and K. Proposed Tukwila land use designations are shown in Attachments L and M. 9.C.1 The area is included in Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan as adopted by ordin- ance on September 19, 1977. 9.C.2 Tukwila has no franchise in the area. It does not anticipate requesting a franchise amendment to cover the area in the near future. 9.C.3 The Riverton Annexation proposal relates to Section III Regional Plan- ning and Intergovernmental Cooperation, page 32 of the King County Comprehensive Plan adopted 1985. The following plan policies would support approval of the subject annexation to Tukwila. The area is designated as urban by the County and therefore should be receiving urban services from a municipality capable of providing the necessary level. PI -302 King County should work with the cities to focus growth within their boundaries and should support annexations when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. King County should support incorporations when formation of cities is appropriate to assure adequate facilities and services for growth consistent with the Plan. PI -303 King County should play an active role in municipal annexa- tions, supporting them when consistent with land use plans, and opposing them when inconsistent. A comparison of the King County and Tukwila Comprehensive Plan maps (Attachments J and L, respectively) shows them to be generally consistent with each other. 9.C.4 There are no additional County policies, regulations or studies subse- quent to the County Comprehensive Plan which directly affect this area. 9.C.5 King County zoning is shown in Attachment K. 9.C.6 There is no applicable basin -wide sewer /water plan. The County sewer/ water plan affecting this area states that extensions will be encouraged for areas not currently served by sewers. 9.D. In general, area topography slopes gradually toward the north where it flattens out in the northern two - thirds of the annexation area. The Green River is a significant feature which is crossed in the north of this area (Attachment A). The major "natural" boundaries are man -made, with SR -99 on the west and the Fire District No. 1 /City of Tukwila boun- daries to the east. 9.E. The Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) has projected negligible population growth for the annexation area in its Forecast Area Zone (FAZ) analyses. Riverton FAZ 3820 is projected to decline in population by the year 2000. The City of Tukwila has a population of 4,780. The current PSCOG forecast shows a slight City population increase by the year 2000. 9.F. See response to Items 6, 7 and 8. 9.G. See response to Items 6, 7 and 8. The location of Tukwila's community facilities include Tukwila City Hall and Police Station which is approxi- mately 2.5 miles from the Riverton area. The Tukwila Community Center is approximately one -half mile from Allentown; the Tukwila Library is approximately 1i miles. Various parks including Foster Golf Links are to 2/ miles away (Attachment N). 9.H.1 Municipal services presently available to the area are discussed in responses to Items 6, 7 and 8. 9.H.2 The current and proposed development is consistent with the "urban" designation in King County's Comprehensive Plan. NOTICE OF INTENTION 9.H.3 Present costs in the annexation area and in the City of Tukwila are described below. a. PROPERTY TAXES Tax Rates (per $1,000) b. WATER RATES Water District No. 125: c. SEWER RATES City of Tukwila: Val Vue Sewer: Residential Commercial City of Tukwila: Riverton Annexation Page 3 1987 Taxing Districts Annexation Area City of Tukwila State of Washington $ 3.78389 $ 3.78389 King County 1.83959 1.83959 Port of Seattle .40813 .40813 Emergency Medical Services .25 .25 Fire District No. 11 1.5 - -- City of Tukwila - -- 2.92792 County Road 1.58324 Library .5 South Central 2.76022 2.76022 12.62507 $11.96975 Meter Size Minimum Charge C" $ 5.00 1" 7.00 1i" 10.50 2" 17.50 3" 31.50 4" 59.50 6" 115.50 8" 170.50 The rate shall be the minimum charge, and 40ct for every 100 cubic feet over 100. Meter Size Minimum Charge *" $ 6.80 1" 10.80 1i" 15.30 2" 19.80 3" 37.80 4" 50.80 6" 92.80 8" 140.80 The minimum charge is for 500 cubic feet or less. For each 100 cubic feet in excess of the 500 cubic feet allowed for the minimum charge, the rate shall be 50tt per 100 cubic feet. - $26.90 for every two months - $26.90 for the first 750 cubic feet and $3.59 for every additional 100 cubic feet Commercial /Industrial: A minimum charge of $9.50 per meter for up to 900 cubic feet plus $9.50 per each additional 900 cubic feet or fraction thereof. Multiple - Dwelling Unit (permanent type): Each condo and apartment unit will be charged a flat rate of $4.00 with no additional charges for volume. MCB /sjn Attachments: d. ELECTRICITY NOTICE OF INTENTION Riverton Annexation Page 4 Residential: Each dwelling unit will be charged a flat rate of $4.00 with no additional charges for volume. No change in rates would result from annexation since electrical energy is supplied to unincorporated areas and to incorporated areas at the same rate. 9.H.4 The City of Seattle is capable of providing municipal services. It lies as close as one -half mile away. There is no other municipality in close proximity. 9.H.5 Annexation itself is likely to have little or no impact on the area's development and its subsequent need for services. Annexation will improve the availability and cost of providing emergency services for citizens. 9.H.6 The proposal may increase the level of service for the annexation area. 9.H.7 See 6,7,8. No significant impacts are anticipated except that the City would acquire a portion of the capital assets and service area of former Fire District No. 18, which was absorbed by Fire District No. 11 in 1988. No significant negative impacts on Fire District No. 18 are anticipated based on discussions with district representatives. 9.I. Based on the previous findings and analyses, no change in the existing economic or social relationships with adjacent areas are anticipated. The proposed annexation will forward the State's intent of RCW 36.93 by incorporating an urban area into an existing city. 10. The proposal or possible alternatives would support the stated objectives of Boundary Review Board in the following ways: RCW 36.93.180(3) Creation of logical service areas. RCW 36.93.180(7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries. RCW 36.93.180(8) Annexation to a city of unincorporated areas which are urban in character. 11. The required filing fee of $25.00 is attached. Notices, processes and other communications regarding this proposal should be directed to the undersigned at Tukwila Planning Department who will ensure that appropriate copies are distributed to all interested parties. Respectfully submitted, Jack Pace Senior Planner A. Assessor Map of Riverton Annexation Area B. Legal Description of Riverton Annexation Area C. Certified Tukwila City Council Resolution D. SEPA Environmental Checklist and Determination of Non - Significance E. Map of Tukwila and Cumulative Annexation Areas F. Water District Map G. Sewer District Map H. School District Map I. Fire District Map J. King County Comprehensive Plan Map K. King County Zoning Map L. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map M. Tukwila Zoning Map N. Tukwila Recreation Facilities F E 0 •1- r 1 1 i 0 1 - z :1• ( • _\ ,w.- - Y- - z / / ••.-:'; - •- $ - - — -• - 1-'-' • •: sr "i t 1 1 s' :• ••.t••i _ - •;'---: ' - - - - 1 :ti -: RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION tachment B — 03 MAR 88 REV. Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, T23N, R4E, W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22, Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the west line of said right -of -way, 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10- 11 -61, to the south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the east margin of South 131st Place; thence southeasterly along said east margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street,respectively, to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing In a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the north line of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Vol 9 of Plats, page 95, records of King County, WA; thence north 40'17' east along said north line 226.52 feet; thence south 49 ° 43' east, 91.43 feet to the north line of the southerly 0.86 Acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40'17' east, a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 ° 43' east, 10 feet; thence north 40 ° 17' east, 119.11 feet; -2- thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or Tess to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin, respectively, to the west line of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence southerly along said west line to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south Tine, respectively, to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west Tine of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15, Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County, WA; thence northerly along said west Tine to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north line to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the north line of the Duwamish River; thence easterly along said north line of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10, T23N, R4E; thence southerly along said west Tine to the south Tine of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south line to the west margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its intersection with the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said north Tine of Lot 1 and its extension to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to the extended east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of Riverton Addition as recorded in Vol. 13 of Plats, Page 36, records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said extension and east line, and the east line of Lot 9 to the north margin of South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along the easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said east margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. / D SP?) tachment C - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE PROPOSED RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA ELECTION METHOD ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, a petition calling for an election to vote upon the annexation of certain unincorporated territory contiguous to the City of Tukwila was filed with the office of the King County Prosecuting Attorney, and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.020, the prosecuting attorney certified the petition as being sufficient, and transmitted the same to the City Council of the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila has determined that the signatures on the petition are sufficient and has filed a certificate of sufficiency of the petition with the City Council, and WHEREAS, less than 60 days have passed since the filing of the certificate of sufficiency, and WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official has determined that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed annexation, and WHEREAS, following public hearings the City will, by Ordinance, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340, provide for zoning and land use regulations for the annexation area to become effective upon annexation, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval of Annexation. The City Council hereby approves the proposed election method annexation to the City of Tukwila of the property located within the Riverton Annexation Area more particularly described on Exhibit A hereto, and requests that an election be held within the proposed annexation area on the question of whether or not said area should be annexed to the City of Tukwila; subject, however, to the right to withdraw such approval, depending upon the final determination of the King County Boundary Review Board. Section 2. Assessment and Taxation in Annexation Area. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.020, the City Council hereby requires that there also be submitted to the electorate of the territory to be annexed a proposition that all property within the area to be annexed shall, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City of Tukwila is assessed and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City, including assessments for taxes in payment of any bonds issued or debts contracted prior to or existing as of the date of annexation. Section 3. Zoning and Land Use Regulations. The City Council hereby requires that there also be submitted to the electorate of the territory to be 3678C3 Page 1 ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CITY C ERK, MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 3678C3 By FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 7- /r -Fr ? PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 14." qr PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORO NO.: /08 (?.s.IKts.n annexed, a proposition that all property within the -rea to be annexed shall, upon annexation, become subject to such Comprehens ve Land Use Policy Plan designations and zoning regulations as shall her after be prescribed by Ordinance of the City pursuant to the provision of RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340. Section 4. Notification of Petitioners. Th City Clerk is hereby directed to notify each of the Petitioners signing he petition for election filed with the City of this resolution either by ail or by publication as requested by RCW 35A.14.020. Section 5. Filing of Petition. The City Clerk 's hereby directed to file the approved petition for election and a copy of thi- Resolution with the King County Council, and with the King County Boundary Re iew Board. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Ti ILA, WASHINGTON, AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON /A DAY OF 1988. COUNCIL PRESI Page 2 ENT, MABEL J. HARRIS RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION 03 MAR 88 REV. Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, T23N, R4E, W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22, Riverside interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the west line of said right -of -way, 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the south Tine of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10- 11 -61, to the south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the east margin of South 131st Place; thence southeasterly along said east margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street,respectively, to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of. South 135th Street to the north line of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Vol 9 of Plats, page 95, records of King County, WA; thence north 40'17 east along said north 1fne 226.52 feet; thence south 49 ° 43 1 east, 91.43 feet to the north line of the southerly 0.86 Acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40 17' east, a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 ° 43' east, 10 feet; thence north 40 ° 17' east, 119.11 feet; EXHIBIT A -2- thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or Tess to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin, respectively, to the west line of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence southerly along said west line to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south Tine of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south Tine, respectively, to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15, Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County, WA; thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north line to the east marginrof Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the north line of the Duwamtsh River; thence easterly along said north line of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10, T23N, R4E; thence southerly along said west line to the south line of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south Tine to the west margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its intersection with the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said north line of Lot 1 and its extension to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to the extended east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of Riverton Addition as recorded in Vol. 13 of Plats, Page 36, records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said extension and east line, and the east line of Lot 9 to the north margin of South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along the easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said east margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. WAC 197 -11 -970 Description of Proposal PRE- ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING AND ANNEXATION OF "RIVERTON ". Proponent CITY OF TUKWILA Location of Proposal, including street address, if any APPROXTMATFIY ROUNDED BY THE DUWAMISH RIVER, PACIFIC HIGHWAY, 139TH STREET_ TUKWILA CITY MITTS ANn TNTFPURBAN AVENUE. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -1 -88 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. 0 There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by JULY 15, 1988 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title FM.DNS DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Planning Director ..:achment D Phone 433 -1846 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwi 8 Date Signature You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. wirumo v pv j., __ j ��!!!IL f11 • 111111011140111/ : 'IIIIII��ll IIIIHI 1!l��fl9/I�IiI'h on .I iliVu1 B IR 1/ diltllIili' IIIIIIIIIIIIC •g I, �� ■7:.7�IIIII"'IIIIIr pIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiilllll lllllN i i qt. - �Mvo ♦,r�ll7.� !1111111 dl1�'!:, X -.. J ' ' 'i'diIIIIIIIIICIIt ' R , mai ri. II WNW ;4 III" ;1 e MUM �n 17.4 u tkIA L. %)le , , 1 . _ \ A . N10MLIN1 COYNUNITY ODLL101 31 ANNEXATIONS . Pm' DISTRICT NO.1 PILED oacaMaaN Nss Q SEA•TAC INCOR'ORATION PILED JA Isst RIYERTON ANNEXATION PILED PEENUANY ISMS — POSTER ANNEXATION ' ' PKEO MAY WU TNONNOYKI ANNEXATION u PILED JUNE WU I TUKWILA CITY LIMITS Q TUKWILA PLANNING AREA A.- BACKGROUND 1. Pre- Annexation Comprehensive F'1an Amendment, Zoning and annexation of area known as Riverton. • City of Tukwila Jack Face Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 99198 (206) 433- 1349 4. June 23, ;998 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST �. City of Tukwila EPIC FILE NO: 1 -88 6. Comprehensive F'lan review and amendment and pre - annexation zoning are sche=duled for July through November 1988; Annexation election is scheduled for ' February 1999, 7. There are no future plans for additions or expansions o+ the subject proposai and its area; however, future annexations contiguous to the subject area are possible. Text amendments to the zoning l=ode are possible in order to reduce land use conflicts and provide :cmp3rab.e zoning. .8. If text amendments are proposed additional environmental wor!: will be Cone. 9, There may be land use applications and permits that are pending on individual parcels with King County that would be affected by t h i s proposal. In addition, King County has scheduled an area -wide Community Flan update that would include area covered by this proposal. The governmental approvals and permits that are needed are included within the annexation process. City Council adoption of pre - annexation Comprehensive Flan amendment, zoning and annexat : on. A notice of intention will be submitted to the King County Boundary Review Board where review may be invoked. The County Council ,must pass an ordinance placing the election on the b allot. 11. The proposal is an annexation by election of the below described property. The proposal also includes a review of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan of the area with amendments, pre - annexation zoning to allow for simultaneous adoption of zoning if area is annexed. 12. The proposed site is roughly bounded by the Duwamish River, ER 99 (Pacific Highway) , S. 179th Street, the Tukwila p=ity limits and Interurban Avenue on the east, and is referred to as "Riverton." The size of the area is approximately 162 acres, . Sane of the areas within the proposed annexation areas do lie within environmentally sensitive area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH 2. AIR 3. WATER ) The Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexation areas have a combination of f l a t , rolling, hilly, and steep s' opes. Thars are no mountains. b. The stespest slope in these sites is 100 percent in one area T`ze diffs+rent types of soils are varied and include clay, sand, s i l t and gravel, d. The general area of the Duwamish River Basin has a history of landslides and areas of instability. e. There is no proposal for any filling or grading to b= done. f. ' There will be no = onstruction clearing during this project. Impervious surfaces will not need to be built after this annexation because there is no construction occurring during this project. h. Currently, there is no proposal to reduce or con'_r•ol erosion to the earth. The study of emissions is not applicable to this project. b. There is no off -site, sources of emissions that will effect this project. c. There are no proposals to reduce or control emissions because it is beyond the scope of this proposal. a. The surface body of water that is located in the proposed annexation area is the Duwamish River Basin and its 'tributaries. See attached map of basin for stream information. b. No work in the vicinity of the above waters is reguir =d in order for this annexation to take plat=e. c. Fill and dredge materials are not needed in the annexations of these areas. d. There is no need for surface water withdrawals or diversions given `hs nature of these annexations. E. 4. PLANTS b. Ground c. Water Runoff A portion of the proposed anne ation area does lie within a 100 f Np .paste materials will be dealt with in this project. Ground water will not be withdrawn during this project. No waste materials will be dealt with during this project. 1. Major runoff occurs from the highways that traverse the areas - SR 518, SR 99 and Interstate I -5. Other runoff occurs from local streets, roofs and paved parking and driveways. The method of collection is varied. The majority of the streets are ditched and the culverts are the primary means of collection for eventual discharge to the Green/Duwamish River. The discharge and seepage of waste ,materials is not effected by this annexation project. - . Currently listed surf ace water improvements will be reviewed for consideration in the City of Tukwila's CIP. Engineering personnel w ill be allocated time to continue drainage planning and analysis. However shoreline impacts will be regulated through an amended shoreline program to include new portions of the Duwamish River. a. The types of vegetation found on the site are deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, grass, and wet soil plants. b. No vegetation will have to be removed from the site. c , d. There is no proposed landscaping for the proposal. 5. ANIMALS a. The animals which are located on or near the site are as follows: h. 9{ o. a, No endangered species are known to be located in the area. Birds: Hawk, Heron, and Songbirds Mammals: Raccoons, Foxes, Coyotes, and Musk Rats Fish: Steelhead, Bullheads Thera are no measures proposed to enhance the w i l d l i f e . b, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES There are no changes to be made in the sites energy requirements. .b. This project will not affect the potential use of solar energy in •adiecent properties. c. not applicable Th ?re are no endangered species known to be located on or near the site. The area is part of a migration route but the swamps and wetlands have been fi11ed to discourage the large gathering cf waterfowl. 7." ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH There are no environmental health hazards as a result of this proposal. b:. The City of Tukwila would assume responsibility for all fire and police services. There is no need f or, proposed environmental health precautions due to the fact that there are no hazards involved in this proposal. b. Noise a. Vehicular traffic would be the major noise effecting the site area. b. There would be no construction noise occurring in the area as a result of this project. 4 8. LAND AND S1 MOREL I NE USE c. There are no changes proposed to control the noise impact an the area The City of Tukwila will enforce its noise ordinance to control the noise. a. In the Riverton annexation area there are heavy and light industrial and commercial uses located in the north with residential use in the southern half of the proposals area. [' `he Foster annexation area there are commercial, residential and public facility lard uses. In the area of Thorndyke, commercial, residentiaal ana public facility uses predominate. 5. The River area has been used agriculturally for fa: Some of the structures in the annexation areas are comprised of fast food r sstaL rants, motels, commercial businesses, heavy and light industries, :nd various densities and types a= residential • d4et1ings. N stru.ct _fires will he demolished in this annexation process. e. The existino tying County zoning . Riverton -MH Heavy Manufacturing MP Manufacturing Park 1''L Light Manufacturing CG General Commercial EN Neighborhood Business RM COO Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling F:D 7600 Two Family Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling SR. Suburban Residential Foster CG General Commercial BC Community Business RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling RM 1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling • RS 7200 Single Family Swelling SR Suburban Residential Thorndyke CG General Commercial BC Community Business BN Neighborhood Business RM 900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RM 1900 High Density Multiple Dwelling RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling • RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling f. The current plan for the areas is as follows: Riverton - The King County Comprehensive Plan desigrates this area as urban with Southgate park designated as Highline Community Plan designates th thr4 uses in a north to south Tnrii Manufacturing, Single PAmily, High/Maxium Nc and Community RPr:reaticn, L-DwrMedium Dc=nsity TsJj;; C'nmprh.=rsive ='1 an citrrenFly r.h,? Licht Ind2tstry, Co low nensity Densi':y and Pars and Orin Cooprehenive Plan Cr,mmoni; PlAn orintd Pensity Pesldenti,47, n6?- M!‘ltiple Fa.mily Community 1. is and Parks nper Fva:7e- The T Comprehensiva Plan 'E•aignafF=s t' area ; ;r!llrwingt Low Density Resi6enti:?1, -'igh Density Fesi-Jential, :-omnerc±al, FAcilitler;, and Parks anc Open Space. - The Vin County Carrprehens:ve Plan resgnates the area as .Artan. The -i1 ire Comnunity Plan designates 1 .;.-ea with the Highway Oriented roqlmerl, High/Mainum Density Rsidntjl, C.:Immunity ' Park ,ind ripen Pp,,ice, Neighborhood .4n! vin Pusiness, Low/Medum Resirential and Singla. The Tj Comprehensi--e Plan designates the area with the f High Density Residential, Public Facility, PF:rt: and n P...Rr:R and Low Density Residential. rhere is -o shoreline in the Thorndyke or Foster area however a small sactDn of the Duwamish River is located along the north boundary of Riverton. The following areas have been classified as environmentally sensitive. Riverton - The hill east of E. Marginal Way and north of S. 126th Street and south of the Rainier Bank Processing Center isclassified as environmentally sensitive as well as the hillside running generally northwest to southeast from Pacific Highway around S. 133rd Street across 42nd'Avenue around S. 135th street to Macadam Road and the hillside running north to south along the west side of Macadam Road from approximately 135th South into the Foster annexation area. Foster - The hillsides just northwest of the Foster Park at 52nd and S. 137th and along the west side of Macadam Road for its entire length through the annexation area are designated as environmentally sensitive. 6 Thorndyke - The hillside running north and south along the west side of 51st Avenue S. and the ravine and hillsides running west and Fast south of 150th and north of S. 154th Avenues :jetween 51st And 40th are designated as environmentally sensitive. No new construction is associated with the ;project that would cauee ._. change in the number of people who reside of work in the area; however, ,. few comprehensive plan changes are proposed that W.11 charge potential residential densities. In the F :itierton area, .a high density multiple family- area will be changed to 'ow density and the overall permitted densities in the low density areas will by increased to urban maximum standards. Riverton's residential population is estimated to be 1200, This project will not displace any people. 1::, Since there is no displacement of individuals, there are no proposed measures to deal with this issue, 1.• A pre-annexation zoning ordinance will be used to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing. and projected land uses. Existing land uses would be protected through the zoning code's non- conforming section, For the most part the proposed zoning will be reflective of the existing uses. Text amendments to the City's zoning core are ;potential mitigation to impacts associated with the land use /toning changes. 9. HOUSING a. No new housing will be provided during this project. .�. .There is no reed for any of the housing units to be eliminated due to the nature of this project. No housing impacts will be caused by the annexation process under review. 10. AESTHETICS a The tallest height of any proposed structure allowed by the Tukwila Zoning Code is 45'. However, height exception areas to this height restriction allow building heights of up to 115' and greater if identified on the Height Exception Map. b. Currently, there are no views which are being altered or obstructed, c. There are no proposed measured to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. Light or glare is not applicable to this proposal. b. Light or glare is not a safety hazard in this proposal, c.. There are no off -site sources; of light or glare considerations. d. There are no proposed measures to control light and glare. 12. RECREATION The recreational opportunities in the annexed areas are L'q_tthga e P= ..rk:,., Tukwila Community Center, the Duwamish /Green River r ,.'erfr trail, Foster pool and playgrounds and ball fields, the rchcrnctv.;e play4ie1d and the Foster ball fields and tennis court. b. There are no construction activities within this annexation process that will displace any recreational areas. c. There is no need Tor proposed measures to lessen the impact on recreational areas. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. The King County Historic Landmarks Office provided the following list of historic properties: Riverton - Harrison Cabin 13017 40th Avenue S. - 1903 Delta Masonic Temple 13034.41st Avenue S - 196 Nash House 4106 S. 130th Avenue 1910-1920 Albert Tutt 13000 E. Marginal Way 1920's Riverton Park United Methodist Church 13001 77th Avenue 1910 Thorndyke -Carey Bungalow 14454 51st Avenue S. - 1917 There are currently no measures to reduce or control impacts to these landmarks. 14. TRANSPORTATION The Metro bus route serves Pacific :highway South between 160th and 112th Streets. Metro also serves some of the area along East Marginal Way South. b. The area is currently served by Metro bus service. c. There would be no parking spaces eliminated from the sites. d. The proposal will not require any new roads. 8 e. Due to the nature of this project, there is not need for water, rail or air transportation. s. The number of vehicular trips is not necessary to this project. 9• There are no measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. There will he an increased demand on Tukwila municipal acid legislative services. The following is a needs project- ion to provide urban level services to the area. b. There are no proposed measures to reduce impacts on Tukwila services, To try and control the impact, a fiscal budgatary study will hn completed that refines the revenue projections. Lateral transfers of personnel in heath, life safety departments will be made to handle the immediate impact. The budget process, will review the needs and adjust personnel levels to accommodate the service demands. 16. UTILITIES a. The utilities available in the area are electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, and septic systems. These :services are provided by Seattle City Light, WNG, Water District 125, Sea -Tac Disposal, FNB, Val-Vue Sewer District. b. There are no utilities proposed for this project. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS 1. There are no changes to the existing environment because this is only an annexation. Land uses in Tukwila will be substantially the same as the current k::ing County uses and districts. Because no intensification of use is projected the environmental impacts to water, air, and of toxic and hazardous substances and noise are not expected to increase. The City of Tukwila, will enforce its codes in the annexed areas and comply with SEPA to control the environmental impacts. 3. This annexation process does not effect plants, animals, fish, or marine life nor is it expected to deplete energy or natural resources. 4. The City of Tukwila has mapped the environmentally sensitive areas of the annexation areas. The County in contrast with the City has legislation which protects and regulates development adjacent to and "of sensitive sites. Tukwila does not. Therefore development of or around these areas while covered by SEPA review in Tukwila will be more subjectively treated with perhaps uncertain outcomes. 9 b. To avoid or reduce impacts, the enviranmental review process will t•: continued and used to protect sensitive sites. No impact is to be expected on the use of the shoreline or the 1 ..nd. Tukwila w i l l designate the one area of shoreline as urban which is compatible with its current designation and with the Tukwila P'rogrem. The effect on land use is expected to be minimal because t`ea objective is to provide compatible zoning. The overall density of single family dwellings is expected to increase because Tukwila does not have the Suburb. n Residential density of 35,000. ::,otr.e reei de- t i a l ees will be lowered from their current hich and medium densities yet some .areas of low will be raised to medium or high. To avoid or reduce shoreline and 1 and use impacts, a pre- anne :.:.at i r•e eomprshensive p" ar and zoning analysis is being conour_t_ei Tf necessary, to mitigate zoning impacts the zoning code will be amended. The Tukwila shoreline program will be amended if the area is annexed. The shoreline is protected in the interim because shoreline development_ would continue under the county's regulations until it is added to the Tukwila Program. The ,annexation will increase the usage of Tukwila police, fire, judicial, administrati"e, legislative, planning and engineering services. As was mentioned in 15. above, a fiscal /budget projection is being done to plan for the increased needs The increase in police security on Pacific Highway South (old 9P) dt_e to the social problems existing there in the form of di prostitution, etc. 7. The annexation and Comp Flan and zoning proposals do not ccnflict with, local, state, or federal laws with regards to the protection of the environment. 3. The annexation proposal does not conflict with T•_►k-' la's Comprehensive Plan as it lies within the City's Planning Area. '''he amendments proposed for the Comp Plan primarily reflect existing ► ►ses in the areas or are being made to be more comparable with surrounding land uses. E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS 1. The objectives of the proposal are to respond to the requests of residents in Tukwila Planning area. In addition, the proposal would expand city boundaries to include adjacent service, impact and planning area and co- locate with South Central School Distri _t end provide urban level services to an urban area. 10 An alternative means of achieving some of the above objectives would be through the formation of an alternate municipal government as Tukwila is the only city agency whose boundary is contingent to the area or in close proximity. Of the two alternatives, annexation is preferable to i ncorporati n because; .a. Policies and economics would support a lid or. : number of governmental agencies. b. Tukwila is small in size and population and should be encouraged to assume a stature comparable with other suburban municipal governments. c. Tukwila is logical urban service provider. 4. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's General Goal #3 p.12 —"encourages the planned expansion of the corporate boundaries of Tukwila while providing adequate service levels and improvements to all areas..." Any expansion • of the City's area especially into residential areas will create greater demands than revenues generated to serve those areas on a one to one basis. • But service levels and improvements can be maintained at adequate levels.for the proposed annexation area. In addition, the increase in the residential area of the City would create a more even balance in the land use pattern of the City. (General Goal #b p.l3) To reduce potential conflicts in equitable allocation of services a plan for the proposal is prepared by the City departments to assist in budgetary personnel and service decisions. 11. toll ALMA 1 Lan CAN EXIT � ■ DUWAMISH RIVER BAGN Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary 0 2 Collection Point "'"■-' Stream Dorn Tributary Number 01301 Proposed Project July, 1917 ta AIMIED Attachment E �nnexa�i on � r. y %;1 1 �_ gyp• S. 144 TH ST. y Ifr Y!1�V%% �� III 1111111111II. 1 1111 1111111!!` IIIIIIIIII1111 \ ~mil . 1 1111111III 111111111111 I I;�� 1111 111 , � • i I l �� ,I.Illlllllllll ���• P WSIgatIB M ittii;i 1i� � j Tri v �A�Ii arevatiti I IA 1. � i■ tr, '��uullII � ! !I1 $ . 7 ANNEXATIONS FIRE DISTRICT NO.1 FILED DECEMBER 1988 • SEA -TAC INCORPORATION FILED JANUARY 1988 RIVERTON ANNEXATION FILED FEBRUARY 1988 FOSTER ANNEXATION FILED MAY 1988 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION FILED JUNE 1988 `1 TUKWILA CITY LIMITS ❑ TUKWILA PLANNING AREA 1 H414(44:14Eti:.4,0 '4414`; ti iffi o n) %%toms II m ai . �'' Ei I 1 I 1.1111 ilt iggi i glib n Il i . � ... r III 1 04%; C.11;0■Li 7 lie .01 i 00 r4 $11 .?'' °. ..4it GM Y.: • -i „ it,2, 1 :0 1 , :its' _ __ _ •,...1-ii .-: .... - =IL= r a I 1 • di e lirrr 31 , '4 , A II al mom .4+ : = a M .........2. . .... 1 *dm e ) / 114:4 I ,..... . ...... . ... ..1.----______ ____ .__ . ___ _ ___ _ ___ And 11 r — +�_ — A ` — �� —� — tea- .: . . : 7'. . . — . . . . . ■ . . . " '- '-' ' ' . n ' " — ""- - - " " " . " — ._ ... ...‘,.....,74.2 72: �.>' =► �� �. .. 5 I.. ..t..r ,• I w ' _Eat ..a + —_— _ y 7"'''' . ��r. __ ��� —��- ■ 4 icle,i.;:z.::.4; 1. 1014 III �� • ��t� mmII 11 i IIII IW W I o • ''^ ingo,rhimert----41:hrolidlill; 1111 ���i� III a � �� III 11 (�' �l1111 1 III �II:: ���� iiiiliIIII N °` f 1 U u11 i ii;; t11++iIIII 1111 . 11 11 � > a 1 ;1111 !III I III UI,I IIII IIII ' t �li� lill � l+iiillU 1 0 !�II W Ill 1 111.111 �,,,,�I 1111111 IIIIIlIi +Ifiiiill I IIIIl�gl•1 Z W 1 � �� � f�;lc�'��� it PIIIIINI' 1111111111 II I1,, +111 111,;1 IIIIIIIII a 3 I. 11 Ili .- , Q W �,�li�. II n� " .,11111 I liii N .; , ,,I IIIi��fl 1 IIIIIIIIII.,,,,,i!il,!�ll +111 1111 1 Illifli !�1 a M I:1 . ��lLi 1 IIII- i j �� IIIll! ;; _ • 1 1 - ' 1 eft solma Dui PAng USE rro• RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA SCHOOL DISTRICTS 4111 Attachment b.1 2 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRIC . ..... AI" . • TLA • Off ; 'sr "NW. mama — "1 Ikrin ..• RIVERTON CREST ": /I • Attachment J DUWAPAISH 41. RING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGEND El NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BUSINESS II HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL .0 INDUSTRY El MANUFACTURING El HIGH/MAXIMUM DENSITY HOUSING 0 LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING SINGLE FAMILY PARK AND RECREATION AIRPORT FACILITY A r e 9 " A 4 • • I - ATLAS 0/ Burns : son..■:::lowoot mt...semit I • , Attachment K • KING COUNTY ZONING '•-• • ■• • A. • • LEGEND M-H HEAVY MANUFACTURING M-P LIGHT INDUSTRY C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL M-L NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS S-R SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL RM 900 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL r (WA r CoRPER • -; . ez,'"•c A .■ • / • ‘ N.• • : § \ ..■■■■ii■i■■■a IIIMIMIFIVIIMMOINIIIIJIIIIIMBOOIMOMO I■ •■11 ■ •••••••••••■1111 ■■ •■► 11 11 ■C■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■! 1 ■ ■ ■L■ •1111 •1115••■•••••■■!■• • - MIMI Ir11'IIr IOWAN MIMI 1 •■l1U1 ■miu « i•■ ■1 OlOWNII ■1111■1 I :ZY! _ MUMS EMI ■■■r■■■ 1■■u■■I R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R -4 LOW APARTMENTS =:- RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSIT emsel C -1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C -2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C -M INDUSTRIAL PARK >0.C1 M -1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M -2 HEAVY INDUSTRY et ATLA S OP IIATTLI 6w.L . 194.0 RIVERTON CRCIT:: CEMETERY • 11. RIVERTON PROPOSED TUKWILA ZONING Attachment M E wA c � R ' E n " A £ N T E r1J3. NORTH RIVERTON ANNEXATION BOUNDARY �? r e ds sU150:0 10T,7,` 8 4 LARGER SCALE MAP AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN PLANNING DEPARTMENT • LEGEND ^'••• TRAILS SPARKS It CITY SHOPS CITY HALL 4/,STADIUM SCHOOL C.1 LIBRARY ,. SWIMMING POOL FIRE STATION IIIII 3 .art. ft 0 r I I i i i i i° `� ,, Z I ,?0 P .t ?..a.. St 7 i I r? S .a. t. St fi a - P f 4 7.dl to Ot �J 4,1 •Q I. 1 • 4 •2 • t.xm " \ PEA PATCH . t , ; mss I ; `S S 2e t. St 5 lO e.l Sc • — K C. VALLEY „ r RIDGE PARK • A r { \ .A--- r TUKWILA ' t COMMUY CENTER... S i A '` ` :k 5 •, \. Z. ot,w K C gal mega i •••••, :, u«t SOu ThGATE . -...- s e .., PARK - - -' ' 1 : . •, - JOSEPH FOSTER MEMORIAL PARK-. ■ • q6 � 5 1 t' ; awl I�I� �y1ry••Ti I�r { - ' I h y . lTr LJ Litt , 'WI r• C < < ? G y I 'ln Z u V y '� 1 I 10 10 ©1 P J_ i 2 .� "e el. et" A '� .,I r I I ; 2.4..41-, n, vqt _ \% l0 n a t7 i- t i / T • y . 1 �‘. 4 a 1 L 1T f ILA F'ARM1�•'AY a } t i � 1T / i bill 1. st CRYSTAL — y o t% IKAWA c. SPRINGS PARK — =° • K.C. �.r..,r.a s .C. i g PARK : s..s.�.. STVIEW t t .. .. t PARK a 4 t i ...t� - a- 1 . ml • a 3 -KC . McMICKEN._ } — •.. . 3 ,-- I �] RK i ■ — _ _ / CJr[► ti v 1 — ` 3 ' r I L. t I a il c ouro • i, 2 ill Z . o _ i i rt — –! ( ! I n !i: IwwruAt I p,� _ 1 t : i s, W ' ..471,.! 1-• • • 3 ' 1? u�4. ' Z � � y Iry c., cc 1 5 �_ -ty \ Attachment IV »IDI_n"D O. S IBC t• st ! . StJ - ,3 • r� ECf -1 HAZELNUT PARK 2 KENT BRISCO MEANDER PARKI KENT RIVER TRAIL Facilities Guide FOSTER GOLF LINKS K C Fonr DENT PARK , In I CHRISTENSEN W / GREENBELT PARK 1 1 K C INTERURBAN TRAIL TUKWILA PART BICENTENNIAL PARK tow' 4 a " r • •111,M.....- 2Ar isr III 1 41 1 9111 HIP NTERU fr ••-• wo c,N4.- /•• DUWAIVIS RIVER ?iJ Eli MD — .4'.: --,6,—,:-:= i•r•'. - - •A■ t WA,. 11/..7,4 d' • 4; P ei rii • • W4p • ... t . W....04 ' 'l 000000 • . • . itit—n-4-04■•• • ••• 9 4> • •••••••• • 4. • ive ■ • 4 4 4 : 34,0.44.Lo.rt4+71•4;•7:44:44);$741,4}13.74.-•,4i ___'$"0:4 XS- i 44. .6 ..• -..- • ailb ...• , ...._:____ ___-_-- :t47••••,,... re O : „.-_---. : 7--_7 --- i - . — _ - - -- --.-7=- _ , viol .........>"----'. 4 , - I te -- ,41 1 i ...e0 , , ,..-•'. v __ : _ __; , 6 :iv F ; 4 , • , • t s • 4 - .--, a . ;,.' ..--• . - . - . - -.Z n 0 ' ‘/ . '•.,., . ....... - „ ,..I, .. ii -r . - I . / /;.* ... D ify• ',.. ' , , , • LI - ,' t• ;', ' • • .. : ;.- 1.- 4,-t.r ! !:...1"--_t -."-:',.....!-...^- ' ■tfii : L . ,-_,, !,.i. ■ • I . • ! . ; - r , • ' • 1 c IS - „... ..`'- • : : > 0: •!- e aciric - 1E1 • i • Affddeglit4 : 73 :Li I 1 14: c ; " 9! 1.1 1 . • I AFF I 4V I 1' El Noti of Public Hearing [j . Notice of Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet C1 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit Name of Project (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Highlines Times 207 S.W. 150th P.O. Box 518 Seattle, Wa 98166 Seattle Times South Times Editor 1229 W. Smith Street Kent, WA 98032 Valley Daily News (Hand Delivered) hdtf;44Jo File Number 88 -1 —A OF DISTRI( hereby declare that: was mailed to each of the following addresses on G(.1 [� Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice (] Notice of Action [] Official Notice D Other • Other —r2 , 19 . City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PUBLIC NOTICE July 12, 1988 RIVERTON ANNEXATION REQUEST TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA Dear Resident: In January, 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition from residents in your area requesting annexation to Tukwila. Over the last several months, City staff have been working with residents and businesses in developing the zoning for this area upon annexation. On the back of this notice is the pro- posed zoning. The City will be holding the following public hearings on the zoning and annexation request. GLV/co P /JP.7 -12 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON ZONING ONLY July 28, 1988 8:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS ON ZONING /ANNEXATION REQUEST August 15, 1988 /September 19, 1988 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard After the public hearings, an election date will be set for the residents to vote on the annexation request. Further information can be obtained at the Planning Department located in Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. If you wish to call, the Planning Department phone number is 433 -1849. • craw iiiaammumom •rau•m••sti•unn 1113(21311111111•1•1111111111•1111•RMI••■••1111 iffillellUMIIRINEA1111111111111111111111111• 111111•111111111111111111111•••••••••••1111 151111•Ell••••••••••••••••••■ 1111•1111.1111•••11111111111111•••••11111•P•1111 11••••11/11111111111111111111111•111•1•1111111111W 1111WM — MOM Me Cal JUNI MOW 1•11IM•I -- /11111111Cm 11111111111•1 1111111111.11•1 NMI Unial mama wig ...rum 1111111M•11 11111•1111111•11 111111111••11 •11111111•11 11111 W44. — •11.• 4:114 4 P- 4 4 1. R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NM R-4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSIT •llEag• C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS ::;:j1124 C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK >i M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY 11:111:1 M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY • 9 • • • • - .. .:j ............. .. .. .... Afl*S Of! SIATTLA IS w col=7•16. sums I.11 • M.. in• e 31 Was ••.•• RIVERTON CREST:: CEMETERY .45‘ off4 Mo. • RIVERTON PROPOSED TUKWILA ZONING :1,0R71: r';r r WAY • N T E RIVERTON • • r 7 rN.1 . 0 • 07 • A tie t 77: • ANNEXATION BOUNDARY LARGER SCALE MAP AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN PLANNING DEPARTMENT NORTH ' O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet E[ Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 9 1h#441-j2- 0 Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting AFFI 1VIT OF DISTRIB( Name of Project rr.�. File Number 'V— 1 —/sc hereby declare that: [] Notice of Application for C1 Other Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on [j Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [I Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice 19 � City � Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (2Od) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Riverton Task Force Members MOM Jack Pace, Senior Planner DATE: July 8, 1988 SUBJECT: NEXT MEETING - TUESDAY, JULY 12 MEMORANDUM This is to remind you of the Task Force meeting scheduled for July 12, 1988, to be held at 5:30 p.m., in Conference Room #3 at Tukwila City Hall. Attached is the draft zoning map for the Riverton annexation area. This map will be reviewed at this meeting, as well as a briefing on Boeing s concerns with the M -1 - Light Industrial zone. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at 433 -1847. JP /sjn attachment *MIS O..111■71.1 •"" r.t."'". sj • I • 1 IvtrroM CRUT I tg. I I • ruia 4 0 RIVERTON PROPOSED TUKWILA ZONING R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE =III R-4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY ESIEM C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS Z.:MV.! C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS nmmIwI C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK >0.0 M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY V49 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE rtwA c 0 " o ORA c z • •••:• - . June 15, 1988 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor THORNDYKE, RIVERTON AND FOSTER ANNEXATION RESIDENTS RE: Annexation to the City of Tukwila Dear Resident: In recent weeks, Tukwila has received annexation requests from members of your community. More and more residents of your area feel that Tukwila City government is better able to address police, fire, land use and other major issues than King County government. As mayor, I enthusiastically endorse these annexations. Improved public services make sense to provide more representative government and logical boundaries for you. As in any annexation or major change, rumors or statements will be started or made. The impact will only confuse or make people misinformed if not challenged. My staff and I are prepared to work closely with your community to answer any questions you may have regarding the annexations and its effect on you. I am ready to meet with you in any forum, as a committee, in small groups or individually. The combining of your community with the City of Tukwila will enhance our mutual ability to deal with and solve our regional problems. Tukwila is committed to making the community a better place for all to live, work and play. If I ma; be of further service in answering your concerns, or simply being involved as a neighbor, please feel free to contact me personally at 433 -1805. 1 Interested Parties File Number 88 -1 —A A F F Ii AV I T BEVERLY L. ROGERS hereby declare that: o Notice of Public Hearing [l Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [� Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit C1 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project RIVERTON ANNEXATION TASK. FORC OF DISTRIL_;TION El Determination of Nonsignificance (] Mitigated Determination of Non- significance [� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [[ Notice of Action [[ Official Notice Other Q of E] Other MAY 19. 1988 19 . Signature eirKP X.k7t t City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Riverton Task Force Members FROM Jack Pace, Senior Planner DATE: May 18, 1988 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: TASK FORCE MEETING - MAY 24, 1988, 5:30 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM #3 AT TUKWILA CITY HALL At the first meeting, we covered the following items: • Discussed annexation process • Outlined Task Force member role • Outlined staff's role • Reviewed background material • Reviewed the current zoning and existing Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designation for the area. • Reviewed the "Questions and Answers" pamphlet prepared by the City. The Task Force members also requested some additional information for the next meeting: • A list of the Planning Commission members (attached) • Tukwila's definition of "family" - TMC 18.06.270 Family. "Family means one person or two or more legally related persons living together or not more than five unrelated persons living together as a single, nonprofit, housekeeping unit; provided, that there shall not be more than three unrelated persons living together with legally related persons as a single, nonprofit, house- keeping unit. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). JP /sjn attachments MEMORANDUM to: May 19, 1988 Riverton Task Force Members Page 2 • King County's definition of "family" 21.04.370 Family. "Family" means an individual, or two or more per - sons related by blood or marriage, or a group of not more than five persons who are not related by blood or marriage, excluding servants, living together in a dwelling unit. (Res. 25789 §252, 1963) • City regulations for Mobile Homes Parks - In Tukwila, mobile home parks are permitted under an Unclassified Use Permit.. Regulations for Unclassified Use Permits are attached. For the meeting on May 24, 1988, we will review the staff's proposals for those areas where there are conflicts between the existing zoning and the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A map identifying the conflict areas is attached. If you should have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to call me at 433 -1847. ate Jack Pace, Senior Planner Chapter 18.66 L 64.080 -- 18.66.010 (3) Before a conditional use permit may be revoked or modified, a public hearing shall be held. Procedures concern- ing notice, reporting and appeals shall be the same as re- quired by this chapter for the initial consideration of a conditional use permit application. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982) . 18.64.080 Performance bond and other security. A per- formance bond or other adequate and appropriate security may be required by the planning commission for any elements of the proposed project which the commission determines are crucial to the protection of the public welfare. Such bond shall be in an amount equal to one hundred percent of the cost of the installa- tion or construction of the applicable improvements. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.64.090 Resubmittal of application. An appliction for a conditional use permit which has been denied may not be resubmitted within six months from the date of planning com- mission or council disapproval, whichever is later. (Ord. • 1247 §1(part), 1982). UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMITS — •• — •• • — — — — — — — •• — — — • • — • •. — — — • — — — •• — — •• •• •• — — — • ■ Sections: 18.66.010 18.66.020 18.66.030 18.66.040 18.66.050 18.66.060 18.66.070 18.66.080 18.66.090 18.66.100 Purpose. Uses requiring an unclassified use permit (UUP) . Area and dimensional requirements. Application requirements. Notice and hearing requirements. Criteria. Expiration and renewal. Revocation of permit. Performance bond and other security. Resubmittal of application. 18.66.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to.- istablish procedures for the regulation of uses possessing characteristics of such unusual, large - scale, unique or special form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any class of use as set forth in the various use districts previously defined. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 316 (Tukwila 8/82) 1 ;6.020 -- 18.66.030 18.66.020 Uses requiring an unclassified use permit (UUP). The following uses require an unclassified use permit processed as provided in this chapter: ( 1) Airports, landing fields and heliports; ( 2) Animal shelters and kennels, subject to all addi- tional state and local regulations; ( 3) Animal slaughtering and incidental rendering; ( 4) Cement manufacturing; ( 5) Conversions of rental multifamily structures to condominiums or owner- occupied multifamily housing, but ex- cluding the construction of new condominium or owner- occupied multifamily housing; ( 6) Correctional institutions;. ( 7) Refuse disposal sites, dumps, private or public, and commercial incinerators; ( 8) Group homes for retarded persons; ( 9) Gun clubs, skeet shoots, and target ranges; (10) Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants; (11) Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions; (12) Quarrying and mining, subject to all additional state and local regulations; (13) Processing of animal byproducts and manufacture of products from same; (14) Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil and other natural deposits together with associated structures; (15) Regional transit stations; (16) Tow -truck operations, subject to all additional state and local regulations; •(17) Trailer parks, pursuant to all additional state and local regulations, whether designed or intended for either temporary or permanent spaces; (18) Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. (Ord. 1247 §lipart), 1982). 18.66.030 Area and dimensional requirements. (1) The requirements for front, rear and side yards and open spaces and landscaping applicable to the underlying zone classifica- tion in which any such use is proposed to be located shall prevail, unless specific modifications are required in grant- ing the unclassified use permit. (2) The provisions applying to height and minimum lot area and width applicable to the underlying zone classifica- tion in which any such use is proposed to be located shall prevail unless specific modifications are required in granting the unclassified use permit. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982). 317 (Tukwila 8/82) li.,_.36.040 -- 18.66.060 ' 18.66.040 Application requirements. Application for ; unclassified use permit shall be filed with the planning department on forms prescribed by that office. All applica- tions shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and shall contain the following documents: • (1) Completed application form with environmental data; (2) Affidavit of the ownership or of substantial bene- ficial interest in the property; (3) Scaled site and building elevation plans; (4) Vicinity map; (5) List of names and addresses of all property owners within three hundred feet of the subject site; (6) Any other graphic materials•required to adequately describe the proposal. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.66.050 Notice and hearing requirements. Upon com- pletion of review of the proposed project by the planning department, the planning commission shall schedule a public hearing to consider the application for the unclassified use permit. Public notice for such hearing shall be made in 'accordance with Chapter 18.92 of this title. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall•make a recom- mendation regarding the proposed project which shall be for- warded to the city council for its consideration. The city council need not hold a public hearing on the permit applica- tion but shall consider the planning commission recommendation at a regular council meeting. The city council action shall be made in resolution form and shall specifically state what is approved and any conditions thereof. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982) . 1t. j6.070 -- 18.66.090 18.66.070 Expiration and renewal. An unclassified use permit shall automatically expire one year after the date it was granted by the city council unless a building permit con- forming to plans upon which the permit was granted is obtained within that period of time. An unclassified use permit shall automatically expire unless substantial construction shall be completed within two years from the date the unclassified use permit is granted by the city council unless a renewal is granted or unless the UUP specifically provides for a period greater than two years. The city council, upon recommendation of the planning commission, may renew an unclassified use per- mit for a maximum period of one additional year. No more than one renewal shall be issued for any UUP. A renewal may be granted only if there have been no pertinent changes in condi- tions surrounding the property since the time of original approval. No hearing is required for renewal of an unclass- ified use permit. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982). 18.66.080 Revocation of permit. (1) The city council, after a recommendation from the planning commission, may revoke or modify any unclassified use permit. Such revoca- tion or modification shall be made on any one or more of the following grounds: (A) That the approval was obtained by deception, fraud, or other intentional and misleading representation; (B) That the use for which such approval was granted has at any time ceased for a period of one year or more; (C) That the use for which such approval was granted has been abandoned; (D) That the permit granted is exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval or in violation of any statute, resolution, code, law or regulation; (E) That the use for which the approval was granted is so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety. (2) Any aggrieved party may petition the city council in writing to initiate revocation or modification proceed- ings. (3) Before an unclassified use permit may be revoked or modified, a public hearing shall be held. Procedures con- cerning notice, reporting, and appeals shall be the same as required by this chapter for the initial consideration of an unclassified use permit application. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982) . 18.66.090 Performance bond or other security. A per- formance bond or other adequate and appropriate security may be required by the city council for any elements of the proposed project which the council determines are crucial to the protection of the public welfare. Such bond shall be in 319 (Tukwila 8/82) an amount equal to one hundred percent of the cost of the installation or construction of the applicable improvements. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.66.100 Resubmittal of application. An application for an unclassified use permit which has been disapproved by the council cannot be resubmitted to the planning commission within six months of the date of council disapproval. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). Sections: 18.70.010 18.70.020 18.70.030 18.70.040 18.70.050 18.70.060 18.70.070 18.70.080 18.70.090 18,70.100 Chapter 18.70 NONCONFORMING LOTS, STRUCTURES AND USES Purpose. Construction approved prior to adoption of title. Preexisting legal lots of record. Nonconforming uses. Nonconforming structures. Repairs and maintenance. Building safety. Nonconforming parking lots. Nonconforming landscape areas. Conditional uses. 18.70.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to establish limitations on the expansion and extension of nonconforming uses and structures which adversely affect the development and perpetuation of desirable residential, com- mercial, and industrial areas with appropriate groupings of compatible and related uses. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.70.020 Construction approved prior to adoption of title. To avoid undue hardship, nothing in this title shall be deemed to require a change in plans, construction or desig- nated use of any building on which actual construction was lawfully begun prior to adoption of this title and upon which actual building construction has been carried on in a diligent manner. Actual construction shall consist of materials in permanent positions and fastened in a permanent manner, and demolition, elimination and removal of one or more existing structures in connection with such construction; providing, that actual construction work shall be diligently carried on until the completion of the structure involved. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 319 -1 56.010 -- 18.70.020 (Tukwila 8/82) / R/VER DUWAMISH :Rd OO Ac. OYM 1 ■ 1.1111 1 Eli = • MIICS. .•1r- J. • �� s . .r. �.. ".1. it LAusiel arm RIC 1 7)1 RN ,i-wAirr.5 . :*!;;It " '!: = 4 r; : _ • ORfu L w -.. ,� i 1 .. ilzill MO .;,.... ill - It m .I�� ,.. `� T1■' �• S .[30 iJ , � `� 1.1.11/ 154 O■l' Natm VI RIVERTON CREST iI ~ � 4: IFTTI O� M NYI jir4 I : I. . BEVERLY L. ROGERS hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing [] Notice of Public Meeting C1 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet El Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [[ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit (] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on MAY 10, 1988 19 . Interested Parties AFFIL1VIT OF DISTRI(,'-TION • Name of Project RIVERTON TASK FORCE I File Number 88 -1 —A O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action C1 Official Notice .51 Other SFF ATTA(:HFD — I-1 .y • 1 7, �i7: �. 3' �.' Y�f�k+ Jd: 73"+ iia' 4tCAAAt: f745. t�aiKrod3�aarm� .x+:vwyumu,.un..xmoa.rmex�: auk«, rwwcaca�., oaawuuv kemra+urer�.arvseer:.e*me�a �rse�w: tv.+ 3: reax4nxt6kn' v1r�7taR9 's9rssA�+F?ts+;Ym.Y6+tL�.o7f�1e W tSStY� City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 RIVERTON TASK FORCE MEETING - MAY 10, 1988 BACKGROUND INFORMATION RIVERTON TASK FORCE I 1. INFORMATION ON CITY OF TUKWILA GOVERNMENT (BLUE) 2. ZONING CODE COMPARISON (WHITE) BRIEF HISTORY OF TUKWILA Originally called Garden City, Tukwila has a proud heritage. The first settlers were enticed by the rich and fertile Green River Valley during the movement initiated by the 1850 Land Development Act. Farming was the City's earliest industry. After farming, the rail freight industry developed. Tukwila was incorporated June 8, 1908 and Joel Shomaker was elected to serve the first term as Mayor. At that time the assessed value of Tukwila was $160,000, and the population totaled 600. The name "Tukwila" was chosen as the new city's name and means "Land Where the Hazelnuts Grow" in the local Native American dialect. Following World War II, Tukwila struggled economically. The assessed value in 1948 was less than at the time of incorporation in 1908. But in 1947, Mayor Charles Baker led City officials in a move to turn Tukwila into a thriving City. As the streets were improved, the water system was upgraded and building codes were enacted; the City's financial stability grew. It began to attract investment and development. New territories were annexed. When the Federal government initiated the Interstate Highway Program in the mid- 1950's, Tukwila blossomed. Since then, the retail industry has flourished and Tukwila has prospered along with it. Tukwila's economic base became anchored when Southcenter Mall was strategically developed at the confluence of Interstates 5 and 405, making Tukwila a natural "Crossroads of Commerce." Over the past two decades, Tukwila has grown from a sleepy little rural com- munity to a major commercial center. The reason is location. The City lies at the intersection of two interstate highways and just a few miles from Seattle - Tacoma International Airport. It is just a short drive from the heart of Seattle. In 1960 there was a mere 25,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space in the entire City. But soon the Southcenter Shopping Mall was built, drawing additional retail development like a magnet. While warehousing was initially the most popular use for the business district, commercial activity quickly sparked the construction of office buildings. Today, Tukwila is a growing City with an assessed value of over $850 million and a residential population of approximately 4,780. Tukwila is served by Interstate Highways 5 and 405, which explains, in part, why the City's busi- ness population soars to over 50,000 people on most weekdays. The City employs 144 full -time people to serve the needs of the community. Approximately 20,500 people are employed in the major retail, wholesale, and manufacturing firms within the City limits. "Hometown eeem to be toyed moot by peopee who toed to Live in -them." -1- FORM OF GOVERNMENT Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington sets forth general laws for munici- pal corporations. Chapter 35A, passed by the State Legislature in 1967, pro- vides an Optional Code for municipalities which allows for a form of statutory home rule for local governments. Prior to the passage of the Optional Municipal Code legislation, local governments were handicapped by restrictive interpretations of the State constitution under the principle of the Dillon rule, which held that municipalities should have only the powers specifically granted or implied by State legislation. The powers authorized to cities incorporated under the Optional Municipal Code are liberally construed to pro- vide all powers possible under the State constitution except those specifi- cally prohibited by law. Cities choosing to form their government under the code's provisions give up their classification of first, second, third, or fourth class and become either a Chartered Code City or a Nonchartered Code City. Chartered Code cities must frame their own constitutions. Nonchartered Code cities may choose either to retain their existing form of government (under the "grandfather" clause); or adopt either the Mayor- Council or Council - Manager form of government provided in the code. Among the powers granted to cities are the rights to license for either reve- nue or regulation; to levy taxes; and to condemn, purchase, acquire, control and dispose of property for parks, recreation and other municipal purposes. Cities may also operate public utilities, adopt and enforce comprehensive plans for physical development, grant franchises and furnish fire and police protection. In 1976, Tukwila became a Nonchartered Code City under the Mayor - Council form of government, as authorized by the Optional Municipal Code. The City has an elected Mayor with an elected seven - member Council. Members are elected at large on a non - partisan basis. The Council is the legislative body and sets general City policy. The Mayor is the Chief Executive and Presiding Officer of the City. The Mayor appoints, on the basis of merit, a City administrator who assist the mayor to manage the City. Cities, such as Tukwila, which operate under the Optional Code Mayor - Council form of government, have a statutory separation of powers and built -in system of checks and balances. Both branches of the City government are separate but equal. Neither is subservient to the other. Both report directly to the person(s) who elected or appointed them. The system is designed to provide checks and balances. In practice, it is impossible for the system to operate effectively and efficiently unless there is a good deal of cooperation and communication between the Council and Administration. The Administration is powerless to execute and administer the affairs of the City without the enabling legislation (ordinance) and resources (adopted budget) to proceed. On the other hand, the Council is powerless to execute and administer, as all executive authority is vested in the Mayor. The Council's authority is limited to legislative actions (setting Council policy). Council policy is manifested in three basic forms: ordinances, resolutions and the annual budget (technically an ordinance). -2- In general terms, "what to do" is Council policy, and "how to do it" is Administrative policy. In terms of the annual budget and general City business, the Mayor "proposes" and the Council "disposes ". Since neither the Council nor the Mayor can accomplish anything without the other it is incumbent on both to cooperate and work together for the good of the City. Cooperation is fostered by a variety of factors including par- ticipation, communication, understanding, and a willingness to work together, build consensus, resolve conflict and negotiate differences in an atmosphere of friendliness and good will. 'Tire had a lot of problem; is ay day — meet of which sever happened.' -Mart 7bMa Each City is unique in terms of its organizational structure. It comes as a surprise to many to discover that this could be true when all cities function under the same set of applicable state and federal laws. However, local com- munities still have a wide range of choices available when deciding what ser- vices to provide and in what manner they will be provided. Therefore, you will find broad differences in the number and types of services provided. For example, a cemetery may be a municipal or a totally private operation. Some cities operate golf courses and marinas. Some cities operate garbage collec- tion services while in most cities it is provided by private operators. Most cities of Tukwila's size have their own fire department, but others prefer to contract with a fire district for this service. City services may also be provided jointly with other governmental agencies through interlocal agreements. Many cities also participate in such things as joint dispatching centers, regional airports, and paramedic operations. Pages 10 and 11 list who provides what municipal services for Tukwila citi- zens. City Council The City Council is the legislative branch and "governing" body of the City. The Council's major function is policy formation which generally takes the form of ordinances, resolutions, and budget adoptions. Each January the Council elects a president from among their own members. Although the Mayor is the : '•presiding officer" of the Council and chairs Regular Council meetings, th Council President conducts any Committee of the Whole (COW). "Wing nts committee chairpersons, makes committee appointments " . coordinates the work of the Council Committees. ='. , - :�;� - , The Council -- . d by a Council Analyst, a full time City employee. Although the direction and supervision of all City employees are vested in the Mayor, day -to -day supervision of the Council Analyst has been delegated to the Council President. The Council Analyst assists in the coordination of Committee work, assists Council Members in their duties, provides information, and performs research as assigned. Mayor's Office The Mayon? Officer operations o e CITY STRUCTURE ORGANIZATION AND SERVICE DELIVERY sts—o#:Ahe Mayor, as presiding and Chief Executive 1,1KAdministrator who manages the day -to -day y; e Personnel' Officer; Who p hUtAn resource services to the.._r,espective operating departments, and an Administrative Secretary who provides administrative, technical' and �Sdcretarial assistance to the Mayor's Office. "_ The Mayor's Office oversees the administration of the City government and its respective departments. In conversation, many people confuse the "Mayor's Office" with the "Administration." The Mayor's Office means the people func- tionally located in the Mayor's Office department. The Administration means all employees of the City government, with the Mayor as their head. -4- CIS- DEPARTMENTS AND PUBLIC SERVICES Tukwila's municipal organization currently consists of seven departments: (1) The City Clerk's Office and Municipal Court; (2) Finance; (3) Fire; (4) Parks and Recreation; (5) Planning: (6) Police; and (7) Public works. Each of these departments is responsible for several public services within their functional category. Not all of these services are provided directly by the City. Many are contracted out to the private sector or provided regionally through interlocal agreements. The Mayor's Office oversees and supervises departmen- tal operations. The following is a departmentalized list of the major public services offered to the Tukwila community: The City Clerk's Office is responsible for maintaining the City's official documents, preparing weekly agendas for City Council meetings, keeping minutes at City Council Meetings, registering voters, processing required municipal licenses, overseeing the municipal court, and providing information to the general public. The City Clerk's Office is also responsible for the purchase and storage of basic office supplies used by City employees and is caretaker of the Xerox machine and the Municipal code Books. Maxine Anderson, a long time resident employee of the City, serves as Tukwila's City Clerk. All Municipal Court personnel work under the supervision of the City Clerk. These employees process all the case work for court sessions and jury trials and work closely with Tukwila's Municipal Court Judge. The Court handles all misdemeanor violations of Tukwila City Ordinances. It is the responsibility of the Finance Department to ensure proper adherence to the legal, fiscal, and accounting requirements established by the State. The City Treasury and cash control responsibility is also a prime function of the Finance Department. The Department utilizes an integrated automated accounting and reporting system that was designed by Eden Systems, Inc. for the City of Tukwila. The Finance Department's other responsibilities include: Utility billing; budget preparation and control; purchasing coordination; investments; payroll; claims; and special billing and reporting. The Tukwila Fire Department operates three fire stations and has 39 fully trained, full -time firefighters, plus two fire prevention officers and com- mand staff. Almost all of the firefighters are experienced Emergency Medical Technicians. The Department is noted for having one of the best "hazardous materials" units in the area. Thirteen of the firefighters and one of the stations are attributable to a contract the City maintains with Fire district No. 1 (Allentown /Duwamish area) to provide fire service. The Fire Department Administration consists of the Chief, a Deputy Chief, two Assistant Chiefs, and secretarial support. The Administration is responsible for planning, organizing, directing, supervising, and coordinating departmen- tal activities. These activities are aimed in support of the goals and intents expressed by City policies, ordinances, and state laws. Training is currently supervised by an Assistant Chief. It is his respon- sibility to schedule those activities necessary to improve and /or maintain the firefighters' knowledge and skill performance levels in the following areas: control, confinement, extinguishment, hazardous material handling, fire inspection, rescue, and emergency medical treatment. -5- The Fire Prevention Division contains an Assistant Chief /Fire Marshal and two Fire Prevention Officers. These individuals are responsible for reviewing and enforcing fire code compliance in all commercial, industrial, residential, and educational occupancies within the City limits. They also conduct investiga- tions after each fire to determine the fire's probable cause. In addition to their normal duties, the Fire Prevention Division provides the public educa- tion system with fire prevention instruction classes. Fire Suppression and Emergency Aid is the primary responsibility of the Department. Duties include: fire confinement; control; extinguishment; and hazardous material handling as well as operation of the Aid Unit. The fire- fighters are divided into three shifts (A, B, and C) for each of the Department's three stations. Each shift is supervised by a commissioned lieutenant. The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for providing a variety of leisure time activities and facilities for citizens and local workers. The City owned facilities under supervision by the Parks Department include: an 18 -hole golf course; the local community center; several jogging trails; and several City parks. The Department is also responsible for producing a recreation brochure for distribution to residents, businesses, and schools. The brochure describes the City athletic leagues, activity events, and classes offered by the City through the Parks and Recreation Department. Perhaps the most exciting Parks and Recreation responsibility is the planning and organi- zation of the City's annual festival, "Tukwila Days." The following is a more detailed look at the facilities and activities spon- sored by the City through the Parks and Recreation Department: Foster Golf Links is owned by the City and maintained by City employees. The concessions and Pro Shop are contracted out to private sector interests. the golf course is bordered by the Green (Duwamish) River, which adds to the beauty of the course and the golfers' frustrations. The Community Center is located at 4101 So. 131st St., Tukwila, WA 98188, 433 -1857. The Center provides numerous services to the local public: The Seniors' Program provides senior citizens with the opportunity to engage in ceramic crafts, field trips, and many other rewarding experiences. Crafts classes meet on Monday and Wednesday of each week, while field outings are announced on a monthly basis. The Youth Program involves children between the ages of two and one -half and 18 years in many fund, group activities. These activities vary according to availability and season, but in the past, have included scientific field trips and group overnight campouts. One of the most exciting aspects of the program is the summer day camp. Contact the Parks Department for more information concerning these activities. The City coordinates an active athletics program for individuals over age 16. The heart of the program is the formal City leagues in: basketball, soccer, softball, tennis (lessons), and volleyball. -6- Tukwila maintains seven City parks, nine foot trails, and one jogging /biking trail. Tukwila Park is located on the corner of South 153rd Street and 65th Avenue South. The park consists of hilly terrain and contains monkey -bars, a "Big Toy" slide and rope climb, and tennis courts among beautiful trees and lawns. This park is a favorite location for picnics and barbecues. The facilities for such occasions are plentiful and well maintained. Reservations are not required! Located at the east end of Southcenter Blvd. and next to the Green River, Fort Dent Park is also a favorite site for family picnics and group outings. This park is owned by King County and is operated and maintained by the Seattle Parks Department. Hazelnut Park is a petite area behind the Tukwila Public Library. Although too small for most group outings, the park provides an ideal serene setting for library patrons who prefer reading out of doors. Crystal Springs is the City's newest park. Phase I of the park features a tennis court, playground, and picnic area. Additional future phases are currently undergoing planning and development considerations. It is located at 53rd Ave. and 158th St. The Christensen Trail runs along the Green river from the east end of Southcenter Blvd. to So. 180th Street. The trail is paved with asphalt and has dirt shoulders. The trail is lined with trees and rest stops to provide a peaceful atmosphere in which to run along the river waterway. The Planning and Building Department assists the general public and the busi- ness community with a large array of services and activities. Some of the numerous responsibilities entrusted to the Planning Department include: a. Building, zoning, and other land use permits b. Planning studies c. Planning commission staffing d. City land use and building code enforcement e. Environmental Review f. Annexation petition processing The Police Department consists of the Chief, two Assistant Chiefs, and 27 com- missioned officers. An administrative secretary and six other civilian employees assist the Department with various support services. The Police Department, as a whole, is charged with the responsibility of enforcing state and local law and to provide the citizens of Tukwila with a sound sense of security. The Police Department is divided functionally into two divisions- - Administration and Operations, each with several functional areas of service. The Special Operations Services include one supervisor, three detectives, one evidence technician, and a crime prevention officer. These individuals help prevent and investigate a variety of crimes that do occur within the City limits. -7- Currently the City employs 17 individuals to provide Patrol and Traffic ser- vices. These officers perform numerous duties inclu i3ing: routine patrol, accident investigation, jail transport, and criminal arrests. they also per- form "neighborhood checks" as a standard part of each patrol shift. Special Services Division is responsible for the office work at police head- quarters. These employees handle all the filing, police records, and communi- cation coordination; they also process all the necessary paperwork for the Department. Without the support of the special Services Division, the offi- cers would never be able to spend time time on patrol. The Department enlists the service of one detective in the Gambling Division. This officer is responsible for monitoring all legalized gambling (e.g., raffles, bingo, punch boards, etc.) within the City limits. This officer must also control illegal gambling operations within the City. As a part of the monitoring function, this officer keeps track of taxable winnings and updates the City's gambling revenue records. The Department has assigned one individual to serve as the Crime Prevention Officer. This officer is in charge of instructing individuals and groups on how they can help prevent crime in the conlnunity. This officer also provides valuable input to assist the City in crime prevention policy formation. Officers assigned to Traffic are responsible for issuing parking violations and directing traffic, when needed. City traffic officers drive motorcycles. The Department employees one Canine (K -9) specialist and dog. This officer and dog conduct drug investigations, building security checks, and assists in other police activities. The cities of Tukwila, Renton, Kent, and Auburn- jointly own and operate the Police and Fire Dispatch service known as Valley -Com. The new facility, located in Kent, does all of our dispatching and operates the x.911 call system for the entire. The Public Works Department is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the public health, safety, and welfare, through the design, construction, and maintenance of the municipal infrastructure. The Public Works Department is composed of three primary functional divisions: The Engineering Division provides professional engineering through either City staff or consulting services. along with their recordkeeping respon- sibilities, the Engineering Division designs and monitors construction, issues site utility and street use permits, approves project plans, and conducts on- site inspections and project revisions for all public works projects. Streets and Utilities Division (Maintenance Division I) is responsible for maintenance of 23 miles of the City's 37 miles of roadways. These employees also maintain the City's water and sewer lines and all surface drainage systems. The City's water supply is currently purchased wholesale from the City of Seattle, but exploration is being conducted to determine the feasibi- lity of utilizing groundwater sources in the area. Metro handles the effluent treatment for the City's sewer collection system. Annexed residents are allowed to remain on septicank system, rema steflfs° until they are within 200 feet of a City main, at which time they must hook up to the municipal system. -8- Maintenance Division II is responsible for buildings, grounds and motor pool. This division is organized into a building custodial and maintenance crew, a parks maintenance crew, a golf course maintenance crew, and a vehicle mecha- nics crew. This division is also responsible for the City's Equipment Rental Fund, an organizational and accounting concept in which all City vehicles are "owned" and maintained by the Fund, and "rented" to the various departments which contribute to the operations and replacement of the vehicles in the Fund. All major "rolling stock" (City vehicles) except fire trucks are included in the fund. -9- . WHO DOES WHAT TO PROVIDE MUNICIPAL SERVICES Tukwila cooperates with a number of other local governments to provide municipal services. As a small city in a large metropolitan region, some of the services Tukwila citizens receive come from regional bodies. Although Tukwila is a commercial city (only 15% of its land is in residential use), what also makes Tukwila unique, and consequently more complex, is the maze of relationships, each with its own contract or board to work with. The list below describes which governmental body or private business delivers the basic municipal services to the citizens of Tukwila: City of Tukwila: Streets, street lights, sidewalks, storm drainage Water distribution Sewer collection Police patrol, traffic, investigation Fire prevention, suppression and medical AID Unit Parks, recreation, Community center, senior citizen programs Planning and land use regulation Building Permits (except plumbing and electrical) Municipal Court Foster Golf Course Maintenance Some of the city (McMicken Heights area) is located in water district No. 75, from which water services is supplied. A small portion of the city is served by Water District No. 125. Some of the city isjhe Valvue Sewer District, from which sewer service is provided. The City of Renton provides some water and sewer service to a few Tukwila businesses along SR 181 which were recently annexed into the City through a boundary line adjustment with Renton. King County Signal maintenance Jail (as needed) Animal control Plumbing permits Solid Waste Disposal King County Rural Library District Library Services Seattle /King County Public Health DEpartment Public Health Services -10- City of Seattle Water supply and treatment Electricity (Tukwila is served by both City Light and Puget Power) Valley Communications Center Police and fire dispatch 911 City of Renton Jail (as needed) Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) Sewage treatment Public Transit Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Air Quality State of Washington Electrical permits Natural Gas is provided by Washington Natural Gas Company. Telephone service is provided by Pacific Northwest Bell. Cable TV service is provided by TCI through a franchise with the City of Tukwila. Solid Waste collection is provided privately by Sea -Tac disposal and a number of other private haulers. Street light bulb replacement is provided by the respective utility providing electrical service to the pole (City Light or Puget Power). The city contracts for Foster Golf Course Pro Shop and Restaurant operations through a service contract. The City contracts for youth services with the Highline Youth Service Bureau and Renton Area Youth Services (RAYS). The city contracts for women's services with the Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) and King County Rape Relief. Police Chief 1 Operations • 1 ivicinn Patrol Traffic K -9 City Council Administration' I - Administration - Investigation - Special Operations Records a Fire Chief Operations 1 ivisinn Suppression Facilities Facilities Aid Training Fire Prevention fureau Prevention CITY OF TUKWILA ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Boards and Commissions i Public Works Director Engineering Maintenance Division I - Streets - Water - Sewer Maintenance Division II - Facilities - Parks - Golf Course - Equipment Office of the City Attorney Planning Director Planning Building Division Mayor & City Administrator Recreation Director - Recreation -Comm. Cntr. - Seniors - CDBG Personnel Office City Clerk - Records -Word Processing Municipal Court Finance Director N - Accounting - Payroll - Claims - Utility Billing -Data Processing • Community._ Center 4101 S. 131 (243-5198) . \\ - j= 1 : 1 • • . • • • =47.4.2c South- center Shopping Center :1 1 .1.2. , gill/Wail • Foster Golf Links 13500. Interurban Ave. So. (242-4221) CITY VT FACILITIES Tukwi la Library & Historical Society • Fire Station No. 52 5900 S. 147th U I • ! 1 e,y 1, -13- h r „ . .44 6 , 41 —•— • City Hall 1. Police Department 6200 Southctr. Bl' j (433-1800) ..-- Fire Station No.5 444 Andover Pk. E. (575-4404) • • Maintenance Shoo 600 Minkler Blvd. (433-1860) 1 TUKWILA'S REVENUE AND TAX STRUCTURE The majority of the City's public revenues are raised through sales tax, pro- perty tax and intergovernmental revenue sources. The City does not assess a Business and Occupations Tax or a Utility Tax. In accordance with State laws, Tukwila does not have an income tax. The City's general fund budget for 1987 is $7,000,000. The total budget for all combined funds is $29,209,851. The sales tax rate in Tukwila is 8.1 %. This includes the State's 6.5% tax rate, Metro's 0.6% tax rate, and the City's 1.0% tax rate. The sales tax is estimated to bring in approximately 23% of the City's revenues. Tukwila's property tax is progressive and varies between 11.13% and 11.46% according to property locations. By state law 100% of the theoretical market value of property is assessed, but in reality the City's assessments fall somewhere between 85% and 95% of the theoretical market values. The property tax is estimated to bring in approximately 10% of the city's annual revenues. the City's mill levy is 3.04 - -a mill is one dollar of tax per one thousand dollars of assessed property market value. The other principal revenue sources for the City are license and permit fees, intergovernmental revenues, charges for services (water, sewer, etc.), and fines and forfeitures. A graph of City revenues and expenditures are shown On the following pages. 1 -15- "1'11 fell Ow Rube! Divider you're Mere. Plasm he sided." Submitted by Tomes P. Cosgrove reprinted with permission 1987 TUKWILA CITY BUDGET WHERE IT COMES FROM: 45.7% • • 4 • • go • • • • • • • 41 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • it■ • • • • • • • • • 4o • • • • • • 4, • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • 41 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 • 4.4 • 1 8.6% n SALES TAXES PROPERTY/OTHER CHARGES FOR SER ni GRANTS • ALL OTHER 1987 TU KWI LA C 1 TY BUDG ET WHERE IT GOES: 7.9% 7.1% 11 STREETS ra WATER !Pei 1 IZ) SEWER FIRE POLICE • PARKS & REC ALL OTHER KING COUNTY Meav, ataofartnto (MHI Uses permitted outright include industrial enterr. ices involving heavy 'manufacturing (some acids. chemicals, paint. fertilizer. etc); assembling; fabrication and processing; bulk handling of products; large amounts of storage; warehousing and heavy trucking. Manufacturing of cement. explosives lime. and pulp; slaughterhouses; stockyards; and wrecking yards are allowed with a conditional use permit. The uses described in the Unclassidfied Usti section at the cad of this chart are also allowed. Residential and institutional uses and all business enterprises except those which serve as accessory to the seeds and conveniences of the industrial uses are prohibited. Lot coverage /yard requirements: I00%/None Permitted floor arca: not more than 2 1/2 times lot arcs. Height: No maximum height. Buildings over 45 feet must be set back I foot from each side and rear property line for each foot the building exceeds 45 feet. Landscape requirements: g ft. landscaped front yard and when adjacent to 8N. BC, CG. or G zones. 10 ft landscaped rear and side yards. When neat to a R. or S zone or a public or institutional use. 20 rt. landseped rear and side yards Ire required. LklIllagifouselalalia Provides for the heavier gement commercial uses and for industrial activities and uses iavolving tke processing, handling aid creating of products, research and technological processes as distinguished from major fabrication. These uses are largely devoid of nuisance factors. hazards or exceptional demands upon public facilities or services. Uses permitted outright include those that manufacture. process and /or package most non chemical products and auto body. assembly, service, and painting shops; wholesale businesses; laundries; hospitah; dog pounds; public utility service or substations; restaurases /cocktail lounges; limited storage yards, warehousing; police sad fi:c stations; and other similar uses. The uses described is the Unclassified Use section at she end of this chart are also allowed. There are no conditional uses permitted in this zone. Residential and institutional uses and all business enterprises except those which serve as accessory to the needs of the industrial uses arc prohibited. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 10011 /none Permitted floor area: not more than 2 1/2 times lot area Height: No marimu'm height. Buildings over 43 feet must be set back 1 foot (tom each side mad rear property line for each foot the building exceeds 43 feet. Landscape requirements: g ft. landscaped front yard and when adjacent to BN, BC. CG. or G zones. 10 ft landscaped rear and side yards. When Neat to a R or 5 zone or s public or institutional use, 20 ft. landscaped rear and side yards are required. ZONING CODE COMPARISION TUKWILA nears Idastrt fM -21 Provides for uses which could have significant environmental impacts in terms of air and water pollution. noise. vibration, glare and odor. Uses permitted outright include any use allowed in Tess intense zones and the manufacturing. processing, assembling. and /or packaging of 1) chemicals. paints, dyes. light metals. plastics rubber. solvents, soaps. wood. coal. glass, and agricultural and animal products and byproducts; 2) electrical or mechanical equipment. vehicles and machines including airplanes; 3) previously 'manufactured metals; and rock crushing. asphalt or concrete batching or mixing, stone cutting. brick manufacture, marble works and the assembly of products from these materials. The manufacture or storage of volatile, noxious or explosive products such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, matches, fertilizer or insecticides require a conditional use permit. Heavy metal processes and truck Terminals and railroad freight or classification yards; universities; commercial recreational fields and /or clubs; coavalescent. nursing. and retirement homes; drive -in theaters; fire and police stations; hospitals; monorails; motels /hotels; radio/TV stations /towers; transit shelters; and water towers/plants also require conditional use permits. The uses listed in the Unclassified Use section at the end of this chart are also allowed. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 23 ft. front and 5 ft. rear yards Permitted floor area: no minimum Height: 4 stories or 45 ft. Landscape requirements: 15 ft.landseaped front yard. When neat to residentially zoned land. landscape requirements increase. J,I&)t Maury (M -1) Provides for non- auitanee industrial activities that will sot have significant impacts on the environment. Uses are similar to those desired in an industrial park setting but the standards of the zone are less stringent. Uses permitted outright include any use allowed in less intense zones and thou that manufacture, process and /or package most non- chemical products, and contractors storage yards; printing and publishing ind • ; warehouses and wholesale distribution facilities; body or engine repair shops; heavy equipment sales and rentals; salvage and wrecking operations; commercial. professional, and business offices; railroad tracks; commercial and public recreational facilities; and outside storage. Truck terminals; universities; commercial recreational fields and /or clubs; convalescent, nursing. and retirement homes; drive-in th ; fire and police stations; hospitals; monorails; motels /hotels; radio/TV stations /towers; transit shelters; sad water towers /plants are alt allowed in the zone with s conditional use permit. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart are also allowed. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 25 ft. front and S ft. rear yards. Permitted floor area: no minimum Height: 4 stories or 43 ft. Landscape requirements: IS ft. landscaped front yard. When next to residentially zoned land, landscape requirements increase. COMPARISION Uses allowed outright and with a eondiatest use permit is the King County sad Tukwila heavy industrial apses are very similar. Residential and most hosiers uses are excluded from the Kiag Count lone and allowed in the Tukwila sole. Under eertaia couditioas, Kiag County allows talk► huildiaga than Tukwila. Uses allowed outright sod with a conditional use permit is the Kisg County and Tukwila light industrial zones are very similar. Resideatisl and most horsiness UM are excluded from he Kiog Count some and allowed in the Tukwila some. King County allows outright some of the uses that require a conditional use permit in Tukwila. Under certain conditions, Kiag County allows taller buildings than Tukwila. Maaafaeta►laa lark (MPI Provides for industrial areas of high standards of operational d evelopment and environment. Standard- requiring inanity of use and conditions to mitigate traffic, noise. ,:are. air and water pollution, fire and safety hazard impacts are established is this classification. Uses permitted outright in.•lude all uses in the ML soae and the uac• described is she LInclay.ificd Ug scents at the end of this chart. There are so coaditional uses in this zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements Front yard setback of 23 ft. Side sad rear yard setback based oa laadsaping code. Permitted floor area: sot more than 2 1/2 times the buildable area of the lot. Height: No maximum height. Buildings over 43 feet must provide 1 additional foot of width for each required opea space on the periphery of the lot or site for each foot over 43 feet. Landscape requirements: 23 ft. Isadsaped front yards and when adjacent to BN, BC, CG, or G zones, 10 ft landsaped rear sad side yards. When Next to a R or s lose or a public or iastitatioaal use. 20 ft. landscaped rear and side yards are required. Development Standards Specific noise, smoke, dust /dirt, odor, toxic gas, vibration, sad glare and heat standards must be met. A building site clan iacorporating these standards mast be approved prior to a building permit. Cam�aally Rnlaaas l•CI Provides for the grovpipg of similar type enterprises including recreation; entertainment and general business activities (retail and service), but excluding uses relying on outdoor sales, displays, or storage. Many of the uses listed as conditional uses in the Tuwi :a code are allowed outright in this zone. Residential /commercial mixed use developments are encouraged in the zone. Public utility facilities ore also allowed in the zone. The only conditional uses allowed in the zone are mixed residential /commercial developments. There are no unclassified uses allowed is the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements 100%/none Permitted floor area: Not more Ono 3 times the lot area. Height: No maximum height. Buildings above 33 feel must be set back one foot from each side and rear property line for each foot above 33 feet. Laadseape requirements g ft. landscaped frost yard. 20 ft. badscaped side sad rear yards whets adjacent to a RS or S zone and 10 f: when adjacent to a RM. RT, or RD cone or a public or iasli ;utional use. ildahkszkiaLlulatailtil Provides for shopplag sad limited personal service facilities to serve the everyday seeds of a meighborkood. Residential /commercial mined use development is encouraged in the tone. Public facilities are also allowed in the zone. The only conditional uses allowed in the zone are mined residential /commercial developments. There are no unclassified uses allowed in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements 1001 /None Perm.tted floor area: not more than total lot area Heigh:: 33 feet. Landscape requirements: $ ft. landscaped front yard. 20 ft. landscaped side and rear yards when adjacent to a RS or S zone and 10 ft. when adjacent to a RM. RT, or RD zone or a public or institutional use. Iad11ilth lark f -al) Provides for industrial park like for light industrial uses which are non - nuisance. The zone includes stringent land development requirements for setbacks and landscaping. Uses permitted outright include any use allowed in a Tess intense sons and the uses listed in the M -1 zone above except for heavy equipmeat tales sad rental. Truck terminals; universities; commercial recreational fields and /or clubs; convalescent. awning. sad retirement homes; drive -in theaters; fire and police stations; hospitals; monorails; motels /hotels; radio/TV stations /towers; transit shelter; and water towers /plants are all allowed in the zone with a conditional use permit. The unclassified uses listed •t the end of this chart are also allowed in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 50 ft front, 3 ft side. and 5 ft rear yards. Permitted floor area: 110 minimum Height: 4 stories or 45 ft Landscape requirements: 15 ft landscape front yard. 5 ft landsaped side yard. When neat to residentially zoned land, landscape requirements increase. Bsalnal Beta11 Badness (C -2) Provides a for diversified commercial /retail activities to serve a regional clientele. Uses allowed outright include any use allowed in less intense :ones and retail and service uses. and entertainment and recreation uses, excluding outdoor sales and storage. Universities; commercial recreational fields and /or clubs; convalescent, nursing. and retirement homes; drive -in theaters; fire and police stations; hospitals; monorails; motels /hotels; radio/TV stations /towers; transit shelters; and water towers /plants are all allowed in the zone with a conditional use permit. The unclauified n es listed at the end of this chart are also allowed in this zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 20 ft. front. 10 ft. side; and 10 ft. rear yards. Permitted floor area: no minimum Height: 3 stories or 33 ft. Landscape requirements: 10 ft. landscaped front yard. 3 ft. landscaped side yard. When next to residentially zoned land. landscape requirements increase. CammaaiIv Relall bslarsa Provides for convenience retail and limited general commercial activities which serve the g 1 surrounding community. Uses permitted outright include any use allowed in a Ieu intense zone and retail and service uses that serve the everyday seeds of a neighborhood. Cocktail lounges in resta ts, drive -in restaurants. and taverns require • conditional use permit is the aonc. Universities; commercial recreational fields and /or clubs; convalescent. nursing. and retirement homes; drive -in th ; fire and police stations; hospitals; monorails; motels /hotels; radio/TV stations /towers; transit shelters; and water towers /plants also require a conditional use permit in the zone. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart arc also allowed in this zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 20 ft. front. 10 ft. side. 10 ft. rear yarn: Permitted floor arca: no minimum Height 3 .tories or 33 ft. Landscat: requirements: 10 ft landscaped front yard. and 3 ft. landscaped side yard. When neat to residentially zoned land, landscape requirements increase. The King County and Tukwila bade 1 park zones are similar, except that King Coonty allows outright some of the uses that require a conditional use permit in Tukwila. Under certain coaditioas, Kiag County allows taller buildiap than Tukwila. The King County and Tukwila regional business zones are similar. except that King County allows outright some of the uses that require a conditional use permit is Tukwila. King County does sot allow the more intense unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart while Tukwila does. Under certain conditions. King County allows taller buildings than Tukwila. The King County sone is more restrictive and does aot allow the type of uses included as conditional uses is the Tukwila zone. King County does not allow the more intense unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart and Tukwila does. King County specifically encourages mixed used buildings and Tukwila does not. Satan Establishes a permitting the maximum population density and also permits certain uses other than residential. c.g. hotels /motels; retireasemt homes; medical. dental. social services; and professional and business offices. Mobile horse parks are allowed in this zone. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart are also allowed is this zone. There are so conditional uses in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 60% for resideotial uses. Permitted floor area: two times the area of the 10t. Minimum lot area: 7200 square feet- less if developed through a subdivision. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 900 square feet. Minimum lot width: 60 ft. Los Height: 35 feet. Height may be iacreased I ft. for each additional foot of side yard and open space. Landscape requirements: 20 ft. landscaped front yard; office development adjacent to a RS, RD. RM. RT, RMHP or S zone must have 10 ft. landscaped side and rear yards and next to an RM office. public or institutional use. 5 ft. landscaped side and rear yards. 100 1100 - Hlah Danli. Malllalr Dwrlllarr Provides for high density living in a residential atmosphere without the necessity of individually maintaining a dwelling unit. Uses permitted outright include multifamily development, mobile home parks. scene public facilities. churches. retirement homes. and medical /dental clinics. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart are also allowed in the zone. There are ao conditional uses in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 50% Minimum lot area: 7200 square feet. Minimum lot area per dwelling rail is 11100 square feet. Minimum lot width: 60 feet Height: 35 feet. Height may be increased 1 ft. for each additional foot of side yard and open space• Landscape requireaseats: 20 ft. landscaped front yard. 20 ft. landscaped side and rear yards when adjacent to a RS or S zone and 5 ft. when adjacent to a RMHP, RM, RT or RD zone or a public or iastilslioaal use. lM 2400 - 1104*.. D..aISv Maltlalr Dwrllisa Establishes areas permitting relatively high density living while maintaining a residential environment. Allows multifamily development. mobile home parks. some public facilities. churches. 'tartness homes. and medical /dental clinics. The unclassified uses listed at the cnd of this chart are abo allowed. There are no essditioaal uses is this lone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 50% Minimum lot area: 7200 prate feel. Minimum lot area pet dwelling snit is 2400 square feet. Height: 30 feet. Nom - residential uses eau esceed this height under comtrolbd conditions. Landscape requirements: 20 ft. landscaped front yard. 20 ft. landscaped side aid rear yards when adjacent to a RS or S zone and 5 ft. when adjacent to a RMHP, RM. RT or RD zone or a public or institutional use. �..._. soar Prafeuloaat ■a4 Of(Ice D slrIc1 (P -O Dlslrlcll Provides for professional and adminstrative offices that also serve ass buffer between residential and commercial areas. Uses permitted outright iaclude all uses allowed in leas intense zones including multifamily and medical /dental offices; administrative, professional and business offices; licensed schools; and government offices excluding police and fire stations. Banks and retail sales as part of a mixed -use development are allowed in the tone with conditional Inc permits. Unive • • s; commercial recreational fields and /or clubs; convalescent. nursing. and retirement homes; drive -i■ theaters; fire and police stations; hospitals; monorails; motels /hotels; radio/TV stations /towers; transit shelters; sad water towers /plants also arc allowed in the zone with a conditional use permit. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart sue also allowed in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 25 ft. front. 10 ft. side. and 10 ft rear yards. Permitted floor area: no minimum Height: 3 stories or 35 ft. Landscape requirements: 15 ft. landscaped front yard. 5 ft. landscaped side yard. and 5 ft. landscaped rear yard. When next to residentially zoned land. landscaped requirements increase. Malt�.1. 1a.Idrarr Hlah Draslly (RMH Dlurlctl Provides for high density, multiple family development which is compatible with commercial and office uses. Uses allowed outright include all uses i• less intense zones including less dense multifamily development and professional offices and clinics of individual medical providers. architects. lawyers, and planners when the offices arc in the basement or first floor of a min use building. Offices and clinics of more than one professional person require a conditional use permit in the zone. Churches. schools. libraries, museums. fire and police stations, utility stations transit shelters. water towers. consalescent homes. boarding houses. and private clubs or fraternal orders are also allowed in the zone with a conditional use permit. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart are also allowed in the zone. Lot ge /yard requirements: 30 fl front. 10 ft side. and 25 ft. rear yards required. Minimum lot area: 1500 tel. ft. required per unit; Height: 45 ft. Landscape requirements: 15 ft. landscaped front yard, 5 ft. landscaped side and rear yard. When next to single family zones, landscape requirements increase. Law AllADIR lx (R -4 Dlsulcll Provides a for high density apartment and condominium development. Uses permitted outright include all uses allowed in less intense Bones and multifamily development; convalescent. amusing or retirement homes; boardinghouses. public libraries; public museums and art galleries. Churches. public schools. fire and police stations, utility stations. transit shelters, aid water towers are allowed ie the zone with a conditional use permit. The unclassified uses at the cnd of this chart are also allowed in the tone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 30 ft front. $ ft side and 25 ft rear yards. Minimum lot area: 2.000 sq. ft. required per unit. Height: 35 ft. Landscape requirements: 15 ft landscaped front yard. 5 ft landscaped side and rear yards. When neat to single family zone. landscape Under certain conditions, King County allows taller buildings than Tukwila. The King County zone is more restrictive and de- . mot allow the type of uses included as conditional uses is the Tukwila tome. King County does not allow the more intense unc.= ssified uses listed at the cnd of this chart and Tukwila does. Height requirements are similar. although Tukwila allows slightly taller buildings. The King C.' my zone is more restrictive and doe. not allow the type of uses inclu;cd as conditional uses in the Takwi's zone. King County does mot allow the more intense unclassified sus listed at the cnd of this chart and Tukwila does Under certain conditions. King County allows tatter buildings than Tukwila. 200 - RetldaatIel SI..1. F Prc .des an area for single family bones and townhouses at urban den tics and other related uses such as churches, schools, libraries. etc. Individual mobile homes are also allowed in the zone. There are no conditional or unclassified uses •Itowed in the am- Lot ovenje /yard requiremnts: 33% Min num lot area: 7200 square feet Hei :t 30 feet: non - residential uses can exceed this height under eoc.r•olled conditions. Landscape requirements: 20 ft. landscaped front yards. SR Saharban fasldeallat/SR mp S.berba■ Ilnideatial 1$00 Prc 'des for the transition of from a suburban to an urban elm - icier. Within this classification, small scale and intensive air :cultural pursuits may be mixed with .'.cveloping urban subeivisions. The unclassified uses listed :t the end of this chart are Aso allowed. There are :o coaditiona. allowed in this zone. Lot :overage /yard requirements: 33% Mir. mum Lot area: 3 Beres except that areas may be reduced through sub:..vidiag to 7200 or 160(7 with sewers, water, paved streets, cur..:. sidewalks, draioige. Hei :.t: 30 feet except for sericulture! buildings Lar..scape requirements: None iii • tasified Uzi Pr.. • ides for uses that have unique characteristics that make it im,_:actical to automatically include them in any classification. Mc = specifically, the location and operation of such uses require review to they will not unduly impact surrounding areas and th;.• appropriate conditions of development are included as part of the approval process. Ur tauified uses include: C. cries, columbariums, c : :stories, and mausoleums Ce . merciat establishments involving la: . assemblages of people or su . So ; e educational institutions. Fi:: stations Mental and alcoholic hospitals Religious training institutions Kennels R� :.o, microwave or TV Ira.tsmincrs, town and ap- urtenances Commercial recreation areas Universities and colleges Heating and fishing camps UI+aty_ district offices Co;:age industries in certain zones bed sad breakfast guesthouses Quarrying and Mining in M zones Dev elopment conditions: Yard. height. floor and lot area coverage, parking. etc are determined based on the site conditions and the tor titioas of the zone the use is located in. Staab Family Residence 01-1 District) Provides for low density single family residential neighborhoods with a range of minimum lot sizes That respond to the development constraints of the natural environment and promotes diversity of development. Uses allowed outright are all uses allowed in less intense zones and single family development, public parks and playgrounds. Churches, public schools. public libraries. public museums or art galleries, fire and police Stations, utility stations, transit shelters, and water towers are allowed in' the tone with s conditional use permit. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart are also allowed in the tone. • Lot coverage /yard requirements: 30 ft front yards. side yards that are 10% of lot width (not less than 1 ft nor more than $ ft), and 10 fl rear yards. Minimum lot area: 7,200; 9,600; 12,000; and 20,000 per single family home. Height: 30 ft. Landscape requirements: none UaelsnlfI.d Uan Provides for uses that have unique characteristics that make it impractical to automatically include them in any classification More specifically, she location and operation of such uses require review to ensure they will not unduly impact surrounding and that appropriate conditions of development are included as part of the approval process. Unclassif: :d uses include: Airports, :.:nd fields, heliports Animal shelters and kennels Animal slaughtering and incidental rendering Cement manufacturing Conversion of rental multifamily to Condominiums Correctional institutions Refuse disposal sites Group homes for retarded people Gun clubs. skeet clubs. target ranges Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants Landfills Quarryin( Ind mining processing animal byproducts removal and processing of sand. gravel. rock, peat, black soil and other natural deposits Regional transit stations Tow truck operations Trailer parks Transfer stations Development conditions: Yard, height, floor and lot arca coverage, parking, etc are determined based on the site conditions and the conditions of the zone the use is located in. The King County fad Tukwila aeon ere very similar, inapt that the King County SR tone includes specific provisions r« small ogle agricultural uses. King County does sot a1k. the these Meng sael sitiad um listed at the end of this cbsrt and Tukwila does. King County allows individual inobik bongs and Tukwila does tool. The King County and Tukwila unclassified eec man are very similar. A difference important to this area. is that Tukwila includes trailer parks as an unclassified use and King County allows them outright in multifamily zones. King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith 'Ibwer Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-7610 Sincerely, Craig sen Chief CL:AK:mg CPO46 /H /3 Enclosure .. s r. , .,,. May 2, 1988 RE: Community Plan Revision Studies, Riverton Area, and Northeast Highline Community Plan Dear Northeast Highline Community Residents: The King County Council requested that the Parks, Planning and Resources Department initiate two plan revision studies (Sabey - Riverton and Whitlow) for properties within and adjacent to the Highline community planning area. In March 1988, Community Planning staff held a community meeting in Riverton to determine whether or not to recommend pursuing a plan revision and if so, what the scope of the plan revision should be. A summary of community response to these issues is enclosed. In April 1988, the Council considered a third plan revision study (DeRuyter) in the Riverton area. After reviewing the issues raised by these three plan revisions, the King County Council directed that all three be folded into the upcoming Northeast Highline Community Plan update. The Riverton, Allentown, and Skyway areas are all included in the update, which is scheduled to start this fall. A map of the Northeast Highline Community Plan boundaries is enclosed. The Northeast Highline Community Plan will incorporate a broad range of issues and community concerns. Important elements of the plan will include economic development, water and sewer service, transportation, housing, parks and recreation, and cultural resources. Community Planning staff will work with local residents and business people, representatives from the City of Tukwila, and others to develop the Northeast Highline Community Plan. I will send you more information about the plan update process as work begins this fall. If you have any questions please call Anne Knapp, Community Planner, at 344 -4266. cc: Ron Sims, King County Councilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division ATTN: Anne Knapp, Community Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor April 27, 1988 Councilman Ron Sims King County Council Room 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Allentown /Skyway Community Plan Update Dear Councilman Sims: Thank you for considering my concerns about the Sabey- Riverton Plan Revision and for suggesting that this be placed in the Allentown /Skyway Community Plan update. I can understand why the County Council would want to include this small revision into the already scheduled community plan update. The suggested joint planning interlocal agreement is a welcome suggestion which I reviewed with Rick Beeler, Planning Director, who has been working with County staff on interlocal agreements. We will contact Craig Larsen in the near future to begin drafting that agreement. Frankly, my concern now is that we are responding to a more pressing issue of the November election for annexation of Fire District No. 1 to Tukwila. In preparation for that election Rick Beeler submitted to Craig Larsen's staff a draft annexation interlocal agreement patterned after the City of Kirkland interlocal completed last year. Because of the County staff workload, they are unable to respond to our proposal in a timely manner relative to the election. Our resources and priority is being directed to the annexation, and I prefer to complete that interlocal agreement, because of the timing, before I direct our limited resources toward a planning area interlocal. As much as I favor your suggestion, I'm constrained to respond to this impending annexation. 1 .,. Councilman Ron Sims April 27, 1988 Page 2 Any help you can lend mein finishing the annexation interlocal so that I can begin working on the planning area interlocal will be appreciated. Craig Larsen can contact Rick Beeler at 433 -1846 about these agreements and any questions you or he may have. We look forward to working with you on these agreements and on mutual concerns to be addressed in the community plan process. Sincerely I Ga L. VanDusen Mayor /lje cc: Rick Beeler, Planning Director .7 City Council BEVERLY L. ROGERS AFF DAVIT 0 Notice of Public Hearing • Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on April 13th & 14th Interested Parties) Name of Project RIVERTON ANNEXATION File Number 88 -1 —A O F D I S T R I ;J T I O N hereby declare that: [] Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action [I Official Notice O Other Other , 1988. The City of Tukwila received a petition for annexation by election for the Riverton area, where you live and /or own property. You are invited to attend an informational meeting on the proposed annexation. The reverse side of this notice shows a map of that area. PURPOSE OF MEETING Representatives from the City of Tukwila will be there to: • Explain how the annexation process works. • Review the time frame for election. • Provide handouts explaining common questions about annexation. • Listen and answer questions you have regarding the annexation request. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Towards the end of the meeting, City staff will be asking residences and property owners if they would be willing to serve on a citizens task force with Planning staff in developing a land use plan and zoning for the area. FUTURE MEETINGS This summer, the Tukwila Planning Commission and City Council will be holding public meetings to review the proposed land use plan, zoning and annexation request. FURTHER INFORMATION Contact Jack Pace, Senior Planner, or Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner, at 433 -1849. All correspondence can be mailed to them at the Tukwila Planning Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188. City cif Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 RIVERTON ANNEXATION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING Foster High School Cafeteria 4242 South 144th Street - RIVERTON ANNEXATION City of t PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433-1849 CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY MAP �IF�r%e;))� :siMi +'�i};:;Y �`r 4 twG, �. i;: viul."': 1i�%' �R% 4 JC1 ,aL;h.rls•,:.at�assnx�aauxus >a� o. April 13, 1988 Mayor Gary Van Dusen City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mayor Van Dusen: ims, District 5 ouncilman '�vx}eu4sv'wvaren:Y- iss`ilYrH:4 JrJ Wl sbtaSnpw�.' lexnrd' it �: �'¢ u4. TAAtiNS�N�inWUavrrw�. �•. rvwvw�ww+ �rusrr. Nn. rsulrwww.r....r ...�_. _ RS /VN /hdm /0 07C Attachment CC: Lois Schwennesen, Mgr., C &PD Craig Larsen, Section Chief, CP King County Council Ron Sims, District Five Room 402 King County Courthouse 1 f r' i ; ± r , I i!', 1 `.; Seattle, Washington 98104 1 (206) 344 -4033 1988 IlEcFivon APR 1 5 1988 Thank you for your letter concerning the Sabey- Riverton Community Plan Revision Study and your request for postponement of the Study. The King County Council adopted Motion 6945 in August 1987, requesting the Department of Parks, Planning and Resources prepare a Community Plan Revision Study for the Sabey- Riverton area pursuant to King County Code 20.12.070C. During the adoption of the 1988 budget, the County Council budgeted funds to begin an Allentown /Skyway Community Plan which is scheduled to begin this September. I have met with Lois Schwennesen, Manager of the Planning and Community Development Division, and Craig Larsen, Section Chief of Community Planning to discuss your concerns regarding the Sabey- Riverton Study and the fact that your staff is currently studying the area. I have requested that the Planning and Community Development Division proceed to study the area as adopted in Motion 6945. But, I have requested that the study be folded into Allentown /Skyway Community Plan this September. I have also requested that a joint planning agreement between King County and the City of Tukwila be developed early in the Allentown /Skyway Riverton Study due to the common concerns both jurisdictions have in this area. I have therefore attached for your review the joint planning interlocal agreements that the King County Council adopted with the cities of Auburn and Enumclaw to define their participation in the Enumclaw Community Plan, update which is currently underway. If you have any questions about this agreement, please contact Craig Larsen of Community Planning at 344 -2528. Again, thank you for your letter requesting postponement of the Sabey- Riverton area plan revison study. I look forward to working with you in the future in order to address problems facing the citizens of King County. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 June 19, 1987 MOTION NO. 6922 INTRODUCED BY ea; uJi,i► PROPOSED NO. 87-473 A MOTION defining intergovernmental cooperation between King County and Auburn for the development of the Enumclaw Community Plan, establishing King County as the jurisdiction primarily responsible for developing the community plan and providing Auburn with opportunities to advise King County during the community plan's development. WHEREAS, within their own jurisdictions, King County and Auburn each has respon- sibility and authority derived from the Washington State Constitution and State laws to plan for and regulate uses of land and resultant environmental impacts, and by law must consider the impacts of governmental actions on adjacent jurisdictions, and WHEREAS, King County and Auburn recognize that planning decisions can have extra - jurisdictional impacts and that intergovernmental cooperation is an effective way under existing law to deal 'with impacts and opportunities which spread across jurisdic- tional boundaries. and WHEREAS, cooperative efforts can increase the efficiency of government by mini- mizing conflicts and providing more mutually satisfactory planning decisions, and WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan policies PI -302 through PI -305 and Auburn Comprehensive Plan policy 10.1.2. encourage interjurisdictional cooperation and the use of interlocal agreements to implement solutions to major planning issues, and WHEREAS, King County is initiating the development of the Enumclaw Community Plan, and WHEREAS, the Enumclaw Community Planning Area borders the City of Auburn: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED By the Council of King County: A. The King County parks, planning and resources department, which is responsible for developing the Enumclaw Community Plan, should seek Auburn's participation in the planning process. Auburn's participation may include such actions as: 1. Serving on the Technical Advisory Committee; 2. Serving on the Citizen Advisory Committee: 3. Commenting on data, land use alternatives and, finally, the Draft Enumclaw Community Plan before it is submitted to the King County executive or county council; FILE r";erY C:AUBORD2 /mm 1 6/19/87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 June 12, 1987 C:KC.ENU /mm MOTION NO. INTRODUCED BY PROPOSED NO. A MOTION defining intergovernmental cooperation between King County and Enumclaw for the development of the Enumclaw Community Plan, establishing King County as the jurisdiction primarily responsible for developing the community plan and providing Enumclaw with opportunities to advise King County during the community plan's development. WHEREAS, within their own jurisdictions, King County and Enumclaw each has responsibility and authority derived from the Washington State Constitution and State laws to plan for and regulate uses of land and resultant environmental impacts, and by law must consider the impacts of governmental actions on adjacent jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, King County and Enumclaw recognize the opportunity for and advantages of cooperating in developing the Enumclaw Community Plan because the Enumclaw Community Planning Area (see Attachment I) is under King County's jurisdiction but par- tially within Enumclaw's comprehensive planning area; and WHEREAS, King County and Enumclaw recognize that intergovernmental cooperation is necessary to achieve consistency between the Enumclaw Community Plan, King County Comprehensive Plan and Enumclaw Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, King County and Enumclaw recognize that intergovernmental planning will more likely produce a community plan which effectively manages growth and development, protects natural resources, provides public facilities and services and stimulates economic development; and WHEREAS, King County and Enumclaw recognize that intergovernmental cooperation will increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of planning for the area because it will prevent duplicating the efforts of the two jurisdictions and their citizens; and WHEREAS, King County and Enumclaw recognize that interjurisdictional planning will promote a more predictable and certain process and produce more understandable and long- lasting policies for residents, property owners, developers and other agencies and jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, King County and Enumclaw recognize that interjurisdictional cooperation will increase the visibility of their planning efforts, making their decision - making more understandable to the public; and 6/12/87 March 24, 1988 CE, 1 of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 King County Council Ron Sims, Councilmember 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, Wa 98104 Dear Councilmember Sims: RE: Sabey- Riverton Community Plan Revision Study Highline Planning Area On March 15, 1988, the Planning and Community Development Division held a community workshop to consider the scope of work for the proposed Sabey- Riverton area plan revision study. My staff also attended that meeting and discussed our concerns about this study. This letter is by way of follow -up to outline our concerns and request postponement of the study. My understanding is that this study was requested by the King County Council in August, 1987. Since then, however, the City received a petition for pre- annexation zoning for the Riverton area which is tentatively scheduled for vote on February 7, 1989. Because that petition requested pre- annexation zoning and Comprehensive Plan, the City staff is already studying the area with businesses and residence. I anticipate concluding our study this summer in time for an annexation vote in February, 1989. It is therefore more appropriate for the County to postpone doing their study until after the annexation vote. This enables us and the area residents and businesses to focus on the issues of land use and annexation to the City of Tukwila. It appears'that we will be discussing more annexations in this. area with you in the near future. We are receiving a lot of interest in annexation to Tukwila, which is taking much of staff's time. I will appreciate any help you can give us in not adding to their time demands by continuing the County's study of this area. Sincerely, Dusen, Mayor cc: Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Dept. Tim Hill, County Executive • March 20, 1988 Dear Anne, Sincerely, See/ Bill and Janice Scheffler 4033 South 128th Seattle, WA 98168 Hm: 246 -4130 Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 After a Sunday walk through our neighborhood talking to fellow ,residents of the Riverton community regarding how they want their neighborhood to be zoned, the overwhelming response was that the residents wish to keep Riverton the way it is. This response is presented to you in the signed petitions attached. Please ensure the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. - Gary Grant, King County Councilmember - Ron Sims, King'County Coucilmember - Lois Schwenneeen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. - Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We appreciate the thoughts and efforts given our community by the King County Planning and Community Development Division. We have accepted your offer to respond to your endeavor to learn more on how this community feels with regard to the proposed SABEY- Riverton Plan Revision Study. Please find enclosed a map of the targeted area for the proposed SABEY- Riverton Plan Revision Study. On this map we have indicated the locations of those residents who have signed the petition for your convenience and evaluation. These residents do not favor any amendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single- family land use designation. We sincerly hope that the King County Council does not heed the wish of one corporation at the expense of the many residents in this community. t 7( ALf.A. sod • King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Page / of Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY - RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember' Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single - family land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use designation. RESIDENT'S NAME ADDRESS 1`36 3q 3 3t1 S' / 3 37 /34 2 37 s ,(3e 3501 5. 130 /2)11 /zt)s 3 r 4, S. /14'01 3 .5. -,4.vc 1a o/ '-3,g 4vQ., Is S , S o $c: 4tro,e3 M4, 1942 33 — 3S . �-Q 1 ( ✓q /a2I 37 gip V2-1?‹ q�/L� . C. waif° King County Planning and Community Development' Division Parke, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Page of Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY - RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single - family land use designation. We favor the current single - family land use designation. ADDRESS rtZ / ?4 3 3 -37 &' ) 202.A..11. 2.4Ya /(4 1 z.&IZ f `'Z?ci .....v )' r .110 4. /oig rtia 405 Z i2T A x,/ go 5 - / r .4- 4 6 2 ' ,,/- ,v 5 ,J" Cif:' . ` ,15 '6 er <' d4f / 4 56' .i2 , 151 . / &/ 404-+ 12-g - w\ 57' MCV a/a s3 .S • /De &ate& 9fl /6g King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY - RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section • We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single - family , land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use 1. designation. RESIDENT'S NAME 11 112M1Eart_. ' anal 1 404 - No d4& iiw'J v1.� fAtitti4 $j ) At( 071 - 1 Page of 9 ADDRESS fe /.21 ,41 1 464" �o .L3 d T''' N5� -' ✓ 9r' 8 ' _,.� • .2 , , )L yeridef [ 3,05.5' 4/ cr ib Sb 5 17"LL 716 5I 41 6 kyr ,o. , - ROI /?k39 Wsr 1303? 4'1r & S, SCa c. 9W2 tj,, c vl ( 4130 S 131 St Se6 9t0/105 38 te. _c4'/L 100 S • f /616f .3 $d - -& t30 1 OlLatitteir cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY - RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Anne. please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single - family land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use designation. RESIDENT'S NAME Page _y _ of ADDRESS /3o 3d14- )1-"r SU. S��, wH 9( yc1 3 s' 3 S • . / �8 Sao 19/6 r I.:14; 2. '4 Al `A d7 g King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY- RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single - family land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use designation. RESIDENT'S NAME Page . of ADDRESS //. cV/ -d P/ 4"423 c2-1/ -690/ 1 /.2'5 6 - /3c7:77 ...244.7. 7354 4W6 /3o 93/ - c= , 7/ 2/6M M /35 z 4 5 (3071i R4-R, 6 783 9 lo/6'3 / •t 1?)01z ) 6/- q -v /3e V- V/ -5- := , C.) d" 7/7 1 ozq 4.1 . So. 241- `?�3Zc 1,3U/7 /32/2 J /jest,, Je.". Sover,We '114/1 3/14. /7 re . ,(r 'ea / /le King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY - RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single - family land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use designation. BFfIDENT'S NAME 4;)4 t a� 4 )e )04W aid .-e/vt Page ' of J ADDRESS (4 4 / dal/ So. l�l2 Z- '/ 01/ ,S /26 96Y6,8 4/04s S. /2 6 98/ ,( 37/L /4 laE " 99'/68 3 711 Mi 31 1 2g4/6,4? jatAk 7f1 3x °Q s. I,1,6 h, '/W Mo i - 42 a . A4.46zat,, 4510 King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY- RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember, Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single- family land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use designation. IDENT'S NAME ‘ 24m,u,/ el/ al,'Zi4;t) ADDRESS Page of - a fa /(94a r $ lava - .Rs-'2 S. 1)S - 3o 3C hue. J 0. /454,5 ...37z'A . % SO . /3 d a./ve .moo . 130 7 -- 4Q 4Oe r 131 L' King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY - RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY Page g of Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single- family land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use designation. ESID�NT / ADDRESS 2 fr c ( 4 ( D 1a 8S -5�� afieeevon, � a (na kit && 47630 - 3 y CZAo. ,S, 1 a ( - 3 yam . 5-4-idtA / 1C -f (( -s7 S'- QS 1 374. AO . /as / 3 S. >01,5 35-1-A 40e 1. fFYw:i.S:rAvc.'#xnrn King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Page Attention: Anne Knapp, Community Planner RE: SABEY - RIVERTON PLAN REVISION STUDY ADDRESS ,q ./ J( 3 a Z 4 .52 /3a17 -43 5 Ave . /325& 4- ctcu, .14o , Bass SIDENT'S N ME *M 1° ; :14t1 9 of Anne, please ensure that the individuals listed below receive copies of this information. Thank you. cc: Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Ron Sims, King County Coucilmember Lois Schwenneeen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Div. Craig Larsen, Chief Community Planning Section We, the undersigned residents of the Riverton community, do not favor an ammendment to the current land use and zoning established by the Highline Community Plan that would change the present single - family land use designation. We favor the current single- family land use designation. ti:l:1,yt'.? INTRODUCTION The City has adopted annexation policies that are receptive to annexation. Decisions must be made by both the city and the residents and businesses to be annexed, after thorough review and careful thought on services and needs. This brochure was prepared by the City of Tukwila to answer commonly asked questions regarding annexa- tion. Many answers are based on existing City Council policies and programs. In the county as well as the city, elective representatives change and programs/ policies are revised and updated: therefore, the answers may change with time. POLICE AND FIRE What will happen to police response time if I annex? Tukwila's police response time is now an average of three minutes for emergency calls and seven to eight minutes for non - emergency calls. King County response time for emergency calls is seven to eight minutes and for non - emergency calls 14 -42 minutes. What about fire protection? Tukwila provides fire protection, prevention, and public education services to residents and businesses in an annexed area. If a county fire district's livelihood is jeopardized by proposed annexation, negotiations to ensure fire protection for remaining unannexed areas are undertaken. ENTERING TUKWILA? QUESTIONS & ANSWERS MARCH 1988 t. K �: 1Y,` iS{?. iti' va' �f�'' wly^'y�i�IEiSti'.41:ifr;1'•'..k . �:.�',i;�Y�fi-.r� ",Y.ir1 TIVE POL10E *ESPONSE;TI " —" 'Includes surface water tax FINANCE The biggest part of my local tax bill is my property tax. Will my property tax go up or down if l annex? Property taxes in the City of 'Tukwila are slightly lower than in King County. For example, on a $100,000 home, the property tax in Tukwila is $47 -$127 less annually, depending on whether existing City bonded indebtedness is assumed and on your current tax rate for school and fire districts. What is "bonded indebtedness ?" "Bonded indebtedness" is a debt that Tukwila voters have approved in previous elections. This existing debt is being used to purchase the Foster Golf Course and will be paid for by 1998. In 1987, this indebted- ness was 16 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. As shown in the illustration, even with this indebtedness added, the property tax rate in Tukwila is lower than the rate in unincorporated King County. Do you have to accept bonded indebtedness if you vote to annex? It will be a separate ballot vote from the annexation question. Are there any other changes in taxes that 1 should know about? The City of 'Tukwila does not have any additional taxes on property, business or utilities, other than property tax. The sales tax in King County has just been increased to 8.1%. The sales tax in Tukwila is 8.1%. TAX RATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TUKWILA & KING COUNTY 1987 Average Assessed Home Value $65,000 LAND USE How will the zoning change if the area is annexed? The City will adopt a pre - annexation ordinance providing Tukwila zoning districts comparable to King County districts. What are the major development differences between King County and Tukwila codes? The major difference between unincorporated King County and Tukwila is that Tukwila has more restrictive standards for minimum setbacks and maximum building heights. Mobile homes are not allowed as single - family dwelling units outside of mobile home parks. The City will be reviewing their current restric- tion during its pre- annexation zoning process. What will happen to buildings that do not conform to City zoning standards? Buildings that do not currently meet City setback, height or lot coverage requirements, can be main- tained by the property owner. Expansions of a building will be subject to the new standards of the City. If the building is destroyed, the new replacement building will have to meet City standards. Noncon- forming residential structures including mobile homes may continue as they exist now and may be replaced after a natural disaster. Can 1 keep my horse and chickens if 1 annex to Tukwila? Yes, livestock, small animals and fowl are allowed in Tukwila. Tukwila health standards require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet to keep animals; how- ever, if you currently keep animals and then annex into the City, you do not have to comply with the lot size limit. I have a boat and trailer that 1 use for vacations. May I park them in front of my house, in the yard, or on the street? Recreational vehicles may be parked in your yard and on the adjacent street if it will not impair the safe flow of traffic on the street. 4 ton vehicles used for commercial purposes are not permitted in residential zones. Will I be allowed to continue my home occupation? Any business operating in compliance with all existing regulations may continue as a grandfathered use. For new businesses, 'Tukwila defines a home occupation as incidental to the primary use of the house as a residence and is carried on by a member of the family residing in the home. The conditions for home occu- pations can be obtained when applying for a Tukwila Business license. < nv, STREETS AND UTILITIES Will the streets be improved and undergrounding of utilities be provided? A street improvement program is incorporated in the six -year Capital Improvement Program. The program is evaluated on a yearly basis by the City Council for funding and after study and consideration of commu- nity needs. If 1 have an operating septic system, will the City of Tukwila require that 1 connect to a sewer system? If there is a sanitary sewer line within 250 feet of any property upon which there is a building for human occupancy, a connection to the sewer system can be required (Tukwila Municipal Code 14.12.030). It is not City practice to require this connection unless the King County Health Department condemns the septic system. A similar situation exists in unincorporated areas of King County. If you have a failing residential septic system and are within 330 feet of a sewer line, you can be required by the County to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Tukwila does not regulate septic tanks, you will continue to contact the King County Health Department. How does the City decide where sidewalks will be installed? In Tukwila, sidewalks are required as part of a com- mercial /industrial site's development. Sidewalks are not required on residential lots unless a new subdivi- sion is created or the street is improved. If my area annexes, will the City of Tukwila provide my sewer and water service? Annexation will normally not affect your current water or sewer provider. There are many special purpose sewer and water districts currently operating within the City limits. If over 60% of a sewer or water district's area is within the annexed area, the District and Tukwila may consider an agreement for the City to assume their responsibilities. What if 1 am not currently served by any sewer or water district? If you are not within any district's service area, then upon annexation you would be a part of Tukwila's sewer and/or water utility. You are not charged anything unless you actually receive water or sewer service. What effect will the annexation have on street lighting costs? You currently pay for your own street lighting. The general method of payment is through your Water District which has an agreement with Puget Power or Seattle City Light to include the street lighting charges on your water bill. Presently, upon annexation, the City of Tukwila assumes street lighting costs. RECREATION AND THE ARTS What community interest programs are available in Tukwila? A full range of youth, adult and senior activities are available at the Tukwila Community Center, parks and local schools. An informational brochure of the programs and special events is sent to all residents of the City four times a year. The programs are, however, open to County residents as well. Tukwila owns and operates the Foster Golf Course and recently adopted special rates for residents of the City. Fort Dent is within the City limits but is a regional park owned and operated by King County. The City has an active Arts Commission that sponsors a yearly fall /winter /spring series of entertainers at City Hall in the Council Chambers. In the summer, a Brown Bag Concert series — "Peanut Butter and Jam" — is held at various outdoor locations in town during the lunch hour. G[NERA Can I continue to haul my own garbage after annexation? You may continue to haul your own garbage after annexation. The City presently offers a semi - annual free haul pass to the dump for residents of the City and an annual household hazardous waste clean -up. Who collects garbage in the City of Tukwila? The City does not have a franchise agreement with any collector. Whoever currently collects your garbage may continue to do so. After annexation, what will be my opportunities to participate in local government? Following annexation, area residents will be eligible to serve on the City's Park Commission, Arts Commis - sion, Library Advisory Board, Sister City Committee, Civil Service Commission, Planning Commission and Board of. Adjustment. Residents will also be eligible to vote and run for the City Council and Mayoral positions. All City residents are eligible to vote for their King County Council representative, County Executive, Port Commissioner and other regional positions. Annexa- tion will not change your ability to vote for these positions. A quarterly community newsletter, the "Hazelnut," is sent to residents and businesses of the City to keep everyone abreast of community events, capital improvement projects, parks improvements, recreation programs, and City services. What happens to schools with annexation? Nothing happens to schools. Annexation does not affect the boundaries of school districts and it has no effect on which school a child will attend. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 REPRESENTATION OF POPULATION KING COUNTY District 5 1 Representative for 198,000 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Council Positions at Large 7 Representatives for 4,780 (based on current 1987 population) BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID TUKWILA, WA PERMIT # 12698 King County Records and Election Division Election Section Department of Executive Administration 553 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2565 CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY This is to certify that the petitions for Annexation to the City of Tukwila (Riverton Area), submitted to the King County Records and Elections Division on February 26, 1988, have been examined by this . office in compliance with the terms of RCW 35A.01,040 and as a.result of such examination are found to be sufficient under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.020. Dated at. Seattle, Washington, this 9th day of March, 1988. Jane Hague, Manager ( _,Records and Elections Division King County Records and Election Division Election Section Department of Executive Administration 553 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2565 March 9, 1988 TO: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk City of Tukwila FM: Donald R. Perrin, Superintendent of Elections Records and Elections Division RE: Petition for Annexation to the City of Tukwila (Riverton Area) DRP :lydr enc. cc: Kevin Raymond Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Enclosed is a Certificate of Sufficiency and the petition pages of the annexation to the City of Tukwila petition, which you delivered to this office on February 26, 1988. The petitions contained 77 signatures, 60 of which were found to be valid signatures of qualified electors within the area proposed to be annexed. It had previously been determined that 158 voters in the proposed Riverton annexation area cast votes in the 1987 General Election; therefore, the petition would require 16 signatures by qualified electors resident in the area DRP:lydr March 1, 1988 King County Records and Election Division Election Section Department of Executive Administration 553 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-2565 TO: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk City of Tukwila FM: Donald R. Perrin, Superintendent of Elections 1)4 Records and Elections Division RE: Petition for Annexation to the City of Tukwila (Riverton Area) This is to acknowledge receipt of petition pages for annexation to the City of Tukwila on February 26. This office is in receipt of twenty (20) signature pages containing 77 signatures. It has been determined that 158 voters in the proposed Riverton annexation area cast votes in the 1987 General Election. Therefore, the petition would require sixteen (16) signatures by qualified electors resident in such territory to validate the petition. We are in the process now of determining the validity and sufficiency of the signatures and petition. C(: >77 S" C!•' iG 'l:�P,Ri;AA'.iC'+k.*'FAS"«wHAk SiS: L" Awi3 sstiRMC'.+ tsnyesyvsans�ttmcsew ...�.r�.�...................,, s. f. f; -. 1988, crry G. t".Ji <.VL,,.P PLANNING DEPT. .r:mePt+r.. :amz relb.15:1'itlaute'Yi43a wis ovv"s.'rit:,::a:actr ..k.r"<:Sir`,vicc 4 1.1z.Li:43Saw..,ISail stair '9.,,,- 'h.'.Yi'fina:T'a °:r sirr'g.._v.6.5. ,i11 . 17.4.M -1117 ,I Er'"f area�Lea'YF.`ri:a February 24, 1988 King County Division of Roads and Engineering Department of Public Works 956 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-7490 FEB ?9 1988 1 MIROB C 11" (.)rI Jk', {V LA PLANN+. ?^, G DIPT. TO: Kevin M. Raymond,' Deputy Prosecuting Attorney FM: Rex H Knight, Manager, Engineering Services Seddon RE: Legal Description for Riverton Annexation to Tukwila Thank you for your February 5, 1988 memorandum requesting Engineering Services' review of the enclosed legal description for the proposed annexation of Riverton by the City of Tukwila. Staff report that the enclosed map accurately defines the area of intended annexation and that the intent of this annexation is very clear, even though some technical problems exist within the text of the legal description. The most significant problem with the legal description is the incorrect plat name referenced on line 40 of page two; however, staff consider this to be a typographical error due to the fact that this boundary is common with another proposed annexation (Fire District 1) which uses the correct plat name. By a copy of this memorandum, staff are advising the City of Tukwila of our suggestions for eliminating the technical problems found within the legal description of this proposed annexation. The City of Tukwila will be expected to have these deficiencies corrected at the time the city passes an ordinance finalizing this proposal. Thank you for writing. If you have any questions please contact Jim Bergsma, Vacations and Boundaries Engineer, at 344 -4134. RHK:JRB:fq Enclosures cc: -Moirw;Carr Bradshaw., Associate Planner, City of Tukwila Jim Bergsma, Vacations and Boundaries Engineer ti 1 ,� i t� � a te' 0 ,,(0-" v_ v ;) ,,,,\,.- \ r • ` 0:_pa l' t i t IP ,r a " 03 e G o J1 s' s ,% ' ,, ,e, i �� C el'i iv% a�" RIVE RTON a ' ,� r e - PROPOSED ANNEXATION 15 DEC 87 REV. Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, T23N. R4E. W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22. Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats. Records of King County. WA. and the TRUE POINT OF MINZING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly 4 \ prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along the west line of said right -of -way, 850 feet �o�` more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said ` ?V Riverside Interurban Tracts; 0 4' thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of � � said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Inte rurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10- 11 -61, to the south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Rive:side Interurban ......Tracts to the east margin of South 131st Place; thence southeasterly along said east margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street,respectively► to the west margin \of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the north line of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, records of Ring County, WA; thence north 4017' east along said north line 226.52 feet; thence south 49'43' east, 91.43 feet to the north line of the southerly 0.86 $ores of said Tract 14; thence north 40 17' east, a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 4g A In foot thence north 40 ° 17' east, 119.11 feet; thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th • Street 150 feet more or less to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin, respectively, to the west line of Primary State Eighway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 'records of King County; thence southerly along said west line to an intersection with. the easterly extension of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south line, respectively, to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South \ 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded in Volume 15, ..Page 53 of Plats, Records of King County. WA; thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north N.1ine to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the north line of the • River; thence easterly along said north line of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10, 723N, R4E; thence southerly along said west line to the south line of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south line to the west margin of East .Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its _ntersect_c:i with the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 7E50 .S as ,recorded under King County Recor ing No. 86C3240930; thence westerly along said north line of Lot 1 to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest .corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot_ 4.. in said Short .Plat to 4t,44oack east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of - e— =-ntt-- ariiar --ac:-s; thence southerly along said'east an the east line of Lo:. 9 to 4th Street; 'd north margin e east margin of said east marci ` the north margin of South ] thence easterly along sa prolongation thereof to t' thence southerly along BEGINNING. -2- nd along the easterly East Morainal Way South; to the TRUE POINT OF gWeil Akai . ALL r3, 3os KMR /sj TO: Jim Bergsma, Engineering Services FM: Kevin M. Raymond, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Y RE: Petition for Annexation to the City of Tukwila E 550 DING COUNTY COURTHOUSE 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 583.4437 On February 2, 1988, this office received a petition calling for an election to vote upon the annexation of certain unincorporated territory located contiguous to the City of Tukwila. Attached to the petition was a legal description (Exhibit A) and a map (Exhibit B) of the area proposed for annexation. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.010, the petition must properly describe the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed. More specifically, the petition must contain "an accurate legal description of the area proposed for annexation". (RCW 35A.01.040). Please review the attached legal description and map and let me know as soon as possible whether the legal description is accurate and properly describes the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed. I appreciate your help in this ratter. Please let me know if you have any questions. -4- „ I . i - Ay % " ,: .1,, . • 1 • I I tsi:sil AL 1 1 ? d i.----■4' ,k7-L".1*-2-11-19 " 1 ---- - ! . : hi 6 fr c:1 1 .6.6 IN 4:, l ' . 9 ,!. ti i s 7 .......• ■ Ott 5 Is t i 6, tt o. era AV : E C: ,.. I t z; i ::: 1 v -....... Iv ... -,...,1 ., is Ito ' S 3 ..- . .. __ s i -- • Nu Av v.. ilia 0 Am , :._ ?..!: Av v s s AV .to _ ._ ...— .I S 7:ill 741! 10 AV RC, 1 5 — - - -- ....•••■ • 1 -- -_ t _ tw 23, Ay ... 14111 1 21 AV i AV *V Ls _„.,. ..„ ..„ ck) •••■ir // /►••••••••//. ••1• {� 1 '. • ps ?1iKa:svi•;reata y: +` as • ti �,•• • • t • � . L 1.7 %. •.•• • I ll • Il• .1 • S. . "•, w. • Il • ` M ,•:ou wwrlY• • i • ••• I c1 ••, • i t .. � ' 6.9...4 1 .• •••c • • "e 1 �1 as ""47.1 it •VA. ,.j ,I 9 • �p . -i1,7-=. ! ? as ▪ ; ::• . 'i , � • % 9 a e.. a..• . • •�• ., :1 • . • . , :••..��•_i•$1. -• •\ I ; • C ......... — .— - r: .r - ` -• . • -7 . !Lg. `• f • "o.. _ aK•• iii. • • �i ~ ... Y . / . ` . ai.� J • _!' .-_. • T ; p 1 ' i •r` 1 - •.•w •• :........."..T.- 0. r . t ii 7.';':• • •f • • i lk 4..grI ».n><•4 ' riV,` ecKt w;,ek !x7? . VOLUME 10 OF PLATS PAGE 74 RECORDS OF KING COUNTY cz.,-,,rz:ro rim= r\, '...?t•5...•S...erVIVEV 12.%tIe • • • NORM MALENG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY February 23, 1988 The City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Councilmembers: should read: OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Re: Petition for Annexation to the City of Tukwila E 550 KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 583 -4437 On February 2, 1988, this office received a petition calling for an election to vote upon the annexation of certain unincorporated territory located contiguous to the City of Tukwila. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.020, the prosecuting attorney must certify or refuse to certify the petition for annexation. In making a decision on the issue of certification, the prosecuting attorney undertakes two separate inquiries. First, it must 'be determined whether the petition for annexation meets the requirements set for petitions by RCW 35A.01.040. Second, RCW 35.13.025 requires that it be the prosecuting attorney's opinion that the city is legally authorized to take the actions specifically requested in the petition. Based . on the results of our examination of these two criteria, we have determined to certify the petition for annexation. The petition itself meets the procedural and substantive requirements of RCW 35A.14.020. Among other things, the annexation petition must contain "an accurate legal description of the area proposed for annexation. RCW 35A.01.040(1)(c). Although we are satisfied the petition's legal description meets the statutory requirements for accuracy, our review has disclosed an insubstantial error in the description. Specifically, the line on page two of the description reading: "east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts;" "east line of Lot 16, Block 4 of Riverton Addition, Volume 13 of Plats, page 36" �+ eJ „c /_ CITY OF TUKWILA, MASH1�16T� -4 . (Election MethoC, E 5S� f .� TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resident in the for annexation in number to ten percent (10 %) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to determine whether such area, lying contiguous o the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be 11/ registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit A" and map in "Exhibit B." If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED 1. Name: (Print) pc, TN PI.,L5PtCU S? Vie! Signature: /26,6 L . //a 31112 2. Name: (Print) N*-16 IRA No,C signature: 3. Name:APrint), AV ' J? 4BCGc/' i /off 7 /fY Si ire: nei v1. aired 4. Name: (Print) L44 / l /¢RI " 4-1) 1 47 tff Signature:` / 5. Name: (Print)A11.1'04( t . Ai 4't4-1‘. Signature: (x,� iel ( s4( 6. Name: (Print )�ct{. �GI[��, LQ " 9 /. � -gg Signature: )1 7. Name: (P r i nt) L /t uR4 / L 1 4x4444 Signature: 8. Name: (Print) Signature: ELECPET I V I I WARNING I -1 T � 2•"f 1 - 27- 9' AOORESS AND TAX LOT # gq L � so . l t'ICEIVtU B 0 2 1988 NORM MALENG PROSECUTING ,ATTORNEY 3 5 / 4 Ue SD. luc..• 9P/Gr -14t �i S Ste, �- Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This pag4 is one of group of pages containing 'de, .cal text material and is intended by t , i g,iers of this Notice of Inter `:�n to be presented and con- sidered as one otice of Intention and may be fl ed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. OWNER'S S1IMTUNE t'liusban Mif /2822 3-: Am L. Srz + SEA-rr -, WA . /IzBArt? 0 072 V. 41, riot I ied l B k c, 12., F. Cx A P lllen d.2a/ �✓.+. 4s/‘r Xr/sr - � yo33 � g ,Zn/e 13,SrAe =ler' Q 5 , /At 98 /b 1la $g /!1 / 2 e9 5 • > J'..=" 767 I iiki 041)ta n t - kai)/ l. raren 11+'y1frl■s 16lehler I3 it if 1" PO, q WO lJ 4 -TMef '7• /cle'we. ' /y0 S. fig /304'/t 906/ PRINTED NAME AOORESS ANO SATE TAX LOT NUMBER SIGNED • inik ei g ib8 . 54w/sttm s / U 23 •S S. 7 0 __ 3 v (v1 , / /Z W 9 � /1?J /) E R f} i ev isedd lI= ►► s SUN i • t Lei Hate u�r '• Ct /t ! uu _ w F 141^ ► a i g ..t RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION RECEIVED FEB 0 2 1988 NORM MALENG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 15 DEC 87 REV. Beginning at the intersection of 'the east margin of East Marginal way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10. T23N. R4E. W.M.; thence southeasterly along said. east margin of East Marginal Way. 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22. Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 .of Plats. Records of King County. WA, and the TRUE POINT or EaGIzING; • thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22•and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along. the west line of said right -of -way. 850 feet • more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with ..the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along •said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth .under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10- 11 -61, to the south margin of.South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line•of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to :the east margin of South 131st Place; thence southeasterly along said east margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street.respectively. to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly•extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; ,thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin ..of. South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the north line of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14. in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Volume 9 of Plats. page.95. records of King County. WA; thence north 40'11' east along said north line 226.52 feet; thence south 49''43' east. 91.43 feet to the north line of the southerly 0.86 Acres of said Tract 14; thence north 40 17' east. a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 ° 43' east, 10 feet; thence north 40 ° 17' east. 119.11 feet; thence. southeasterly along..the.southwest margin of South .134th .Street .150 feet more or.less to the southwesterly extension of the • .Southeast margin of 47th•.Avenue.South Aformerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly•.extension and southeast margin. respectively.. • to'the west lint of Primary State Highway' No. 1 condemned.under Superior Court Cause. No. • 618283 records of King County; .thence southerly along said.west line to an intersection with,. the easterly extension'of.the south link of the Cyrus. C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence,wssterly along said easterly extension and.along'said. south -line. •respectively. to the•west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); •thence•southerly along said west margin and continuing.south along the west.margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South :139th (formerly Hill Avenue)_ .:thence: westerly along said north margin to •the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in.Riverton • Macadam road Tracts. recorded in Volume 15. Page 53 of Plats. Records of King .County. WA; •thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along. said. easterly prolongation and said north line to the east•margin of Pacific Highway•South (Highway 99) ;.. :thence northerly along.said east margin to the north,line of the Duwamish River; thence:easterly along said north line of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10. T23N. R4E; thence southerly along said west'line to the south line of the north 1168.66 • feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south line to,the west margin of .East Marginal:Way South; thence., . aoutherly along said west margin to its intersection with the notctb.• line of.Lot 1 of KinggCounty Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said.north line of Lot 1 to the . Northwest corner of said•Short Plat; .thence. southerly along .the west line thereof to the •Southwest. . corner of.said Short Plat; . thence. easterly along the south line of Lot.4 in said Short Plat to east line of Lot 16. Block 4 of said Riverside.Interurban 'Tracts; thence southerly along said east line and the east line of Lot 9 to the .north margin of 'South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along.. the : easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of • Bast Marginal Way South; thence southerly. along •• said east margin to the TRDE POINT OP 86GINNING. TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 'F TUKWI141M MALENG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resid Ivi` ''v '' osed for annexation in number to ten percent (1O%) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to determine whether such area, lying contiguous to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit A" and map in "Exhibit B." If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT it 1. Name: (Print) e ( .a0.v1or' J /1.5/pt ! 6�0 7 d . Signature: ?La4Lev ,, .c . l f 2. Name:_(Print) Signature: 3. Nam Signature: Signature : 7. Name: (Print 8. Signatur Name: ( Signature: ELECPET 4. Name: (Print)f,CHAFt. j1414( sJ 1 4176f Signature: c _--Q it t 5. Name: (Print)eCuMM►S Signature: ' . gt,IFYINAJi49 6. Name: (Print5 i T e g q ,1,1r' e /-41? YI?0 • -"Al riot) ah S A( /A%vi'S TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WAS't' NGi N (Election MethdL WARNING ntLEIVE FEB 02198 / 3016 37g4A. ti Z ) 303k 3 ilf14 >1.1-ES- 07 1YJ' 86415P Ay S J7,2 172P" y�; /.Y. /44f !Veil/ 50 /fez 3$07 Se° /3u roe Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shalt be guilty of a misdemeanor. TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0 TUKidi mow ATTORNEY CIVIL DIVISION We, the undersigned, as qualified electors residen n the territory proposed for annexation equal in number to ten percent (10%) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to determine whether such area, lying contiguouf to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there Is estimated to be WY registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit A" and map in "Exhibit B." If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT / 1. Name: (Print) ,; LI . � 1 /Z8 /YT Y3sT S4 I ST - frf Mt/iv / 12t)si', ? /Sd. Signature: 2. Name: (Print Signature: 3. Name: (Print Signature 4. Name: (Print )15 Signature: ,,,, 7. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print) ELECPET Signature: rc. i t i iun ruic AnUW.AAI IuN TO THE P , CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINC,,'N (Election Method) WARNING Signature: 5. Name: (Print) Signature:P4UL.MAJ fl ( L/L4 ff 6. Name: (Print) Li nAC- I`i"V .C'4l -..� r� : - r RECEIVE FEB 0 21988 Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT OF 411 AATTORNEY CIVIL DIVISION We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resident in the territory proposed for annexation equal in number to ten percent (10%) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to determine whether such area, lying contiguoup to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be y registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit AN and map in "Exhibit B." If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER 1. Name: (Print) T oNlPsor. Signature: 2. Name: (Print) Signature: \�ti 3. Name: (Print) ieA.wer Signature: 4. Name: (Print -' =' ma. Signature: 5. Name: (Print) Signature: 6. Name: (Print) i-g 01(ric,S Signature: Signature: ELECPET GL % - -.mac PETITION FOR ANNEXAT TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHI (Election Method) 7. Name: (Print) Les OLC 4t,c-H DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT it / -2 )34 4- 2 " S•. 8. Name: (Print) /1/ /a1 i frOuIS 1kgikse Si atthr2 WARNING ECE1VED FEB 0 21988 4C S 16 5� ^k dr., •4� c:TN � Ek8 ‘l � ., Hall - 3RD ftv -e . 5(a41--.- , (,JA cd t "7 13409 qoM So 11)4. 91/6t /34on, SEA dt\ . d`'dye So. Sept,, v '&# 4 vi Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGT (Election Method) , TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resident in the terr tory prainasmi LENG for annexation equal in number to ten percent (105) of the vot -s CUI OS3TATTORNEY last state general election therein, do hereby call for an elect iont s�oN to determine whether such area, lying contiguous to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be 54 / y- registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit A" and map in "Exhibit 8." If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the f i l i n g of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER 1. Name: (Print) fhla. Signature: 2. Name: (Print) Signature: 3. Name: (Print) Signature: ELECPET 4. Name: (Print) LLo"o J•RCeusaru .* / %f-4Q' 3• .2 0 1 W,4va s• Signature: nP12 5. Name: (Print) NA/My N L-3E�vNAROT" Signature: 6. Name: (Print) ;n416 gornJ«(r l -r� 12S �7 - '5�� , n Si .A1\2 7. Name: (Print) rricda &rn rdf r 4-X , /QSX7 1 s4C S.o Signature: iCr . 0Z ' 8. Name: (Print) ,Jt.1Atfl TIVINTL1041 12f se 13(033 led A-ve.6 . Signature: U,oQn�l.� c�! . �'1c►l�lgl.J WARNING Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. DATE SIGNED CEIVED FEB 0 2 1988 ADDRESS AND TAX LOT It 9/21 S. (30 / 3 3 /5f)/7 -9/ 1 s /-)t-ii /3 t 1 /s 1 Q,cAtAll • l / Z5'Z7 - 3 5 `. S o , rti � i wn ruK AnntAAI'lu ' "CLEW VtL) TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WAS( lGTON FEB 0 21988 (Election Method NORM MALENG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI Y OFRt ,��;� 11((�� Arras �h��ft`lS1V ON We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resident in the territory proposed for annexation equal in number to ten percent (108) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to determine whether such area, lying contiguou to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be ♦T / registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit A" and map in "Exhibit 8." If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED 1. Name: (Print) ?ArzjlL,A Crajd eei, 2. SJA,JEC Signatureritut edmi0 j— ahey., 2. Name: (Print)L (.^ aAh Signature: 4ftd ' D 3. Name: (Print)( i,o C -40 tiAsn ELECPET Signature Signature: 00,44r 5. Name: (Print) LL Signature: 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print / Signature: 8. Name: (Print) , - u Z:!1 c 6 Signature: WARNING ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # 4123 S i 3o r} Sc,4rii€ 16163' 12S13S" 37 4 -) Sea11It w4 13& 31o) BRAS 32 Ii Jo- x 391k 5 5e..t+14 c.,?,, . Qc A211 141 S ��. tit.' 3ci ri E l/ Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (S9 /11) pass "ab i P/ /i , r i rte, 03NOI S 310 aim 101 xv1 ONV SS3VO0V 3NVN 031N1Nd !IA %t JY .....■■1?' 1k x?w »M t putgs iVn1MAIS S.MaNNO •1013u13u1 jo aD13op aibuis a se papist= aq Sew £1aA13tIfNno pima NJ1g1NIIs ItMOI31PPt buiuieauo sated Jew 113iM pa111 aq Au put u0130a3u1 ;0 1D13ON 1uo st p.Japis -uOD put peuese td aq 03 u013u13u 1 j0 •D 130M :1113 AO saubi s 1113 dq papua ;u i si put it his Vw up; it ?) tool buiuit3uo3 sated 10 si Ord sou CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH�NG'� , FEB 0 21988 7 (Election Method] TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI Y OFnJs�i i C LENG A ATTORNEY • CIVIL DIVISION We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resident in the territory proposed for annexation :equal in number to ten percent (10%) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to determine whether such area, lying contiguous to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit A" and map in "Exhibit 8." Signature: Signature: ELECPET If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER 1. Name: (Print) VGT}'tt1Y'I1V1 i�.S 'Sw J )a 1t&i Signature: 2. Name: (Print) Signature' 3. Namsr.(Frt Signa$wce: 4. Name: (Print) 5. Name: (Print) 1 S .hk cj S 6. Name: (Print) 37nSfpN r Clio4/1E' Signature: 7. Name: (Print) Signature: ,.t 8. Name: (Print)6Aer ss a/. �V� /NJds•� Signature: WARNING DATE SIGNED La 3 ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # I3 5 46 414 SO 30 ' , 4i i 97/a /4/ 1( $'4 `lam /(xf- 13 ?42 la ik.i_Sr ..y. 13"2 I) 41 LP) A ✓4 S. "Irq 9r4 r" f. -e' 98/66 Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. • This page is one of group of pages containing ; ire ► cal text material and is intended by th tg,.�rs of this Notice of Inter ��. �,+ to be presented and con- sidered as One iitice of Intention and may be Mid with other pages containing additional slgeatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. OWNER'S SIMATUIE t'Husband Y1f (A (4C.1) PRINTED NAB AOORESS ANO TAX LOT ,vUMSER OATE SIGNED J Edu 3 101 I•:f -fl • evised (11/85) • CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHOIGT. fCLtIVtU (Election MethotL FEB 0 2 1988 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI Y OF TUKWILA: NO M M ALENG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY We, the undersigned, as qualified electors re :Iv VP itor ; roposed for annexation :equal in number to ten percent (10%) of the votes cas at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to detereine whether such area, lying contiguous to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit AN and map in "Exhibit B." If the undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations, it is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER 1. Name: (Print) Signature: 2. Name: (Print) LAnd a.rtktA Signature: 1 3. Name: (Print) bi A. �ETLq Signature: 4. Name: (Print) Signature 5. Name: (Print) Signatu 6. Name: (Print) PJ(V1 B(LOVIC Signature 7. Name: (Pr t) DA-A/ 32 ur e., Signature: // 8. Name: (Print) 4 c�kJR/'f Lard Signature: ELECPET WARNING DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT if 1.25 -eg {l Q,p p-28-8 S 1 - - 2 — r6' i0251 41sT. r-ruS; WA- 99468 ‘ sz % 4 \\ AIMS °. NA "181E-16 1:c123 3.0.4n4 (04 900 t 3o 23 forLlu Oe e /AM 3 ' /404/ 11,6 5 60,A4 1,0.4 87141 Ave S 9 e "t 7,, 6, Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. this page is on . of group of pages Containing�ie�._•cal text material and is intended by th signers of this Notice of Inten .n to be presented and con- sidered as one otice of Intention and may be fi ed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. °WNER' S SUM111 tMusban Mif i m aN t X.M1.2) ( 1C.2) PRINTED NAME ADDRESS AND TAX LOT NUMeER ,GATE SIGNED ev ise0 ( I ) A enwamxeexr Riverton Annexation Petition Meeting Thursday, 01/28, 7:00 p.m. Tukwila Community Center An annexation petition will be circulated /signed to put an annexation proposal to vote for annexing Riverton to Tukwila. f IOSTN VERNIER WINES DIREC OR.n 4 BARTO T I 99TH ST S IOIST 110TH ST , S II5T" ST 17.5 = ._ S 146TH I20TH T IIZND 130TH 1 50E1 G 130TH S 133RD 5T S I35 ST y ISITH S • TT ®® y t. S 135'" `• < ST < El 4 S 1 N s 1�7T� 1 3: TM N RavorON 38 $T h N !� �SIMTN ST y © C C C L l r.•i 1101'1 TH rt. • J TN X NEM 1'1;1 O PEO PL:D - MN; Mf= SW 115T14 ST See .1 /a1 10 MISSION STATEMENT ABOUT ANNEXATION INTRODUCTION RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP - RAP Group We as residents of the Riverton Community, wish to maintain our unique living environment that we presently enjoy. We feel there are many advantages to living in Riverton: One of the best - funded and most accessible school districts. Semi - rural, natural setting in close proximity to larger, more developed and industrialized areas which affords relief from the activities surrounding us. Ease of access to major freeways for convenient commutes. Surrounded by employment opportunities. We feel that annexation to Tukwila would preserve the advantages while offering new opportunities to gain the following: A. Better representation through locally elected officials. 1. Mayor, Council and Commission members reside in the local community. 2. City offices are located in close proximity. 3. Community input is encouraged by evening meetings. B. Provision of services. 1. Public safety enforcement would be provided by the City of Tukwila. 2. The streets are maintained systematically with on -call service for special problems. . Protect values of single family residences. The RAP Group's intention is to encourage our residential community to join with the City of Tukwila and to facilitate the annexation process. Annexation occurs at the request of the residents, by means of a petition or election. Our annexation proposal will be by election in order to allow all members of our community the opportunity to have his or her say. Tukwila welcomes new residents who wish to annex. ABOUT THE RAP GROUP The RAP Group consists of Riverton community residents who are in favor of annexation. These participants desire to keep their homes in a primarily residentially zoned area. RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP - RAP Group Page 2 HOW ELECTORAL ANNEXATION WORKS Annexation involves the City of Tukwila, King County, the State of Washington and voters /property owners in the area to be annexed. The following is a simplified outline* of the annexation process. - The annexation applicants meets City officials to discuss the annexation process. - A petition calling for election is prepared and circulated by the applicant among registered voters in the area. The election petition must be signed by 10% of the voters in the annexation area in the last state general election. - The election petition is given to the City Council for decision whether to accept the proposed annexation, and if so under what conditions. - If the City Council accepts the annexation petition, their staff submits a Notice of Intent to the King Country Boundary Review Board (BRB). - The BRB holds a public meeting to decide if the annexation proposal should be approved. - If the annexation is approved. the BRB notifies the King County Council which will set an annexation election date. - The election is advertised and held within 90 days. - The King County Council certifies the election results and informs the Tukwila Council. - If the election passes, the Tukwila City Council prepares an annexation ordinance. The annexation area will become part of Tukwila when the ordinance is adopted. *The complete petition election information sheet can be found at the Tukwila City Hall or ask a RAP Group participant to see one. PROPOSAL'S ANNEXATION AREA See attached map and /or petition's legal boundary write -up. WHAT CAN YOU DU? If you desire to assist in the annexation process, then your help is needed. All you need to do is contact one of the RAP Group contacts listed on a proceeding page. The RAP Group needs residents who can contact their neighbors to encourage annexation, assist in obtaining election petition signatures, and encourage people to vote. Any amount of participation, no matter what size or type, is encouraged. RUMOR CONTROL INFORMATION rumor: "widely disseminated belief having no discernible foundation or source." Webster's Third New International Dictionary. The following information provides insight into some common and uncommon concerns that residents have mentioned in past meetings. !: + r...«,.,...,.....,........_,..,............_... a...,...... n».., v..,,,,. w.,. r. u F. .,.x»...vro. .icvrbw.a .5,4 ¢Va RSVV9e.. 14-1•40Vi'vWXTPVVAMV 7VeArmxrrx. avasM. M- V..,: t. eV e. x. m+ oasN. s•. wrc.., .A+vo....... RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP - RAP Group Page 3 Local Government Tukwila has a mayor /council form of government. The council consists of seven members, elected city -wide, who are responsible for establishing policy, appropriating funds and other legislative duties. The mayor is responsible for administration of the city, the chairman of the City Council and also the enforcer of policy. The Mayor and the City Council together are responsible to the citizens of the community for governing the City as well as planning for the future. Public Safety L Annexation would provide public safety enforcement through the Tukwila Police Department and fire protection through the City of Tukwila. Electricity /Gas • Annexation does not affect electricity and gas provisions. Sewers /Water Annexation does not affect sewer or water districts. Street Improvements Street improvements are subject to voter discretion. Annexation areas can obtain street improvements through a Local Improvement District that residents create themselves. You vote and pay for what you want. Schools Annexation does not affect school districts boundaries. Issue of Indebtedness All current City indebtedness is included in City taxes. See Taxes, below. Taxes (South Central School District) County tax rate per $1,000 of assessed property value: $ 11.46 City of Tukwila, per $1,000 of assessed property value: $ 11.14 (No additional taxes or fees are assumed by annexation residents unless voted for by those residents. All current city bonded indebtedness is included in the lower . City tax rate figure.) Tax savings, $ .32 per $1,000 of assessed property value. RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP - RAP Group Page 4 Tax savings example: Total Property Value County City (Average Assessed Valuation) (Before Annexation). (After Annexation) $61,300 Note: All tax figures based on McMicken annexation information of 1986 from the City of Tukwila. Motorhomes There are no restrictions on motorhomes being parked on resident property, off of public streets. Only commercial vehicles of over 8,000 lb. QVW have restrictions. INFORMATION SOURCES CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188 MAYOR'S OFFICE: Mayor, Gary Van Dusen 433 -1800 PLANNING DEPARTMENT - ZONING / PLANN1NG: Moria Bradshaw 433 -1848 RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP - RAP GROUP $ 702 $ 684 PRIMARY CONTACTS: John & Kathy Stetson 243 -7504 - 13258 40th Avenue South Bill & Janice Scheffler 246 -4130 - 4033 South 128th Allan & Trish Ekberg 241 -6904 - 4123 South 130th - Please feel free to contact one of the above RAP Group participants for further information or to volunteer to help. 7i..w— .....,�..._.._._. ...- ........r.+e... -. roam.». uv.. mar .« wr k. n..»... rc. w.. avrn.., e.. w... a '�..,,......,....._....�....n.: King County Executive TIM HILL 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, \Vashington 98104 (206) 344 -4040 The Honorable Gary L. Van Dusen Wendy A. Morgan, Council President City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Sincerely, D,ALL. im Hill King County Executive TH:CC:je CP020 /HI.2 )..11).1 t X11 ►.01 f SEP 1.8 1987 CITY 0f T T 1 JK W LA PLANNING E:PT. cc: Ron Sims, King County Councilmember Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division Rick Beeler, Planning Director, City of Tukwila ATTN: , Moira Bradshaw, Planning Department September 14, 1987 RE: Highline Plan Revision Study Dear Mayor Van Dusen and Councilmember Morgan: Thank you for your letter of August 24, 1987 in which you expressed your concerns about the proposed Highline Plan Revision Study in the Riverton area. King County Council Motion 6945 initiated the proposed study on August 31, 1987. Pursuant to KCC 20.12.060, this Motion directs the Department of Parks, Planning and Resources (PPR) to determine whether a plan revision study concerning additional industrially -zoned land in Riverton is warranted. As part of this first step, staff will contact the City, affected property owners, community groups, local jurisdictions, and local service districts for their comments. PPR will then recommend whether an actual plan revision study should be prepared. T,{iis recommendation is expected by the end of September. Community Planning staff have been in contact with the Tukwila Planning Department regarding this proposal and will keep in touch as decisions are made about the proposed plan revision. Thank you for your letter and if you should have any further questions, please contact Craig Larsen, Acting Chief, Community Planning Section at 344 -2528. fl F F14 9q, bOMm, 15 5T, p%vIP%rb4 NBI60T5 ¶►e6 LSD: EPIC- I -$g IdV:;Q Ne •tAVcet• iivRa 14 KC. BRB r T * 14DaNDyiGe 1v44 Eaton oA5 I pJxATIOt4 Seahunt INDEX • TUKWILA CITY LIMITS COMBINED RIVERTO , FOSTER,THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS • ■ BOUNDARY OF SEA -TA - INCORPORATION 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 .1 I I IJI I l I I 0 taTNa INCH 1 2 3 - oc 6Z • Be- LZ 9Z GZ ... • tiZ EZ' I ZZ 1Z 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1E11 1 r �� ��� 1111 -1111 ®® � � 76.11 111111 ,,, III' " iummi 131 PM ' t» _la 10,11 I'll I Ij � I II Ei + , , � ► 1 I 'II :,1111111 %w ill t , - lil h, I I 11. 11 '' YII N A 1 �P!III! d11111111111!!IIIIIIIIIIII' '!'I . IIILIIIIIIII I �. � � � I I11111l ��� _�,m 1 �! ��,I IIII I mIIF i , 11��1 31111 4th li 1 r l IIUI! IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIII iI IIIIIII III = = = = ©� tantav - `''' \ i Illllllllliliiiiil � jj tI t�Rf I® 1i�� :.. �1lIBS I1 P II °�� d ���� I 11111 ' I IIIII I 001arklIt �,�. 1IIIII 11 ' 1►�9 LI BI��i1�. 1�1 _ �� IIIg1111, II II ETER ®131 g le Lake Obrlen 1111111 111 1111111 1111111 1111 111111 111SftnIVIIIMICIRII 11Piiiiaaenaurontai IIIIG� I 11111111111 u TIC ©6 zIIFIIIIIIIBi► - " e Ii�1C 11 II�I►111!!I ! I IICI 111 I CI . X 11 �IRIIIIIEFIC�-a A!1 � 1� IIILI I IPI IIIIU�l� unsi i I R E M M I In g 11I G1 011, 4t, 1 1 �1III� p a: ICE ` II�JIIIIY�II31RL - --- W n1�,:1IB11111iI11E i.,,. awarami g Urien ONO ItlO �0 KING COUNTY NATI �\ ARK JJ Rainier Beach SEA -TAC INCORPORATION BOUNDARY AS SET BY BRB � 1 _ l I . - u L 14111411 11111111 I_1 I I I 1 IJ I IMI I I 1 l I.1 11 t 1 111 -1111 i 111 i 11111111111111 1 1111111 1 1 1 111 11 I 1 111 ! 1111111111 - -6. 7_. L . 8 9 • 10 11 NN1fINKR14aN7 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE - UAL ITY OF;•THE _ ORIGINA _ L DOCUMENT a 8 L 30 11 111 III uI ,B: •:4 iQ IMMUNE COMMUNITY COLLCOE Rainier Beach 36 •J- ANNEXATIONS ko FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 FILED DECEMBER 1986 ,® FOSTER ANNEXATION FILED MAY 1988 7 SEA•TAC INCORPORATION FILED JANUARY 1988 RIVERTON ANNEXATION a FILED FEBRUARY 1988 IIIIIIII TFIHORND LED JUYKE NE 1988 ANNEXATION L II TUKWILA CITY LIMITS ❑ TUKWILA PLANNING AREA II1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIHIIIHIHIIIRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - 0 ........ 1 9 3 4 5 § -.. _.... 1 ... 8 9 10 11 .w...... 12 1IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ' CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ' oe as ,o, e cz ,a uz vi ca; a Iz OTHE UALITY THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTI} a o L s s o C z 1 ..O III IIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIII I IIII IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII IIII IIIIIIII IIII IIII IIII I IIIII IIIII IIII IIIIrIlllIFI ll I II IIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIII IIII IIIIIIII IIII IIII IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIII lllllllllll lllllllll1111111111 OI 1111 llll l lllll lllll lllllll 1111llll lllll11111111llllll lllllll111111Ill 111111l111ll Renlryda 30x A