Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 88-03-A - CITY OF TUKWILA - FOSTER ANNEXATION
88-03-a foster annexation King County Records and Elections Division Election Section 553 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296 -1565 STATE OF WASHINGTON) )SS. COUNTY OF KING Form E•47 .....+.... w.«.,. w.,...-.... �.. r.....��..............nn.�.,K +. Dorn ,wasaamv.niM1<rN•h�2aiWwes�+r. PROPOSITION NO.1 PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AREA KNOWN AS RIVERTON TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA PROPOSITION NO. 2 ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS APR .. 31999 This is to certify that on March 14, 1989, there was held a Special Election in the area known as Riverton, King County, Washington, for the submission to the voters for their approval or rejection of two propositions regarding annexation to the City of Tukwila; That the results of said elections were duly canvassed by the King County Canvassing Board of Election Returns on March 24, 1989; and the results of said canvass are as follows: FOR ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS 2 2 2 CARRIED AGAINST ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS 1 2 3 FOR ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS 12 9 AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS 21 1 DEFEATED Dated at Seattle, Washington, this 24th day of March 1989. JANE HAGUE, M. ager Division of Records and Elections . . Form E.47 King County Records and Elections Division Election Section 553 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296 -1565 STATE OF WASHINGTON) )SS. COUNTY OF KING ) PROPOSITION NO. 1 PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AREA KNOWN AS FOSTER TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA AGAINST ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS PROPOSITION NO. 2 ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS FOR ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS Dated at Seattle, Washington, this 24th day of March 1989. f ' 1, APR "" 31989 I This is to certify that on March 14,1989, there was held a Special Election in the area known as Foster, King County, Washington, for the submission to the voters for their approval or rejection of two propositions regarding annexation to the City of Tukwila; That the results of said elections were duly canvassed by the King County Canvassing Board of Election Retums on March 24, 1989; and the results of said canvass are as follows: FOR ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS 137 . CARRIED -. c 91 78 147 DEFEATED HAGUE, Manag ' Ditiision of Records and Elections ( June 7, 1989 Harry Sanders Department of Elections 553A Administration Building., RE:. CITY OP TUKWILA - Annex - FOSTER, (election method) Ordinance No. 1509 BRB File No. 1544 - K C Ordinance to. 8817 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 0Y: • 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 P cg f of Finance - Don Robinson City of Tukwila AUDREY GRUGER LOIS NORTH of4Stffitif" 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 CYNTHIA SULLIVAN RON SIMS GREG NICKELS District 2 District 5 District 8 Printed on recycled paper IIILL REAMS BRUCE LAING GARY GRANT District 3 District 6 District 9 CITY OF WASHING ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROP THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AR LAND USE REGULATIONS F PROVIDING THAT SAID ANN REQUIRED TO ASSUME ANY SH INDEBTEDNESS, AND ESTABLISHI WHEREAS, the City Council of the C as sufficient by the King County Prosecutin upon annexation of certain unincorporated WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the Ci tures on the petition were sufficient and fil City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council by R approved the proposed Foster annexation WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible offi Non - Significance, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1484 use regulations for the area to become effec WHEREAS, the King County Bound tion in File No. 1544, dated December 8, 19 WHEREAS, the City Council in Reso approved the proposed Foster annexation election date, and WHEREAS. pursuant to King County was held in the area proposed for annexati said election being that the voters approve zoning and land use regulations and reject indebtedness. and WHEREAS, the County Canvassin Canvass to the King County Council, and finding with regard thereto, and a certified --^^•lI be transmitted, along with the certifi and WHEREAS, the City Council has det annexation without requiring it to assume edness, ON so 9 KWIL M AY 22 F TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS A, ADOPTING ZONING AND R THE ANNEXED AREA, XED AREA SHALL NOT BE E OF THE CITY'S EXISTING G AN EFFECTIVE DATE. of Tukwila received a petition certified Attorney, calling for an election to vote erritory contiguous to the City, and of Tukwila determined that the signa- the Certificate of Sufficiency with the olution 1086, passed August 15, 1988, ea election- method annexation, and al for the City issued a Declaration of of RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340, the d 1485, providing for zoning and land ve upon annexation, and y Review Board approved the annexa- , and ution 1096, passed December 12, 1988, area election method and requested an ouncil Ordinance No. 8817, an election n on March 14, 1989, with the results of annexation together with the proposed d assumption of the City's outstanding Board will submit the Statement of the King County Council will enter its opy of the minutes reflecting such entry � hctrar -f nF the vote, to the c'itl_(:l.erk, rmined to annex the area proposed for ny portion of the City's existing indebt- NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY C . NCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLO S: Section 1. Annexation. The real , property known, as the Foster 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 re ations as adopted in City of Tukwila Ordinance Nos. 1484 and 1485 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. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH - INGTON, at a special meeting thereof this ,a7 g day of 2Uisig 1989. Air ,444 f► ce of the City Attorney Maxine' Anderson, City Clerk Filed with the City Clerk: .5 - 7- P'9 Passed by t h e City Council: . 3 • P 9 Published Valley Daily News: J - 31- ?? Effective Date: I - 6 - if Ordinance Number is0 9 APPROVED: FOSTER ANNEXATION ORDINANCE Page 2 L. Van Dusen, Mayor ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: A parcel of land situated in Sections 14, 15. and 23. T23N. R U.N. described as follows: HOMING at the intersection of the south line of the Cyrus C. Levis Donatios Claim No. 37 and the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Ave. S.); thence easterly alone said Donation Clete line extended to the vest line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condeened under superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of EL* $ CoobtY: thence northerly along the vest line of said Priaary State Highway No. 1 to the southeast margin of 47tb Avenue South (fornerly Adams Avenue) as shown oil Subdivision of Lots 7, 8. 9 of Fostoria Garden Tracts. as recorded in Volume 11 of plate, Page 76, Records of Kio$ County, WA; thence northeasterly along said southeast margin to the the 'southwest eargio of Interurban Avenue South (formerly Secondary State Righway No. 2M): thence southeasterly along said southwest .arts to the east line of Prieary State Highway No. 1 as coedeaned under Superior Court Cause No.598594; thence southwesterly and southerly alone said east lie* to the westerly extension of the south line of laud described in Statutory Warranty Deed as recorded under Auditor Tile No. 8408010506 records of Rins Cot:sty, VA: thence south 88 east along said westerly extension and said south lino. 334.18 feet to the most northerly corner of land described in Real Istate Contract recorded under King County Auditor file No. 8306070243: thence south 58 east alone the northeasterly line of said land a distance of 211.58 feet to the most easterly point thereof • and the northweiterly margin of 52ed Avenue South (Poster Street); thence north,29"10'00" east along said margin. 58.66 feet; thence south 6030'00" east. 17 feet to the centerline of 52nd Avenue South: thence Iheace coati:tutus aloes the present Tukwila City 3oundary north 29'30'00 20 feet; thence south 60'30 east, 17.5 feet to the southeast margin of • 52ad Amiss Semthl thence • smith 3t 03 west aloes said southeast •m:rain to the northedat uesgta et 53rd Avenue South: these, south 23:49 east, 189.97 feet: these. south 40'34 east to the southwest aargiu nE interurban Avenue South theace southeasterly along the Tukwila City Boundary and the southwest margin of Interurban Avelino South 530 feet more or :028 to the south line of a strip of lead described in deed recorded recorded October 3, 1955. under Auditor Pile No. 4E22E27. records of King Couety. VA: POST2R REV. JUNE 28. :988 - 7 • k . ' • =, .2.7° sr CD !C LU • Page 2 rhencasovihirSaterlt along said 'south line of the Kennington Tract 'y(11.86: knows *1 9outi Street) and theestension:theretot, 330 fest Sore Or 1ess to the southvesterly.:eargin of 56th Avenue Southv tbence :-cOntinuingsesterly along theiloutheargin of:: 1.17th. Street to: Mersin of South 130th Street; thane* -sOU'thvetterly, along said southeaSC,nargin of South 138th Street i , to the east merits :of 51ot AvenuaYSouth (formerly.knovn.."es _ _ Charles AYes .:...thance said east margii',A19 goer sore or less to . 'n'orth:eargiU-of South 139.th Street (formerly known as Orchard thenOveasterly !icing Said '_north aar5tn, 144 'feet; thenes •outb 00 00'29" veit, 33A : feet along 'the vest line of a parcel Cf lind annemet:undei ,TubVilaOrdinande ,1411, to tha-Cortb• block 1, Of COlegroves Acre TractS4'4. recorded in llolUmw-11,"'94ge 65 of'Plirs.record'is:of Rine' Comity. WAS t hence 'north 49°44 a Aistanceof 10 feet: thencei. SoUth2A9 Y-vaat, • 1,411;feet be Southerly H-HthereOft 89"41030"vesti':a diatende of 10.feeti . 0 _ '-:theite: smith 00 00,49f-vest, a distance of 77.97 feet: thence north 89 *asti131.94 feet to :.the centerline of 53rd . _ - • , thence southerly 41oes said ceaterlitie of 53rd Avenue South to the centerlinelof touth:14AthMtestv. t heace enstetly-along,aaid centerline 100,9eat more or less to the Citterlineof 53rd Avenue South (formerly:Orabas Avonue)S thanceaSutterly along said : centerline of 53rd Avenue South to its intersicti0* vith rho festAine .Primary State Righvay No. t. contiguous ' condemned under Superior Court Cause No 544364. thence-nOrtbetlyalong said east line to the north 'sessile of South 144th Street: theiCe iestsrly sloes' said north margin to the east margin of Pacific naive* louthH(Rishvay'99): "thence '-northerly :along said emit margin to the north margin of SOuth2139th Streatv', hence aesterly &loos said north margin of Smith 139th Street and the AlasterWprel•mgation thereof, telt* intersection with the vest :•line,adlLe“9 eUlloch 3 in Riverton ?facades road Tracts. recorded ierlblemS'15, Page 53 of Plats, RecOrds of King County. thence southerly atoms said vest line to the north .aria of South 139th'ltteet Cfora.rly Rill. Avenue); hence eastarly sloes 44i4 north margin to the vest margin of 46th , : a*sausHIoutsv tbescs northerly 'along Said vest margin and continuine along the ..irest'mariiii:,OVNacadtaAtoid.South to the south Line of the Cyrus C. tevis DonationCleit $o. 37 and the POINT 01 ISOIVEISO: line I 1111 1111111111 EXHIBIT B FOSTER LEGEND R -1 R -3 R -4 11 C -1 ❑ C -2 P -O RMH ❑ C -M ♦. AVMHZIH ANNEXATION ZONING PLAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7200 ® R-2 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS DISTRICT -LOW APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BUSINESS MULTIPLE - RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL PARK MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FOSTER 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. 1509 , which provides as follows: Annexes to the City of Tukwila the area described therein, known as the Foster 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 fora copy of the text. Approved by the City Council at its meeting of March 27, 1989. PUBLISH: Valley Daily News DATE: March 31, 1989 SENT: March 29, 1989C 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. 1509 ax n nderson, City 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 30 31 32 33 January 4, 1988 HDM /1867C ORDINANCE N0. Introduced by: SIMS Proposed No.: 89 -29 8817 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 Foster. STATEMENT OF FACT: 1. The City of Tukwila, Washington, by Resolution No. 1086 has determined that it is in the public interest,ihealth, safety and general welfare to provide for annexation of an area known as Foster 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. 1086 adopted August 15, 1988, concurs in the annexation of the area known as Foster 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 the 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 territory 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 337 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: NDM /1867C /Dec. 27, 1988 -2- A. Shall the area as described in this ordinance of unincorporated King County commonly known as Foster 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. Sha1 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 AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS SECTION 4. The boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation are hereby described as follows: A parcel of land situated in Sections 14, 15, and 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. 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. So.); 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, and 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 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; 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 . �n 31 32 33 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 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; 8817 Thence continuing along the present Tukwila City Boundary North 29 East, 20 feet; Thence South 50 East, 17.5 feet to the Southeast margin of 52nd Avenue South; Thence South 31 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 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 October 3, 1955, under Auditor File No. 4622227, Records of King County, WA; 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 Southwesterly margin of 56th Avenue South; Thence continuing Westerly along the South margin of South 137th Street to the Southeast margin of South 138th Street; Thence 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 HDM /1867C /Dec. 27,1988 -3- 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 33 8017 Thence South 00 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 East, a distance of 10 feet; Thence South 00 West, 148 feet to the Southerly line thereof; Thence South 89 West, a distance of 10 feet; Thence South 00 West, a distance of 77.97 feet; Thenc,e.North 89 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 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. HDM /1867C /Dec. 27, 1988 -4- 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 ATTEST: of O , 1988. PASSED this 4- 7 1 / 4 /%.' day of HDM/1867C/Jan. 4, 1988 -5 an SECTION 5. .The notice of election shall be published as 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 27 day KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING Cs NTY, WASHINGTON „AAN APPROVED this if d of 4.A.w 198T. 8817 , 1987. � MOM Minn MEI I lII X11 1111I101I 1111 ®" iMI GH w�V \ FOS7Eq 1 • 14 11111iirtnil N*, Nu FA! AV WISP 3 BIER MOS 1111 3A' EXHIBIT B FOSTER LEGEND CD R -1 R -3 R -4 • C -1 ❑ C -2 ® P -O RMH ❑ C -M - 4. ANNEXATION ZONING PLAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7200 g R -2 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS DISTRICT -LOW APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS MULTIPLE - RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL PARK AVMH•JIH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL • V .••••-• • -0 Z C) LJ► ANNEXATION TO COUNCIL DISTRICT 5 KING COUNTY ORD. NO. CITY ORD. NO. or DIST. RES. NO 1509 CITY OF TUKWILA (Foster) effective 4 -6 -d9 0 • FEB-07—'89 14:18 NORM MALENO PROSECUTINO ATTORNEY February 3, 1989 r ) : 1 1 , 5 C.TY REC.'S/ ELECTS TEL NO: 2C1G -296 O1 OS OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON •CIVIL DIVISION 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 -- imposed Annexation of the City of Tukwil E 3 550 G ropy Coi r.THO.1:u mg FEB + ` IE ATTIC \�A 5� i 9S104 (206) 296-9015 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: #593 FC12 "Shall the area of unincorporated King County contiguous to the City of Tukwila and known as Foster, and legally described in Resolution No. 1086 of the City of Tukwila and King County Ordinance No. 8817, 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 Foster and located in unincorporated King County adjacent to the City of Tukwila would become a part of the City of Tukwila. FEB-07-'89 14:18 1 D: K I NG C.TY RECS'ELECTS KMR:cr KEVIN M. RAYMOtID Deputy Prosecuting. Attorney TEL HO: 205-296-0108 In addition, the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan .designations and zoning regu- lations would apply to the entire Foster area. If you have any questions about the foregoing, please do not hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, For NORM M ALENG, King County Prosecuting Attorney: U59? P03 NORM MALENG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY February 3, 1989 L OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNE1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION 1989 FEB-3 PM a. 27 550 KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE 516 Twso Av!NUE SEATTLE, WA »HHNGTUN 98104 (206) 296 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 (Foster) 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 Foster 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. • FEE-07-'89 14:5 I D : K 1 146 CTl' PECS TEL N0 : 20E 296 0105 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." If you have any questions about the foregoing, please do not hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG, King County Prosecuting Attorney: )6044. KEVIN M. RAYMON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney KMR:cr ##594 P03 FEB-07-'89 14:19 ID: 1 :1 NG (TY PECS /ELECTS TEL NO: 205 -296 01 Ci3 ##593 PO4 ANNEXATION WILL IMPROVE FOSTER Years of neglect leave Foster facing tough issues. Will Foster continue to decline ea an under - served urban area with rising crime and industry forcing residents from their homes? Or will Foster residents take a stand against this neglect and become part of Tukwila, a city with the resources and commitment to solve these problems? ANNEXATION WILL INCREASE SERVICES AND LOWER TAXES Tukwila, with Southcenter and its commercial tax base, is a financially stable, well- managed city that will provide Foster residents with more services for less money: o Tukwila's property taxes on a $100,000 home are $47 -0127 less than in unincorporated King County. o Tukwila police respond to emergencies in 3 minutes. o Land use standards protect the community from inappropriate development, like warehouses next to single - family homes. o City council meetings are held in the community at night, encouraging citizen participation. o And, as a Tukwila resident, your voice will be 1 -in- 15,000, compared with 1- in- 1,000,000 in King County. FOSTER AND TUKWILA ARE ONE COMMUNITY Foster naturally belongs in Tukwila. Tukwila generously supports the Foster community and South Central schools through drug - education, crime - prevention, fire - safety, and senior- citizen programs. The ties between the communities are strong. Annexation is widely supported in Foster and is endorsed by the South Central School Board, South Central Advisory Council, Friends of Foster Library, and other groups in the annexation areas of Foster, Riverton, Thorndyke and Cascade View. ANNEXATION IS A BATTER OF SURVIVAL FOR FOSTER PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES VOTE YES ON ANNEXATION TO TUKWILA Prepared by the Foster Annexation Committee: Ron Lamb, Chair; Pam Carter, Secretary; Rena Shavver, Treasurer. f 9 A FEB -07 — 89 14:19 I D f" NG Q=TY PECS.-'ELECTS TEL NO : 2 i6 y -0109 I% 0 s 7Le. ,_ ZZ =11 VII 9 83J 6861 #693 P05 If we are striving for less government, lower taxes, less regulation and less hassle then we should stay as we are in unincorporated King County and vote NO to annexation. City of Tukwila says they Just want more bodies. What improvements have been offered by Tukwila? The people's rights will be restricted and limited if annexed: *Small city with small town politics. *Not listening to peoples wants or needs. *Loss of quality police service. Today's crime problems can be complex. We need continued specialists. *mayor of Tukwila says "City probably would start asking residents to °hare costs of future capital improvement projects" which means texas will increase. *Renters will not escape these costs. *Statements that we will be annexed into other cities if we do not vote yes. This is totally untrue. You have the right to remain in unincorporated King County. *Annexation is forever. King County has 570 officers. Tukwila has only 30 officers. Tukwila has only 3 or '4 officers out oh patrol; who covers our neighborhood if they are involved in a serious crime? King County can bring in officers from other areas, PLEASE VOTE NO TO TUKWILA ANNEXATION. Con'mitee: Foster /Anti — Tukwila Annexation t FILE NO. 1537: TUKWILA /Riverton FILE NO. 1538: TUKWILA /Thorndyke Washington State Boundary-Review For King County 3600 136th S. E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 That area generally bounded by: NOTICE OF HEARING FILES NO. 1523, 1537, 1538, 1544 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 15, 1988 (to be continued on Thursday, November 17th if required) at 7:00 P.M. in the Red Lion Inn, 18740 Pacific Highway So., Seattle, Washington, for the purpose of considering the proposed incorporation of a city to be known as Sea -Tac, and the proposed annexation of areas to the City of Tukwila known as Riverton, Thorndyke and Foster, all of said lands being in King County, Washington and generally described as follows: FILE NO. 1523: SEA -TAC INCORPORATION: That area generally bounded by: Des Moines Way So. and S.R. 509 on the West; So. 128th Street on the North; Kent and Tukwila City limits on the East; and Des Moines City limits on the South. Pacific Highway, So. (S.R. 99) on the West; The Duwamish River on the North; East Marginal Way and Tukwila City limits on the East; and So. 139th Street on the South. That area generally bounded by: Pacific Highway So. (S.R. 99) on the West; So. 144th Street on the North; Tukwila City limits on the East; and Tukwila City limits and So. 160th Street on the South. OCT 7 1988 FILE NO. 1544: TUKWILA /Foster That area generally bounded by: Pacific Highway So. (S.R.99) on the West; So. 139th Street and So. 136th St. on the North; Tukwila City limits on the East; and The eastern margin of 1-5 right-of-way and So. 144th Street on the South. A FULL AND COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EACH PROPOSAL MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD. AT SAID TIME AND PLACE, any and all persons may be heard with reference to any of the above proposals. DATED at Bellevue, Washington, this 1st day of October, 1988. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary �� City of Tukwila 0 2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 ; 1909 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor — — - -- ••=0 - • ••• — — _ •••0 — la — • • e • MS I J a r — a • • a mM eeO —• M, Date: November 4, 1988 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 ber ueeR 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 316 Third Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 1 206) 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. Sincerely, 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 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? 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? 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 c 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 Toss 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 Toss 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 OTHER ISSUES FOR NEGOTIATIONS incorporated and other legal issues need resolution. 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. 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 S:SEATAC 5 11/3/88 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. c 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 4�. r.. 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 luture 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 luture annexation areas and adopting interlocal agreements "should provide extensive opportunities tor 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 • 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 tor 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 O Notice of Public Hearing [[ Notice of Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet [] Short Subdivision Agenda Packet • Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ...«�v�wtvarhwrn AFFID(VIT OF DISTRIB� >ION I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: 0 Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non- significance J Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [[ Notice of Action 0 Official Notice � � Name of Project FOSTER ANNEX TASK FORCE ',44/,4e Signalere File Number 88 -3 —A aNMYSm..R�tCV2.(t7A%L 0 Other ANNFXATTf1N ROAfl IMPROVEMENT FOSTER & THORNDYKE O Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1988 , 19 (ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Mayor Gary Van Duse DATE: November 4, 1988 SUBJECT: FOSTER AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS During the Council's October 24, 1988 final deliberations on the zoning for these annexations, it became a concern of the Council. This in turn perhaps influenced the Council on zoning. This memorandum is some information to help clarify any confusion about road improvements that occurred on or subsequent to October 24, 1988. SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) is the basis of evaluating traffic impacts and requiring road improvement mitigation of those traffic impacts. Rezone, build- ing permit and Board of Architecture Review actions all include the SEPA process. SEPA evaluation is based upon the details included in those actions. Rezones feature only general information about uses, thereby making identification of spe- cific traffic impacts difficult to identify. Building permits and BAR actions have very specific site plan and building proposals that make traffic impacts easy to identify, document and mitigate. For these reasons, my opinion is that rezoning is more difficult and tenuous a pro- cess to dependably acquire road improvements related to development. Instead, the most reliable way to acquire those improvements is the BAR and/or building permit processes where specific and detailed development is known and capable of evaluation. SEPA requires accurate evaluation of development impacts. Staff adequately and conscientiously does that evaluation. In light of the time spent by the task forces and Planning Commission in recommending zoning for these areas and with the knowledge that the SEPA process can address the Council's concerns on the impacts of zoning in relation to street improvement requirements, it is recommended to zone property in the annexations according to your opinion of appropriate zoning and leave consideration of road improvements to the administrative SEPA process. The Planning Commission recommendation for the Foster area (Area 1, attached map) could therefore be zoned R -3 or PO and designated Office on the Comprehensive Plan. Area 1 is the best example in the annexations of the road improvement issue and resolution of the issue. Mayor Gary Van Dusen Council President Mabel Harris City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98185 Name 1 Cl/CUS Z pee-` dClit„ J t November 1, 1988 Dear Mayor Van Dusen and Council President Harris: We are residents and property owners in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation area and are in support of the comprehensive plan and zoning proposed for our area in our consultant Mr. Jack Lynch's letter of November 1 to Mayor Van Dusen and Council President Mabel Harris. Address 5306 S. /37 &era 1 414 / 353 5 3 4I/E- S0 . -S EAT/4e w4 5- (4 GP, , A- - 5 98.1,ed,th Z.e)L 5 1-i i�G cs' S'30c: S 0 /.3 7 tic a, ASAr- 17F - )5 to ZA,43-4/-ik4- e7 ji. J1001 N ACK LYN H A ASSOCIATES _ , .. BCoat S N Seattle, WA 96105 206 /632-8855 Planning Environmental Public Policy Community Development Mayor Gary Van Dusen Council President Mabel Harris City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98185 Dear Mayor Van Dusen and Council President Harris: November 1, 1988 I am representing property owners in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation (Attachment 1). Our interest is finding a solution to the Comprehensive Plan designation and pre- annexation zoning for the area that will work for both the City and the residents/ property owners. Since you have closed the public hearing and will be meeting on. November 7 on the pre- annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designation, this proposal is submitted for your consideration in arriving at final decisions. The City Planning Commission has recommended that Area 1 be given a comprehensive plan designation of office, that the zoning be professional and office (P -O), and that the City Zoning Code be amended to limit the maximum multi- family density to R -3 instead of RMH in the P -0 zone. Apparently the Council has taken preliminary action to assign a compre- hensive plan map designation of commercial and a pre- annexation zoning designation of R -1 to the properties in the area because of concern about more multi - family zoning and housing in Tukwila. With both the Council's preliminary comprehensive plan map designation of commercial and concern about more multi - family zoning and uses and the planning commission's recommendation for professional and office uses in mind, the following is proposed for your further consideration since the city zoning code does not contain an office and commercial zone nor office or commercial zones that do not include multi - family uses. Create a new zone designation of Commercial and Office (C -0) that would be numbered TMC 18.29 C -0 District -- Commercial and Office District (Attachment 2). This district would be similar to the P -0 and C -1 Districts in that offices and commercial uses would be allowed, as listed in 18.26 and 18.28 TMC, but would exclude the multi- family uses listed in the P -0 District. This would give the City a district that allows community retail business and professional and other offices to be applied in con- junction with other zoning designations to create a mix $:A.N161,1441.w:liRS..(;AV:- ls,'1w+v.0 anxn fi...�....w ......r.s..e. Page Two of office, retail and residential uses in an area or as transition between more intensive commercial uses, like C -2, and residential multi - family, which is the case of Area 1. The area has some commercial uses and a Metro Park and Ride lot (all zoned C -2) on the North side and high density multi - family (RMH use but R -3 zoning) to- gether with a City Park to the South (Attachment 1). Access to the area is via Interurban Avenue, an arterial street and Metro bus service is immediately available. These are facilities and services that are appropriate for commercial and office uses. This new zone designation would not affect other areas of the City that are already zoned P -0. The. Planning Commission pro- posal to amend the P -0 zone to limit multi- family densities would affect all properties zoned P -0. The Council may want to consider the amendment proposed by the Planning Commission but it would not be needed for the purpose of designating the appropriate pre- annexation zoning for Subarea 1 of Foster Annexation. The proposed C -0 zone would also give the City another zoning designation to apply to other areas of the City as conditions warrant. It is understood that the City Council could not adopt this new zone as an amendment to the Tukwila Muncipal Code on November 7. However, the Council could adopt pre- annexation zoning with the C -0 designation for Subarea 1 and indicate the intent to adopt an amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Code to create this new zoning designation. Area 1 will be represented at the November 7 Council meeting to answer any questions that you might have regarding this proposal. Your consideration of this request is appreciated. • Si c- ely, JLA:11 attachments cc: Members of Tukwila City Council Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Planning Director Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner Lynch and Associates AREA 1 METRO PARK AND RIDE . " Kw FOSTER ANNEXATION ISSUE AREA Attachment 1 STRANDER �. ANNEXATION n ' 4 Attachment 2 Title 18 ZONING Chapters: 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established - -Map 18.10 R -A District -- Agricultural 18.12 R -1 District -- Single - family Residence 18.14 R -2 District -- Two - family Residential 18.16 R -3 District- -Three and Four Family Dwellings 18.18 R -4 District- -Low Apartments 18.20 RMH District -- Multiple- residence High Density 18.26 P -0 District -- Professional and Office District 18.28 C -1 District--Community Retail Business 18.30 C -2 District -- Regional Retail Business 18.34 C -P District -- Planned Business Center 18.38 C -M District -- Industrial Park 18.40 M -1 District -- Light Industry 18.42 M -2 District- -Heavy Industry 18.44 Shoreline Zone 18.46 PP.D-- Planned Residential Development 18.48 PMUD-- Planned :Mixed -use Development 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Regulations 18.52 Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements 18.56 Off- street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 18.64 General Conditional Uses 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments 18.84 Requests For Changes in Zoning 18.88 Application Fes 18.90 Appeals 177T Public Notice of Hearing 18.96 Administration and Enforcement Page 231 231 232 247 250 251 253 254 256 257 259 260 ' 262 264 265 267 269 270 278 294 287 295 298 307 313 316 319 -1 319 -5 319-7 319 -8 319 -9 320 320 -1 320 -2 18.29 C -0 District -- Commercial and Office District 229 (Tukwila 3;32) Sections: 18.29.010 18.29.020 18.29.030 18.29.040 18.29.050 18.29.060 Chapter 18.29 C -0 DISTRICT -- COMMUNITY RETAIL AND OFFICE DISTRICT Purpose. Principally permitted uses. Accessory uses. Conditional uses. Height, yard and area regulations. Parking regulations. 18.29.010 Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide areas for limited commercial activities which serve the general surrounding community and for professional and adminis- trative offices. It is intended that this district shall serve as a buffer between residential districts and more intensive commercial and /or industrial areas. 18.29.020 Principally permitted uses. In the C -0 dis- trict, no building or land shall be used and no building shall be erected, altered, or enlarged, which is arranged, intended or designed for other than the following uses: (1) Community Retail Business Uses - (a) Artists' studios; (b) Bakery or pastry shops (retail only); (c) Banks; (d) Beauty or barber shops; (e) Bicycle repair shops; (f) Book or stationery stores; (g) Clinics, for people only; (h) Clothing or ready -to -wear stores; (i) Confectionery stores; (j) Dancing schools; (k) Drugstores; (1) Dry goods or notions stores; (m) Dyeing, dry cleaning or laundry collection offices; (n) Fix -it, radio or television repair shops; (o) Florists or gift shops; (p) Frozen food lockers for individual or family use; (q) Greenhouses or nurseries (commercial); (r) Grocery stores; (s) Hardware, fixture and appliance stores; (t) Ice cream stores; (u) Jewelry stores; (v) Launderettes, or self- service laundries; (w) Loan and finance companies; (x) Meat markets or delicatessens; (y) Music studios; (z) Office buildings; (aa) Photographic studios or shops; (bb) Plumbing shops (no tin work, nor outside storage); (cc) Public parking lots or garages for private passenger cars; (dd) Public parks and playgrounds, but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation; (ee) Restaurants or tea rooms (excluding drive -ins); (ff) Service stations not including engine or body repair work; (gg) Shoe stores and shoe repair shops; (hh) Tailor shops; (ii) Other retail business activities of a community character such as those enumerated above and not included in any other classification. (2) Professional and Related Office Uses - (a) Medical and dental offices; (b) Administrative, professional and business offices provided that no storage or warehousing of goods held for distribution for wholesale or retail sale shall occur on the premises; (c) Accredited or licensed schools and studios for education or self - improvement; (d) Administrative headquarters of professional associations and labor unions provided the building and premises are not intended for union membership meetings; (e) Governmental offices, but not including police and fire stations. 18.29.030 Accessory uses. Uses and structures that are customarily appurtenant to the principally permitted uses, such as: (1) Home occupations as defined in Chapter 18.06.360; (2) Incidental storage facilities. 18.29.040 Conditional uses. The following uses require a conditional use permit from the city as provided in Chapter 18.64: (1) Cocktail lounges when in association with a restau- rant facility; (2) Drive -in restaurants; (3) Taverns; (4) General conditional uses as specified in Chapter 18.64. 18.29.050 Height, yard and area regulations. In the C -0 district, the minimum dimensions of lots and yards and maximum height of buildings shall be the same as those specified for C -1 in Chapter 18.50. 18.29.060 Parking regulations. Parking regulations shall be as provided in Chapter 18.56. I, JOANNE JOHNSON AFFIDAVIT O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [� Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: was mailed to each of the following addresses on (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested. Parties) O Determination of Nonsignificance • Mitigated Determination of Non- significance [J Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [ Notice of Action O Official Notice Da Other ANNFXATinN UPDATE STATUS REPORT • Other MONDAY, f(TfRFR 31, 1988 , 19 Name of Project REGISTERED VOTORS FOR RIVERTON, THORNDYKE & FOSTER ANNEXATION Signat AREAS File Number 88 -1 -A, 88 -3 -A, 88 -4-A CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 ANNEXATION UPDATE Status Report In response to the annexation petitions signed by residents in your area, the City of Tukwila has approved the election method annexations requested in the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke annexation petitions. The King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) will hold a public hearing on the proposed annexations and on the proposed City of Sea -Tac Incorporation. Since these three annexation areas are also included in the proposed City of Sea -Tac incorporation, the BRB will determine whether these three annexations should be included in Sea - Tac or Tukwila. The BRB hearing will be held: WHERE: Red Lion Inn - Universe One Room 18740 Pacific Highway South WHEN: Tuesday - November 15, 1988 TIME: 7 :00 p.m. If the BRB approves the annexations to Tukwila, the King County Council must pass an ordinance calling for an annexation election. The election date will depend on when the County passes its ordinance. December 23, 1988 is the deadline set by Records and Elections for a special election on February 7, 1989. A simple majority of those voting must vote 'yes' for annexation to Tukwila. Tukwila will provide information and answer questions about the BRB hearing and about annexation at an information meeting, to be held: WHERE: Foster High School Cafeteria South 144th Street and 42nd Avenue South WHEN: Thursday - November 10, 1988 TIME: 7 :00 p.m. Many questions have been raised since Tukwila published its March 1988 "Question and Answer" brochure. We have therefore provided some additional quick updates and a map for you. If you have not received a March 1988 handout which has more detailed information on taxes, septic systems, parks, etc., please call the Planning Department at 433 -1849 and request a copy. Zoning: The Tukwila City Council has or will have adopted pre - annexation zoning for all three annexations. Please call the Planning Department at 433 -1849 for a copy. Utilities: No change in garbage, electric, water or sewer service is anticipated or • proposed. Your current service provider and rates do not change with annexation to Tukwila. Taxes: Property taxes in the City of Tukwila are now slightly lower than in King County. For example, on a S100,000 home, the property tax in Tukwila is $47-$127 Tess annually, depending on whether existing City bonded indebtedness is assumed and on your current tax rate for school and fire districts. Finance: King County - 296-7300 Tukwila - 433 -1839 Police: 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. Police: King County - 433 -2000 Tukwila - 433 -1815 Fire: Upon annexation of all three areas, the City of Tukwila will negotiate with Fire District 11 for Tukwila fire service from the fire station located on South 144th Street. Fire: King County - 243 -0330 Tukwila 433 -1859 Libraries: Tukwila contracts with the King County Library District for services. Discussions with the District are underway to ensure no change In library services at Foster Library. King County library District - 684 -6606 Schools: The South Central School District operates independently. Annexation does not affect the boundaries of school districts, which school a child will attend, or the District's levy rate. South Central School District - 244 -2100 Postal Service: Your mailing address and zip code will not change with annexation. You may use Tukwila instead of Seattle as place of residence. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 NOt 1INV.'i1_,. TO fORWA .D RETURPI TO WRITER SUMMARY Sea -Tac Incorporation Boundary - Includes Thorndyke, Foster and Riverton Annexation Areas FIRE DISTRICT 1 ANNEXATION RIVERTON ANNEXATION FOSTER ANNEXATION THORNDYKE ANNEXATION JOANNE JOHNSON Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of. Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [[ Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision. Agenda Packet A F F I D O I T O F D I S T R I B( I O N (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project FOSTER ANNEXATION File Number TASK FORCE MEMBERS 88-3—A hereby declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and.Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice O Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY. OCTOBER 13, 1988 , 19 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Subject: PRE- ANNEXATION ZONING Dear Foster /Thorndyke Task Force Members: October 11, 1988 I would like to remind you that the Tukwila City Council will be holding one more public hearing concerning the Foster/Thorndyke annexations on October 17, 1988 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at Tuk- wila City Hall. I also want to make you aware that the Tukwila City Council has direct- ed Planning staff to prepare a revision to the Zoning Code that would not allow multi - family uses in the Office, Commercial and Industrial zones. The Zoning Code currently allows apartments as a permitted use in the Office, Commercial and Industrial zones. The City Council is con- cerned that if an area is inappropriate for residential uses, residential uses should not be permitted. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the proposed revision in December and the City Council in January. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call Moira Carr Bradshaw (433 -1848) or Jack Pace (433 -1847) of my office. LRB /sjn L. Rick Beeler Planning Director -' iBeni. AWIttaVA7. 01WfaM 4, n. r .,,ou«rn u a,.r orre. aaecw.,. a�a ..m�......,...�.wr..«nw. P.:CN. FOSTER ISLAND 10/11/88 A parcel of land situate in the southwest 1/4 of Section 14, T23N, R4E, W.M.► more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a POINT being the intersection of the centerline of 53rd Avenue South with the centerline of South 139th Street (Also known as the north line of Colegrove's Acres Tracts as recorded in Volume 11, Page 85 of Plats, Records of King County, WA); thence easterly along said centerline of South 139th Street as platted in Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 24, Records of King County, WA, 512.8 feet to a point that is 1069.80 feet east of the west line of said Se 14; thence North 45'49'00" West, 39.53 feet; thence North 45 ° 00'00" West, 323.74 feet; thence West, 276.08 feet to the westerly margin of 53rd Avenue South; thence South 00 ° 31'18" East along said westerly margin and the southerly extension thereof to the centerline of South 139th Street (f Orchard Avenue); thence North 89'41'18" East, 20 feet along the said center- line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. •". ....a■-.7'.••i,:l'ir.,'::',11:.•:•.::,•'+':i.:1',..•:;;;::``.'..:6'.';'.'Z'';•:;;...:•:t.IS.•,..;;,.;VP',?.::15:s....'1,1:t.:..•,..:;.;;...,:,.C.:,■••,.'.....-.:';;} ,•,,,'2..n(T.T.1:,••.. .": ‘.-::!,%'..;......;7,ic'f'::":1:Ta...V:r.:!.....:'.....:';';.','''. '...•-)':'!'j".:''',,,irl'"):A.7':3.:',::•'Pl,':•■'''''.'''''ri:fo''': • 0 .-.. ''. .D • ••e••,..: ,. .../ • 4 304 7 6s. ' oLp "i ' ' ..7‘ ..S. ..0 0 1,• ‘L, ...r ...* ." cl 1 GUE 0 I - • e 4 • ; \ \ \ • \ ..- / ....-1" c" ct- t .. 0,5 e .e. ' ... t e/ 4 il• tt• •ro • t- ca 1 '''' "... ib. • ...,•• <2 ...`. .. / / * \ c cz,,, / \; ■ - k/ / .... \ ' \ N\ s ..., \ \ ).75•Ac. SCH. DIST. 144 SA: . L. /2 /8102 SCH DIST. 144 1.47 Ac f: 28 / j. F. D.C. • 0.56 Ac. 2 f. .1.9 /418 41101/16 PIC inctra1111111111111•I 10111-111111.r31 //,9 /0750 _ .- (_ 1 1 F 12 •C SRD.C.7.l./ I 1;t.■ 7 J S.F.O.0 . 5615 1,r) -re." :7177 5, 2.50 ee 6° 7.L 20 a /8 64? 5 0 r i;e2 k ‘ 00 rt.? h 64.5 1 4.5 D.0 0.. 0 . '0 c. cr, J F.0 C TL 23 rL /0 26 3 417..9 a 7• 32 es a, 7.1 2 NI 4 ALBERT E /es e October 10, 1988 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE OLD BUSINESS Briefing on the. fiscal impact of annex- ;i ..Fo.ster &:; Thorndyke : area annexations. Res. #1090, approving a modified Fire Dist. #1 annexation area election method annex- ation. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall SPECIAL MEETING. Council Chambers M I N U T E S Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting to order and led the Councilmembers and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS L. ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), John Colgrove (City Attorney), Alan Doerschel (Finance Director), Ross Earnst (Public Works Director), John McFarland (City Administrator), Robert McQueen (Assistant Police Chief), Nick Olivas (Assistant Fire Chief), Viki Witschger (Personnel Officer). John McFarland, City Administrator, reviewed the background of the Fire District #1, Foster /Riverton /Thorndyke annexation areas. The estimates were derived from the EIS completed on the Fire District #1 proposal, conversations with King County, and the development of a series of assumptions relating to the provision of services by the City. The analyses were based on assumptions which will influence the levels of service and the anticipated expenditures related to the two areas. The assumptions of the projected revenues have a high degree of reliability. Estimated expenditures contain more variables and are not as accurate as the revenue projections. Split levels of service between the existing incorporated areas and any newly annexed area, are not acceptable as a general policy. Citizen requests for service and assistance will increase upon annexation to the city. The infrastructure in the areas under consideration have not been maintained to City standards by King County. Staff specialization and decentralization of services will likely occur. Problem solving and legislative issues will be more complex. Liability exposures and coverages will increase. An increase in the importance of the city's role in regional issues will occur. No large new commercial developments are planned for any of the areas under consideration. There are a number of "unknown" factors associated with the annexations that will influence the estimated expenditures. The definition of the three levels of service was explained. Other issues that need to be revisited in considering the merits of either or both of the proposals would be: a phase -in period will be required if either annexation is successful. This will allow for necessary time needed to staff, train, and equip the organization to meet expanded service delivery area; current posture of King County in regard to cooperation during transition period is not encouraging; Protracted administrative and perhaps legal actions will likely ensure; revenue shortfalls can be addressed through reduction in services or through alternative financing sources; certain programs identified by individual departments, such as storm water and permitting, will generate revenue that should assist in off - setting anticipated expenditures. Corresponding adjustments will need to be made in the revenue projections to take this into consideration. Stuart Garnett, audience, asked if the bridge will generate money revenues for the City? Alan Doerschel, Finance Director, said not unless the City puts a toll on the birdge. Mr. Garnett, audience, stated with the amount of business in Fire District #1 there should be increase in revenue. The Fire District pays its own way. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT RESOLUTION #1090 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney John Colgrove read by title only a resolution of the City of Tukwila, Washington, approving a modified fire ADJOURNMENT 7:54 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIh. MEETING MINUTES October 10, 1988 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS - Contd. Res. #1090, approving a modified F. 0. #1 annexation area elec- tion method annexation -- contd. protection District #1 annexation area election method annexation. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. * Council President Harris asked if administration had met with the County and if there was any more news. Mayor Van Dusen said there is nothing new to report. Councilperson Stoknes said from the people point of view the Council is very positive about this. The bridge is the question mark. The financial aspect is overwhelming. Councilmember Moriwaki said he is looking forward to the annexation. It is an area that will likely develop and change from industrial to retail. It is a good move for the City of Tukwila to annex. Council President Harris stated she agreed with Councilmember Moriwaki. The bridge is an unknown factor. Councilmember Duffie stated he is in favor of the resolution. Councilmember Bauch commented that most of the discussion has been financial. If there is impact it will be on the people of the City who pay the taxes. There will have to be an adjustment on the rates and the business people will pay that. None of the businesses have been represented here. Councilmember Hernandez said the City has been reviewing figures and they have been astounding. We have not solved the problem of the bridge and what the cost - sharing will be with the County. Councilmember Robertson said the bridge is a concern. There have been fears and concerns. He felt sure the issue of the bridge could be resolved with the County. Also a concern has been as to how fast the City could grow. The staff is competent and will rise to the challenge. He stated he was in favor of the annexation. Councilmember Stoknes said her concern was the fire and police service and the people who might be in need of help. This concern was for the citizens of Tukwila as well as the annexation areas. Stuart Garnett, audience, stated Fire District #1 is coming to the City with almost $1 million. They have goo equipment and a new aid car. The Fire District will carry their own weight. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen N rrma Booher, Recording Secretary iii`k1D4'dti.s�RexMatcvwv.x a...: I, JOANNE JOHNSON Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting EI Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [i Planning Commission Agenda Packet [I Short Subdivision Agenda Packet (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project FOSTER ANNEXATION File Number 8 -3 —A .r....nar AFFI.CAVIT OF DISTRI UTION hereby declare that: "1?M' nut.. M1`rette TfM wNN:w ,'a 4 , 4% O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice Ei Notice of Application for [] Other Shoreline Management Permit [[ Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 , 19 GLV /sjn City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. Vanousen Mayor PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE October 4, 1988 Dear Residents and Property Owners: This Public Notice is to remind you that the Tukwila City Council will be holding their second public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the Foster annexation area. On the back of this notice is the proposed zoning recommended to the City Council by the Tukwila Planning Commission. 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. City of Tukwila PUNNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98188 (206) 433-1849 FOSTER ANNEXATION CITY COUNCIL HEARING Monday - October 17, 1988 7 :00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City. Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Sincerely, G . L. Van Dusen Mayor 1 FOSTER ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING FA R-4 c-, C-2 -11 P-0 S RMH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY T INDUSTRIAL PARK .... • .......... AS AMENDED BY THE TUKWILA PLANNING • . • TO: JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF TUKWILA FROM: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary GBM /pr Ends. Notice of Hearing Rev. 7.21.87 (OCT 7 1988 Washington State Bouna -= Review, Board For King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 October 4, 1988 IN RE: NOTICE OF HEARING FILE NO. 1523, 1537, 1538, 1544 CITY OF SEA TAC, Proposed Incorporation; CITY OF TUKWILA, Proposed Annexations of Riverton, Thorndike, and Foste As you know, the above- referenced proposal was Fi led by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County effective April 4, July 19, August 17. At the meeting of the Board held August 24, 1988 this proposed action was discussed. Subsequently, a Request for Review was executed pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(1) or (2). ( k: tiNn. fli:'$ y+ �fN: fYHU' 1'<:'. r. arn. u.......... w.... �.................... w........ o- r.. �......» u.........,,, v�.. u. �. ww. ru......+....... ..r+...,wr.a.wes,....iw✓rw +.«wr ...+... w.. w. r.. w.. w... �...,.wn...r_.�.- .- ..- ._......� r • Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600136th S. E., Suite 122 Bellevue, W4 98006 ie levihm (206; 296 -7096 TO: THE HON. GARY VAN DUSEN, Mayor City of Tukwila BARBARA BLAKE, Chair Citizens for Controlled Taxation and Improved Services FM: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary RE: PROCEDURES FOR THE NOVEMBER 15 & 17th PUBLIC HEARINGS: FILE NO. 1523 - CITY OF SEA -TAC: Incorporation FILE NO. 1537 - CITY OF TUKWILA: Riverton Annexation FILE NO. 1538 - CITY OF TUKWILA: Thorndyke Annexation FILE NO. 1544 - CITY OF TUKWILA: Foster Annexation It is expected that the Board will discuss the hearing procedure at its regular meeting on October 13th and finalize the procedure on November 10th. Comments will be accepted until the November 10th meeting, but they would be more helpful if received by October 13th. The following format is suggested for discussion purposes. Both hearings will be held at the Sea -Tac Red Lion, 18740 Pacific Highway South. GENERAL RULES GUIDELINES September 29, 1988 1. Exhibits should be marked for entry prior to 7:00 P.M. each hearing night. 2. The City and Incorporation Committee can organize their presentation and order of speakers as they wish. 3. All witnesses must announce their names for the Court Reporter. 4. No questions may be directed to the Board except on procedural matters, which should be directed to the Chair. 5. Board members may direct questions to the RECEIVED 0 0l. 0 3 1988 & tia:A�^ni. F:i MEMORANDUM: Hearing Procedures Page Two witness after being recognized by the Chair. Questions generally will be held until the speaker has finished his testimony. 6. When referring to exhibits, speakers must refer to the assigned exhibit letter. 7. The Board will provide a podium and public address system. Each group is responsible for its own exhibits and any equipment needed, (e.g., easels, projectors, screens, etc.) Exhibits may be no larger than 48" x 60" unless the speaker agrees to deliver same to the BRB Office. If the hearing is continued until November 17th, speakers will retain possession of their exhibits in the interim and will be required to produce them at the continued hearing. 8. Cross- examination will not be allowed, nor will direct questions from the floor. However, if the City and Committee agree, written questions could be accepted from citizens for response by proponents during or at the end of their presentations. 9. Each rebuttal point must be preceded by a summary of the fact or statement which is to be rebutted. No closing statement or comment will be allowed. 10. There should be a consensus prior to the hearing of what procedure should be followed if a group's presentation extends past the allotted time. Some possibilities include: = Five minute warning announcement and prompt ending at allotted time; or - Allow excess time for the group(s), and reduce the time for individual presentations; or - End promptly and allow more time on second hearing night (if hearing continued). Tuesday ., November 15th 6:50 P.M. Sign -in 7 :00 P.M. Chair convenes hearing: A. Explains purpose of hearing and procedures the Board desires to follow B. Asks that Exhibits be entered C. Asks that Witnesses be sworn in. D. Sign -in Period for November 15th ends. MEMORANDUM: Hearing Procedures Page Three 7 :15 P.M. 8:10 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 9:20 P.M. 9:25 P.M. 9:35 P.M. Sea -Tac Incorporation Presentation: 55 Minutes Break City of Tukwila Presentation: 60 Minutes (This includes 5 minutes for rebuttal) Sea -Tac Rebuttal: 5 Min. Break Citizen Comments: taken in order of signing in. Organized groups: 10 Minutes Individuals: 3 Minutes Time will be kept by Executive Secretary or will announce end of each speaker's allowance with a one - minute warning. 11:00 P.M. Hearing Closed or continued to November 17th. if closed, the Chair announces procedures, i. must make a decision in writing within 40 days of closing the hearing. If continued, the Chair announces, date, time continued hearing, with procedures and format to Thursday, November 17th 6:45 P.M. Sign -in (new speakers only) 7:00 P.M. Chair reconvenes hearing 7 :15 P.M. Citizen Comments Counsel, who to the Chair, e., the Board from the date and place of be followed. 1. Explains purpose of Hearing and Procedures to be Used 2. Asks that any new exhibits be entered 3. Asks for new witnesses to be sworn in 4. End of sign -in period for November 17th 4 TO: JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF TUKWILA FROM: PAULA ANNE RUSSELL, Mm. Asst. IN RE: NOTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FILING FILE NO. 1544 CITY OF TUKWILA Annexation (Foster) Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone_f206) 296 -709 September 21, 1988 SEP 2 21988 The Notice of Intention transmitted to this office is now acceptable for filing and has been filed effective August 17, 1988 and assigned File No. 1544 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 August 17, 1988 Any revisions to the legal description subsequent to that date must be incorporated in your final ordinance /resolution filed with the King County Council. PAR Ref. 9.30 CC: Clerk of the Council, ATTN: Helene Mociulski Dept. of Public Works, ATTN: Rex Knight Dept. of Assessments, ATTN: Diane Murdock Dept. of Parks, Planning and Resources - ATTN: Mr. James C. Tracy J0ANNF ,JOHNSON a Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet (7) PLANNING COMMISSIONERS File Number MOIRA BRADSHAW JACK PACE RICK BEELER MAYOR JOANNE JOHNSON (Interested Parties) A F F C A V I T O F D I S T R I L A T I O N Q Notice of Application for El Other Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project FOSTER ANNEXATION hereby declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [] Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action El Official Notice FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1988 , 19 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Coplen, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Kirsop, Nagger- ton, Knudson, Verhalen, Cagle and Hamilton. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. Mr. Coplen explained the public hearing procedure, as well as the annexation process. 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA FOSTER ANNEXATION - Request for: 1. Pre - annexation zoning for the Foster area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and various maps depicting the Foster annexation area. He further reviewed the hearing process, as well as the annexation process. Mr. David Whitlow, 5408 153rd Pl. S.E., Bellevue, WA, pointed out his property as being located in Area #1. He felt his property is not conducive to Single Family zoning and favored a PO zoning designation. He indicated he would suffer unfair economic impacts with a Single Family zoning designation. Ron Lamb, 4251 S. 139th, spoke as a member of the Task Force representing a number of citizens in the annexation area. He read a letter submitted to the Planning Commission which outlined a number of land use issues the Task Force attempted to resolve in the annexation area. This letter is on file in the Planning Department. He favored design review process for multi - family development. Lawrence Hopper, 5105 S. 136th, pointed out his property which is located in Area 1. He spoke in favor of multi - family use rather than a PO designation in order to maintain the residential quality of the neighborhood. Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page 2 Larry Howe, 13568 - 139th S.E., Renton pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favored a multi - family zoning designation for that area and felt to zone it single - family would be down - zoning it and would result in the property being unmar- ketable. Terri Craig, 5306 S. 137th, pointed out her property on the map. She favored a PO zoning designation for this area, and if cascading zoning is eliminated, she prefers no less than R -4. She felt that the roads in the area cannot support multi - family. She stated that 90% of persons polled in the area favored P0. Regarding a single - family designation, she felt it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single family in this area. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th, a member of the Task Force, favored design review for multi - family development which would protect single family residents from impacts of this type of development. Regarding cascade zoning, she supported making the recommended change for cascade zoning in the PO designation. She expressed a concern regarding impacts of increased traffic resulting from more intensive development, which would occur on streets that are at a maximum efficiency now. Jeff Bowman, 18014 N.E. 125, Redmond, pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favors multi - family zoning. He felt this property is not conducive to single- family zoning and further, it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single - family in that area. Joan Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, represented Eleanor Whitmore at 14006 McAdam. She stated that Ms. Whitmore favored preserving her property single - family residential while she is still living, but she would not object to some kind of business designation in the long -range plan for this area. She expressed a concern regarding the surface water that accumulates on her property from nearby development. Rayble Vomenici, 4822 S. 138th Street, he favored M -1 zoning, not R -1, for the area between McAdam Road and I -5. Nancy Lamb, 4251 S. 139th felt that R -4 or RMH designations would have a negative impact to the South Central School District providing a more transient student population. She felt that it would also have a negative impacts on other city services and further, it would not enhance Tukwila. She concurred with earlier comments regarding PO with R -3 and below usage permitted. She supported design review for multi - family development. Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page 3 Joanne Poirier, 13405 42nd Avenue S. spoke in general regarding the inadvisability of single family zoning in some areas that are not conducive to single family living. She favored the ability to rezone property. Eva Painter, 13526 - 53rd S. owns property located in Area #1. She spoke in support of PO zoning in view of the fact she feels it is impossible to sell her property as residential. The public hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Coplen expressed his thanks for those who testified and explained the Planning Commission would come to a decision at their meeting on September 8, 1988. A five minute recess was called and the meeting resumed at 9:25 p.m. to consider the Thorndyke Annexation. 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA - THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Request for: 1. Pre - annexation zoning for the Thorndyke area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the Thorndyke Annexation staff report, entering it as Exhibit I. She referred to the Designation Comparison map of the Thorndyke area which was entered into the record as Exhibit II and the Comparison of Hlghline Comp. Plan with Proposed Tukwila Comp Land Use Plan which was entered into the record as Exhibit III. Steve Oatsmith, 7213 - 240th S.E., Woodenville, pointed out the location of his property which is located in Area 8. He favored retaining cascading zoning in PO if the streets are able to handle the impacts. Steve Lawrence, 4461 S. 144th spoke in favor of PO but not the RMH of cascading zoning. He spoke in opposition to apartments as it would adversely impact schools, lower the quality of neighbor- hoods. Ed Jackson, 4727 S. 144th, expressed his concern regarding the traffic on 144th. He favored preserving a single family quality of life. Al Pachucki, 3725 S. 150th, spoke in support of low density, not medium density. He was generally in favor of the annexation. Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page 4 Curt Drake, 4444 S. 146th, expressed a concern regarding the likelihood of having to accept the obligations of the Fire District. He supported the current R -1 zoning. Vern Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, a member of the Task Force concurred with PO zoning designation but not to include cascading zoning. He favored a zoning change to anything but R -1 or R -2. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. A meeting was scheduled for September 8, 1988 at which time the Planning Commission will come to a decision on the two annexation requests. Mr. Coplen explained that written testimony would be accepted up until 5:00 p.m. Friday, September 2, 1988. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson Secretary Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Commission Members: 5408 - 153rd PI. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 September 1, 1988 I was the first speaker at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Foster and Thorndike Annexations on August 30, 1988. Just before the meeting, Mr. Jack Pace gave me a copy of the letter by Mr. Ronald A. Lamb to the Planning Commission. I am writing this letter as a rebuttal to the claims made in this letter. My first objection is his categorization of the people who attended the Foster Task Force meetings (first para., second sentence) as "On the one side were those who generally favor high density multiple family zoning in a number of areas, particularly in areas where they own property. On the other side were those of us who favor preservation of our single - family residential neighborhoods." This bit of political nonsense was aptly refuted by the testimony of the little lady who had lived in this area for 35 years and *uld not sell her property because of the apartment congestion and freeway noise surrounding her property. The point of view of hers and others in the area is that they are completely in favor of preserving single - family neighbor- hoods and always have been, but that is impossible in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation. Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter to Jack Pace (Aug. 16, 1988) by myself in which I carefully put down my version of the background and nature of the zoning problem in the Foster Annexation area. I have deleted portions of the letter describing the inner struggles of the Task Force in trying to reach a consensus. Please read my letter at this point. Since that letter was written, the Staff Report to the Planning Commission prepared August 25, 1988 has proposed zoning code amendments in which R -3 zoning would be the high- est level apartment zoning permitted in a P -O zone. Let me put in perspective what this change will do in real life rather than in someone's narrow view. I invite members of the Planning Commission to drive down through Area 1 and ask them- selves if this is what they want this area to continue to remain for the foreseeable future. Notice that coming south on 1 -5 or Interurban Ave., this land gives the first impression of Tukwila. Think of what would be the best possible change to make this area as attractive as the area around the Tukwila City Hall visible coming from the south. -1- I believe a first class business park in which the entire Area 1 is integrated by a single plan is what is really required. If you let amateurs promote a little apartment here and a little business there you will get a junky combination that will not be the best for Tukwila and will extend the time and risks to the present owners. In order to effect the big change quickly, before we all die of old age (I am 67 years old) the zoning must be such as to attract the big developer with resources to do the whole job. It would seem that he should have the choice of the best mix of offices and apartments that will give the best return for his investment. If you remove RMH from his options, you reduce the chances of getting a really qualified buyer. At R -3, you can be assured that nobody will buy and the area will not change. Let me return to the pious but mistaken views from Ron Lamb's testimony. The Tukwila school problem stems from there being already 1,100 apartment units in Tukwila and there must have been a good reason for having them. Surely, they must contribute to their share of the costs to Tukwila. Ron Lamb continually mixes up generalities with specifics on what is best for Tukwila overall. In a worst and unlikely case scenario, even if Area 1 went all apartments, it would have a negligible effect on the school system since the area is so small. As my letter points out and I thought the Task Forces were accomplishing, the City of Tukwila, in the face of lessened revenues from Southcenter, must carefully look at each and every annexation source of revenue that have the least disturbance to and indeed support the continuing quality of life in Tukwila. I believe that the P -O zoning, including the RMH zoning, does exactly that in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation. DHW /jj Attachment cc: Gary Van Duzer, Mayor of Tukwila Rick ice; Chief Planner C l . i C w /attachment Sincerely, : J Cam-' -c:' David H. Whitlow P.S. Ron Lamb would have you burn down your beautiful City Hall and go back to the old one on top of the hill since we positively, absolutely want no change in the Tukwila that used to be. Mr. Jack P. Pace Senior Planner, Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: Background 5408 153rd Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 August 16, 1988 I would like to put down for the record my version of the background and nature of the zoning problem in the Foster Annexation area and how the activities of the Task Force relate to them. Residences of Tukwila since its inception have enjoyed a way of life and form of government more reminiscent of the classic American small town in the midst of the Seattle Metropolitan maelstrom surrounding them. In more recent years they have been blessed by having the Southoenter tax base to support a sound City government and help finance the services the City supplies. The local citizens like their life style and rarely leave. They like their volunteer form of government and their friends and neighbors join in holding offices in their City government to help run the City. There is a feeling of community that these citizens share and the impression that they care about each other and would go out of their way to help each other and their City. In understanding the requirement for a balance between the need to continue to provide the revenue to keep the City financially sound and still protect the basic essence of the single family community, The City Council has wisely allowed a diversity of zoning, but only where appropriate. Where there is a highway or a high density shopping center there is an appropriate buffer zone of apartments between the commercial area and the single family residences. The southern hillside facing Southcenter is zoned all apartments as are most of the areas immediately adjacent to the I -5 highway at the southwest corner. Again, where appropriate, like along Interurban Avenue, the zoning is largely commercial. It is recognized by.the City Council that there is a basic danger of losing the Tukwila way -of -life in granting too much apartment development, as apartment dwellers do not consider themselves as permanent members of the City and do not typically concern themselves with City problems. For this reason, the Tukwila City Council has always maintained a cautious attitude towards allowing further apartment development, while still recognizing that certain lands, because of location and topography are only suitable for apartments. Changes in Revenue Sources A new consideration in Tukwila Planning has surfaced in the possible repeal of the Washington State Sales Tax thereby threatening the Tukwila Southcenter Tax Base. Anticipating this problem, the City of Tukwila has launched a large program of annexation of other properties to broaden its tax base. I submit that with the possible loss of Southcenter revenue, the economic reality is that mere annexation is not enough to solve the economic shortfall. The new lands must have a higher proportion of income property than the present mix or either bankruptcy or a lesser capacity to provide city services per capita are the inevitable alternatives. While the city had Southcenter, it did not have to consider as seriously the economic impact of zoning changes, so more emphasis could be put on political and social considerations. This luxury may no longer be available and it will be very important to consider how best to develop the revenue potential of the new areas. This, of course, involves consideration of the emerging business growth trends in the Seattle Metropolitan area. The emphasis will have to be on careful scrutiny of those changes that will produce the most revenue for the least disruption of the traditional Tukwila family way -of -life. These observation must be obvious to the Tukwila Planning Department and it was welcome news that they had formed Citizen's Task Forces to study the problem in each new annexation area. As you know, I joined with considerable interest the Foster Annexation Task Force and have attended all the meetings which were held on July 13, July 19, and August 2, 1988. -2- The People and The Area Foster Annexation Task Force Report Of interest, first of all, is the people who attended the meetings. It is important to observe that to get people to volunteer to attend after hours meetings on their own time requires that the individual is particularly concerned about his or her welfare in a serious way. As could be expected, attendees at these meetings were divided into two factions: 1) those living to the West of the 1 -5 freeway, which will henceforth be called Westsiders and their area the Westside of the Foster Annexation Area. 2) those living to the East of the I -5 freeway who will be called Eastsiders and their area the Eastside. There was about an equal number from each side, but with completely opposite concerns or points of view. Again, this could be expected as the areas are also completely different in character. The Westside is a large area measured in square miles in size and is very appropriately largely zoned single family. Protected by its size and topography, adequate buffer zones from the I -5 freeway and Highway 99 can be provided. These residents were very concerned about retaining the Tukwila single family way of life and fought block by block to have the lowest possible zoning everywhere. The Eastside is a tiny area, perhaps 10 acres in size and roughly triangular in shape. It is bounded on the West by the 1 -5 freeway, on the East by Interurban Avenue and the Metro Park and Ride; and on the South by the Terrace Apartments and Foster Park. It is impossible for the single family residence to have any kind of an apartment buffer zone because the area is so small that there is no room to surround the single family area with apartments. The noise and pollution from the freeway and the traffic from the Terrace Apartments (and even some new apartments) has made this area unlivable as a single family area and virtually unsaleable as no person in his right mind would buy this property with the hope of improving it enough to convert it into a decent single family area. The single family -3- residences in the area feel trapped and desperately want to move out, but cannot afford it. Most are elderly and few have the economic means and know how to promote a change: Most of them innocently bought their property before the freeway was built hoping for just a quiet family life. They had no vote in the building of the Terrace Apartments. The area is a backwater and is not even included in the County Master Plans. Hence, people here feel deserted by the County. For anyone to refer to them as a few radicals whose input can be largely discounted does not reflect the values of a community with special pride in their concern for human values. Economic Considerations in Upgrading the Eastside Area Economic values will dictate the zoning required to upgrade any area and this area in particular. There is a threshold of perceived value in which both the buyer and seller can make a deal. In this case, the value of the raw land alone to the new buyer as an investment towards developing it into higher grade property must exceed the value of the land and the buildings on it to the present owner. Although zoned SR by King County in 1973, the actual use includes single family residential, single family rental units, some multi - family rental units, and a 6 unit apartment. The owners of these properties can not afford to sell unless the price is high enough to sell, move, or destroy the buildings and compensate them for their lost rental income. It is my judgment that any zoning under R -4 will not make the property valuable enough to accomplish any change. Revue of Foster Annexation Task Force Progress With these considerations in mind, let me revue from my point of view the progress of the Foster Annexation Task Force. To your credit and my appreciation, the meetings proceeded in a very democratic fashion to examine in minute detail each and every block of the area. Lively discussions in which both factions and yourself honestly tried to find the best possible compromise for each detailed area in the annexation was accomplished, and a map kept up to date on the zoning recommendations made. -4- At the meeting on July 19, the area East of the I -5 highway that I have described previously in this letter came up for discussion. By a vote of 17 to 3 in favor of PO zoning for this area East of I -5 was recorded. This high number of people for this zoning resulted from many people from the West side of I -5 to "cross the aisle" and vote for the PO zoning, influenced by the arguments not their prior prejudices. 10 -.cl , ' L1,cL7 Now I understand that the objective of the Task Force was to not merely "Appease the Natives" but to gather information for the larger goal of advising the Tukwila Council on the best course of action to insure a. sound financial future and still retain its traditional values. I know that you have prepared alternative budgets depending on the outcome of the annexation process. Surely some of the inputs must have been an analysis of the business growth potential of the annexed areas. My consultants are quite enthusiastic over the prospects of PO zoning for this little Eastside island of Tukwila compared with the R -4 potential and their opinion can be summarized as follows: An Analysis of Zoning Alternatives of the Eastside Part of the Foster Annexation Area. First of all, let me point out that the area is so small and so well buffered from the rest of Tukwila that whether it is zoned R -4 or PO, it will not be a significant threat or dangerous precedent to the single family character of Tukwila. In fact, it should be the buffer between I -5 and the commercial development along Interurban Avenue from the single family area South of the Terrace Apartments. It should be the kind of new precedent that Tukwila needs to acquire more revenue with the least impact to the surrounding community. As you know, I have a 1.4 acre apartment site adjacent to the 1 -5 freeway on the upper West edge of the Eastside part of the Foster Annexation. It has been zoned RM2400 by the King County Council although I originally asked for RM1800. Although I have always considered it an appropriate apartment site, I have never felt comfortable with this zoning and have been hesitant about committing my hard earned life savings into its development. The reason is that the Seattle area is basically overbuilt in apartments. When there were attractive tax writeoffs, too many people invested in apartments. The situation is slowly changing as it is becoming increasingly difficult to afford single family homes and apartments are more affordable. Even though Tukwila apartments show a good occupancy rate, I am not sure I would pick this area for development of an apartment if I did not already have the site and the zoning. A further consideration is that I did not look forward to a continuous struggle with a City Government that was against my project and felt that I had forced apartment zoning on them. Contrast this situation with the prospect of PO zoning instead of R -4. If the city can acquire lands with the highest possible income potential with the least disruption of the traditional Tukwila way -of -life and with the full approval of the local property owners, it would seem to one of those rare situations where you can have your cake and eat it too. -6- r.sY1:'V.KS4..v1 The very reasons that make this property so terrible as a single family area contribute to making it an excellent site for professional and office development. That big noisey freeway right alongside shouts the magic word "ACCESS" to the business park developer. With high tech, high quality business moving into the Seattle Area from all over and business parks springing up all over the place; to avoid the opportunity seems almost irresponsible. Need I repeat some of the advantages: 1) It is only 10 minutes to Seattle by multiple routes to avoid traffic jams. 2) It is a big piece of property that can attract large developers who have the resources to do a professional, minimum headache, job on it. 3) It can be developed right away and start the revenue stream that Tukwila needs. 4) Competing areas for business parks have big problems. The I -90 corridor from Factoria to Issaquah is much further away from the City of Seattle and will always have bridge problems. The Renton area has I -405 and internal street problems - try and get in or out of Renton at any time of the day - it will always be a mess. 5) The property owners are begging to get out. They are signing a petition for PO zoning and will have almost 100% participation. 6) It will give a wonderful first impression of Tukwila to people driving south on I -5 as a progressive attractive city. The point is that in the new climate of no free lunch from the Southcenter bonanza, the City of Tukwila must seize every little opportunity to increase its revenue with minimum pain to its citizens. It is a new operating mode and it will take time and patience for all involved to realize that this is only good management. As a staff management advisor you owe it to your employers to inform them of the real significance of their choices and not what they are used to hearing or what you think they want to hear. -7- Sincerely, David H. Whitlow I trust that there is still time to change the plan given by the staff letter and•the accompanying map showing the R -4 zoning to PO zoning in the Eastside of the Foster Annexation Area. Please call me at 237 -0464 with your questions and comments. 0 L90„,t, )4 1A).1,A2t, DHW /mam cc:Gary Van Duzen, Mayor of Tukwila Rick Beeler, Chief Planner P .S. By the way, you have never asked what I do for Boeing. I am a senior operations analyst for the Product Development Section of the Commercial Aircraft Division of the Boeing Company. My function is the same as yours, namely, to advise higher management on their future best choices of action. TO: Tukwila Planning Commission SUBJECT: Foster Annexation Froposal We at the properties shown on the enclosed map (in pink) 4628 S. 138th 13806 Macadam Rd. 4822 S. 138th yfnn.u.;Nnt ^*r. ,.. are concerned about the zoning of the area from 144th S. to 138th S. (colored in Blue). Under the present proposal the Tukwila Annexation plan is to have R -1 Zoning. It currently is zoned RMH in the King County Flan. Some of the property owners want the zoning to stay multi - housing. We would like to see the land between 144th S. north to 136th S. (colored E sn) considered as a whole. We live on Macadam Rd. and feel that we would be adversely im- pacted by the multi- family zoning between 144th S. to 138th S. This zoning would affect us as we will be impacted by increased trffic and noise comming north on Macadam Rd. To the North we have existing light industry developments encroaching on us in the Riverton area. We seem to be "squeezed in the middle ". This is why we want the whole area from 144th S. to 136th S. considered and not just the 144th S. to 1382 S. The current zoning impacts the whole area for "who wants to live by noise, air pollution and hi- density,housing." If our area as a whole was zoned for light industry or industrial park we could at least have a comprehensive plan which improves the whole area. We opose the current King County Planning and the R -1 proposed in the Foster Annexation Flan. We request the Planning commission and the City Council to re- consider our zoning. t hank you for your consideration 1, 14?J' s. /300-t. 9-q / O9( &4.. tk Gip,-- qe/ AI /3704 iY, 6. €46.c - ‘ 444 - 1 - 1 4- 1 / es■ • i yg =s o • a -ae- t t; 1___:::: rn. 7 - : - - Irll; ,( • LS,' • �. • • 1\ • ` l 1"" �.r . y I• ,', 1 - r �• A" Fr/ • ``• Cris, �� ' . 5, %L v • � 'r •' •• •' � I t) •o .ir • s‘,1, ot�� .E I,•• � I ,. n • •1• /1.41 , • 13• .13 ' 3 . --.1.2.3.- ... ••• ':::17) N•1 n •{r fF 1 - •1 1 cr �, r' �.� , ``,•'•• •.�; •• Yf . .. t , . . '. i 0211 �, •• Lt • 1 ..5" s •:$ . •• rp ,L •r,••.• � 1 ` • 9`%,\:.7P\\,...,' (L : • . :•: l ,,��t ; • • ., �" 111.1 re , ( 4 •'��. ••••••,t.i• • '• 1 * / , \ k /'� Z I / 1 a «: 1 < �y � . }'; - � ', 7 j t U � s• t ' � . , Xti •LF , \ , \ \H ...... t � la i ... ` q7 .. E �._��� N 1. ,••‘:-.'!"... • ,:�,.•° j ' 1 �_ 4 , z .•`- ' y • , • ` 1. Y `• 'y C• J ob i r��{44 It .r • �•d'�i' r�l" • ; "�, ` �� tl as i .3I ~ . 1 ifi 3 • 6' t••G • rl► 22 132 [1 ► i ( :- �•' M9►•l►.t9N • ``� • .. . SI 3N TO: Tukwila Planning Commission SUBJECT: Foster Annexation Proposal C.C.: Planning Commission Members City Council Members INCLUSIVE: Survey Listing; Area Map. We are a concerned group of property owners of land in the Foster Annexation area. The properties are in the I -5 corridor of the area between Madadam Road and I -5 Freeway. This area contains approximately 17 acres, between 144th S. and 136th S. Currently there are nine houses in this area, with an improvement tax value of about $350,000.00. Topographically, the terrain averages thirty to forty feet below a mean level of Macadam Road. The Southern 3.5 acres level with, or below the Macadam Grade. The effect of the I -5 traffic corridor and its junction with East Marginal and the I -5 Freeway at the Foster Interchange has created an incredible level of noise and air pollution in this area. As a result, we believe there has been no new construction and very limited remodeling along this whole strip for many years. We feel that close examination of this area will draw you to the same conclusion we have come to. Under current zoning, the area will not develope beyond where it is now and in fact will continue its steady decline. We, for the most, part, have been residents and are involved with the community and Tukwila. It would not be our wish to impact our neighbors unfavorably. On the contrary we would like this area to buffer the western slope adjacent to Macadam Road. This can be accomplished in a method typical to an area further north and east of Macadam Road in the Riverton area. This area has been re- developed with a tree buffer and low level warehousing and wholesale buildings. It is interesting to note that this area has changed to a benefical attraction to the community, while ours appears decayed and blighted by comparison. This indicates that King County correctly re -zones this area and a natural urban re- development took place. Tukwila has been working with residents to determine desired pre - annexation zoning. For whatever the reason, most of the listed were not notified of initial efforts and did not have an opportunity to input our concerns. In view of our stated position, we are a majority of tax- payers of the subject area and we request the Planning Commission and the City Council to re- consider the zoning in the proposed comprehensive plan and suggest a change to M1 or the industrial park concept. 01 ! 117 .4 • • 1:•;" • • „,••• se sa I. „t \ t. 1. t.“ 0 • re. ..„ .011 —•—•••• tt ••• • is. o• • • a . , '4 y, ' . ...‘'...•• : • -'". r C.. . \ \ - .' 0 010s' •• ----. • we I •••••• .• V • • s•TC t-,, 1 , sl.fs... • •—.....4.... ‘ ‘,I 7,1,• % ( IN x. . It 1 o r t . " '1.4t4 '''''' t"'" • •"*. : 7.... , ''..se • : 1. ‘ ..,. . — • ......• • •,•, • It ••■' , ., It . • 1 1:„ . •••• . \ .4, ..,1 2,......-•• r--- . . •••• '‘.....!r• ,. j.•• •• ' "" : ".,-'\,.•' , N:. -- L. 4 • .. ... • •!.:' 1 . .. 9 ' t .1. 41 . ''', , , \ I .." t 41; , • ..-- ...Tr , , .. i ...4411......y4. I ' 4 r ------- l• • • A , • 1 V 1 .14 / :; • " " 4 "N . Err! r •‘ • 1.4 •"•••••• .r . • 4 • t o.•:? ,-.,Eot_r7 • • • , o ". ‘ • 4 • • • • • • )" • re e • '4 ' 77.,' *.* 5 . • 4 . ¶4 • • C • • A' t. Ces;.. • 1 t to in 4 : .. tn . • • . • i • • Pesri"f Aciak5x.gnot..) 4,e/s4 .xoz /e4c_ e.e.:244/ T - • '1 - , • - • I 1 s. 10 • SE 5 XV Z 44i. r /1/4V Z./ TZZ) TO 11 a 'Tr mAP Nu/48a 7 2. ' 11. ,, • /; • •• ' " re •• • • 'All • • I •••••• • • . I t „ scrt . • see . I .. r. t,.... ---,Ti l i r r . •? 6 4. '': : ' '. 7.4, i? ,,____,,• , $ •-•,-...-,,-. — r-r- S (17 ' . a. . ,. •.- ' :/5 ' " '.1 --.• . .: . ... be . ' ' s V: 1 41 - Li /1/4/-1z. PA'ewe A# ADO ge ce. ,06-4/ ) 10: fjI . 1.47.04,v S2 '.'L4 3. si_4ove,vio 4t1,9/ rb, 4- Y C a 44i/A 7 DAV/S 7 ,e4 2' PAT Vort1_1.11C-1 8 oD/414E DE4WD 9 imz.ovDs DDEgEN AioN7 1D / tlIer Z•13 Ail! eLd 0 /4 /1 C ic—A CC, -Z /2 Afel ows ceA l A- c& CoDk_ /4 P/41\--ISLA Lls•TEZ / 6- 4 5',e" , /.57 j 0 547i/ ,S i.V44.i73 Li ig-a 547 b..' z55"-.19244 24-8 /38040 MAc.4.0,41-1 ZD 4822_ ro, / 3 s Ge)cir 24-1 - 7a5 z44 -4594 AGA/14ST 21 3-.4191 X 4.Q7-/ /36. CA11414111 717_,D Z. a iv0 A4•9 x Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 August 31, 1988 Re: Thorndyke Annexation to Tukwila Gentlemen: I have resided at my present location nearly twenty years and would like to advise you that I am in favor of the Thorndyke annexation to Tukwila. I am in complete agreement with the comments made Tuesday evening, August 31st, 1988 by Steve Lawrence and Ed Jackson. Very truly yours, 777.,x4. 6. ria.ea.rn✓ Mae E. Nelson 4206 S. 148th St. P. 0. Box 68235 Seattle, WA 98168 7s - 7UALA) - (4 ) 7T0-4 `Actrra_), / /e9/9 %27n-d, 0 (e)J2 Ciccx 6 -g°-t/i -1 „ ) Co-21o 7)'rLtpQ,Gon C/12 �eK_ 6 C/Y1.Q ,c2.Q1t/rio 71-58 c�rz, age (cffb C2_2<: 0,L cM2tC/P z /&O /20 a cil-fq,(:(30 /120 ./fir4.77` cva 600 a-&j C:(9 CLac70 lav?_12 azr 1 cbge ccia(-y 6z77 - ti// 6c/ezza 7 .12,6/A i6e/lW-2) , _)2) iceL.06 6 &cum e.))&a zre. tb-f _0 - Ca/nc6( (i v-z /Le) amp e/n_ ,oyue/k, tziciZsz.2 thc 6yo cerbaoC, .&.2.1.ci - - _0' co-ct& elez ,Q z%)0 /a2,47ta: , 4. 600) .7/ evuipw 0/nice 6(yc& 6ey /7Z LJ # o • ;*i.q '1"(61/1Z-q de CIV2ily t2n 4 sz) cc-02 ax2' &/L /220 ye cwea/in. 27_0z&o C>0 4 cs ,/ or7t_ // e)/L cuzzo 60 6,6",/ X-/ 6 on.e6edicyma4/1/-yiten7 /2e71)-6e&X6 6?JueQ- 'VB .° rzeda, - (.0 #- • if I I, 02 d - - V � t to e a.;47 7c) f CY/MC, OVLZ 02 /AC GcJ /2.0_(;leueCot--27ter citoe;cd,A5erle_icoer06 . ce 61.)-6 oue, cuza ca/-12 GZ� ue4/z04-t( GcJ ac C.cJe�� Cco / /711-0,c J //7/ J/ 0?-k- ":s d.1 7 0.?'‘ , <Ace /Le_ctIZ g l e- 6 4).66 7_5-0 y /z,c,/ ce Geos., ,7)-Leci,L, ,)-e_., 7.71.66.c). • L- .-/ --z Z)-1 Or d °' 7 ,, / . OJT, • (-/ L Geo /not o_ /2-646. .9_;0 6)CnA 60 CO /Z.CLZ Ci.0/11, C °C) WOeiCaeZ jhe) -' C CI-A-A- Cl- C i r/Ya.ot.vl y o)rLe.., 6(.)6271-ta 4)-Ao ouo(40(AvAvoi_coz, Lo ca.Azire., Le .) a / Ge)11 C,e10 756, 0 ■ 1/ 40' • " I , ' 0 / .49eo--/I i /ng e,&e26W ,,,,,,e1:cvncL). ,e,c 6' 06va, oms2_,coaz) ) 793c,l 01. 6 /zr4/7L- •• •r IVIIS sr rr. /:i s'J I.rrY .pa rrr ♦1 a ref r.� frf A3 9/9 %? So • SEP 21988 « ..t....:.F...:.i : .. V ���n u... �.. a r'i. ': ti'•v ti..c ..:. .�' � "i u .. . c q ., .��J. a ., a t t r th9z /no /f'iGt/ 02, /e- yGV CEO Q aico-ibo (Lo • / -/ •� � �) o , � /• o. . / 2 L01? PW .GU-(iy G0O�'I2C1 4 'v, 44 (3/ ' r1-0 0 CLe/r-uirt • : 0 c./2, &ARC O21%L /� / � / S 5r21 5r21 • a/Leriz, 6u ,/Z12/11,•d / a.� • • ,c,-7 , • • ' 6 die /4/ P a"' Ae f, 3 •• • • ‚'V / I OP re 40 i / / �i' • / `i� d/ of. / ie ( I► � . oo /f0? w C %Y, 4 s LAP / lc2 Celz& • .1 /ap 4.1 1 1: 4 10 GlJ ac2 6(1-dg / f s / C • • I • 7LeciZ 029 /rj C )?// • 4' 7/5 OP'e Mc 60/z.,4 , arza cggicini 4 /2L C 4,-e_ ;f 0 09-)--4,e1 - 6itz „a/c/7 oh _ c - ' ., (a.i/L 0, • ,_(2' a,c'eX .. L2�.2> . --..-)-Le 60-e_ co/rb,reo_t J oy el 0,o6,..gez sce-c( 7 . ca.�v_ ie.() 7P 606 c2,061/22,aieeZ. cco. x2/Le, axe,6} ^ . ^ ^ . ` ~ . .~^~_ • `. • .."`~ .-.°,._..~^,^ 4•4“,',' ~^"~`°`�."`~�,-~," , ' .�^ ...`. ^, ~ ^ ., ^ . • _ , TO: Tukwila Planning Commission SUBJECT: roster Annexation Proposal C.C.: Planning Commission Members City Council Members INCLUSIVE: Survey Listing; Area Map. (sEP 2 1988 I We are a concerned group of property owners of land in the Foster Annexation area. The properties are in the I -5 corridor of the area between Madadam Road and I -5 Freeway. This area contains approximately 17 acres, between 144th S. and 136th S. Currently there are nine houses in this area, with an improvement tax value of about $350,000.00. Topographically, the terrain averages thirty to forty feet below a mean level of Macadam Road. The Southern 3.5 acres level with, or below the Macadam Grade. The effect of the I -5 traffic corridor and its junction with East Marginal and the I -5 Freeway at the Foster Interchange has created an incredible level of noise and air pollution in this area. As a result, we believe there has been no new construction and very limited remodeling along this whole strip for many years. We feel that close examination of this area will draw you to the same conclusion we have come to. Under current zoning, the area will not develope beyond where it is now and in fact will continue its steady decline. We, for the most, part, have been residents and are involved with the community and Tukwila. It would not be our wish to impact our neighbors unfavorably. On the contrary we would like this area to buffer the western slope adjacent to Macadam Road. This can be accomplished in a method typical to an area further north and east of Macadam Road in the Riverton area. This area has been re- developed with a tree buffer and low level warehousing and wholesale buildings. It is interesting to note that this area has changed to a benefical attraction to the community, while ours appears decayed and blighted by comparison. This indicates that King County correctly re -zones this area and a natural urban re- development took place. Tukwila has been working with residents to determine desired pre - annexation zoning. For whatever the reason, most of the listed were not notified of initial efforts and did not have an opportunity to input our concerns. In view of our stated position, we are a majority of tax- payers of the subject area and we request the Planning Commission and the City Council to re- consider the zoning in the proposed comprehensive plan and suggest a change to M1 or the industrial park concept. ...m....-........,.......*......., m ev .nw . r•••■•••...0.....,.......*•.....,...**•• Lo• n e r. .env....,...a......../..01114...{. a 1. tu orr,...-71041......01)....4.1.....c.................M....."40.VORO'NtratVAYMICMOteg-02aWanagegAr; ' ..7 '. : . I ; , ' • ••„ •.• Z. 3. . 4- 6 a 7 8 10 /1 /2 /y /4 /S �u e ✓ Y SN- ,�T Pieer.t ADa2e S ,ate. f7/416'04 , Pic d»-/ uzA FL09r /D,24 Lt1,4 /r'D 4. reia y hde Jo v c� /- 114 >ti ,vs /J ALYA £ 7/-/ L1y4 DA4V /S 1e4 Y E' P A T 1./o /-2 c.! &eat, DaME DE4 D iLovDE' DDEEEN iQw4T / s TJ $ 2 a S n h% CLfMGV .Zti G- AM' /1Z5 (LA RE.-JC GOOD. / LA L/ s7 Z £,e),/s7"- Ng) 0 zyy -5;77? A C>i9i /457 2 3-4/9 1 X 4c22./ /3G vAllaMrr T,T,fl X x Z. 4 557i 74. z55 9244 ....._ _ x Z 4-8 - /z`s /3,964, MAG4DA!''I 4D 482z. / 3 8T-'= X 24-Z- Gocir _. k 24-3 - 7857 z4 -4554 x A r TO: Tukwila Planning Commission SUBJECT: Foster Annexation Proposal We at the properties shown on the enclosed map (in pink) 4628 S. 138% 13806 Macadam Rd. 4822 S. 138th are concerned about the zoning of the area from 144% S. to 138% S. (colored in Blue). Under the present proposal the Tukwila Annexation plan is to have R -1 Zoning. It currently is zoned RMH in the King County Flan. Some of the property owners want the zoning to stay multi - housing. We would like to see the land between 144% S. north to 136% S. (colored Dash) considered as a whole. We live on Macadam Rd. and feel that we would be adversely im- pacted by the multi - family zoning between 144% S. to 1382 S. This zoning would affect us as we will be impacted by increased trgfic and noise comming north on Mad adam Rd. To the North we have existing light industry developments encroaching on us in the Riverton area. We seem to be "squeezed in the middle ". This is why we want the whole area from 144% S. to 136% S. considered and not just the 144% S. to 138% S. The current zoning impacts the whole area for "who wants to live by noise, air pollution and hi- densityt.housingt" If our area as a whole was zoned for light industry or industrial park we could at least have a comprehensive plan which improves the whole area. We opose the current King County Planning and the R -1 proposed in the Foster Annexation Plan. We request the Planning commission and the City Council to re- consider our zoning. -hank you for your consideration 116,4' s. Rt pt. aciA1009, rSeltztle CO- q '/ ie - 58' � . P 21988 t2. � /3/04 7�2t! a Po, P 9 o yffr4 ii4.98/‘ •31.4444,44.4,44,..,4,4•44,44.44.44..4444A./14',44444,,..4,4..•■•4,2"..14...S.,N11.1AVING,t,St:145(.6,1ar,(Vri,..,..14.1,...21,11.54rViiiteOrgegt,....fertt7.7atOX4.(MaNda4042,4h.61.414•4,,,,,,,,Y4r1.,i.W.7,5,0itiVraKetrAStOrk•LVSk15trt17/544•Wki•a&VI•47, : ... ''''' • ' . •.• j:14;',..t10,,tiV!,',.''', ,...;;:•,'" • . '• • ..,.r. . ... .., ..''.., !,--. .... I. ....,:, r ' U. ` / II( .0 \ • 3'10 vAlsoi 0 % do' ' iv .4 • v.. Vs. tf e (11) • • cot, 0 • • • Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Commission Members: ..�: '-r :x...h • , :.-,. _ x .� a... -rss� .. n�mtxtars:+c +;: ':rrri. ._: �lu�;: 1i`:' �.' f..> 4' �1'.:': i` r': a. 2;":; s?%.: G,..." i' f' S.: ti' s`•, �? Na'., �r:. a^ FF. 5. 1" 1 Y _ «.. < " 5'i'.C::YTic �.� ._.. J•.r;'12 1 or - 1 - 5408 - 153rd PI. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 September 1, 1988 I was the first speaker at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Foster and Thorndike Annexations on August 30, 1988. Just before the meeting, Mr. Jack Pace gave me a copy of the letter by Mr. Ronald A. Lamb to the Planning Commission. I am writing this letter as a rebuttal to the claims made in this letter. My first objection is his categorization of the people who attended the Foster Task Force meetings (first para., second sentence) as "On the one side were those who generally favor high density multiple family zoning in a number of areas, particularly in areas where they own property. On the other side were those of us who favor preservation of our single - family residential neighborhoods." This bit of political nonsense was aptly refuted by the testimony of the little lady who had lived in this area for 35 years andQuld not sell her property because of the apartment congestion and freeway noise surrounding her property. The point of view of hers and others in the area is that they are completely in favor of preserving single - family neighbor- hoods and always have been, but that is impossible in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation. Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter to Jack Pace (Aug. 16, 1988) by myself in which I carefully put down my version of the background and nature of the zoning problem in the Foster Annexation area. I have deleted portions of the letter describing the inner struggles of the Task Force in trying to reach a consensus. Please read my letter at this point. Since that letter was written, the Staff Report to the Planning Commission prepared August 25, 1988 has proposed zoning code amendments in which R -3 zoning would be the high- est level apartment zoning permitted in a P -O zone. Let me put in perspective what this change will do in real life rather than in someone's narrow view. I invite members of the Planning Commission to drive down through Area 1 and ask them- selves if this is what they want this area to continue to remain for the foreseeable future. Notice that coming south on 1 -5 or Interurban Ave., this land gives the first impression of Tukwila. Think of what would be the best possible change to make this area as attractive as the area around the Tukwila City Hall visible coming from the south. ct ' • i e!..3E c I believe a first class business park in which the entire Area 1 is integrated by a single plan is what is really required. If you let amateurs promote a little apartment here and a little business there you will get a junky combination that will not be the best for Tukwila and will extend the time and risks to the present owners. In order to effect the big change quickly, before we all die of old age (I am 67 years old) the zoning must be such as to attract the big developer with resources to do the whole job. It would seem that he should have the choice of the best mix of offices and apartments that will give the best return for his investment. If you remove RMH from his options, you reduce the chances of getting a really qualified buyer. At R -3, you can be assured that nobody will buy and the area will not change. Let me return to the pious but mistaken views from Ron Lamb's testimony. The Tukwila school problem stems from there being already 1,100 apartment units in Tukwila and there must have been a good reason for having them. Surely, they must contribute to their share of the costs to Tukwila. Ron Lamb continually mixes up generalities with specifics on what is best for Tukwila overall. In a worst and unlikely case scenario, even if Area 1 went all apartments, it would have a negligible effect on the school system since the area is so small. As my letter points out and I thought the Task Forces were accomplishing, the City of Tukwila, in the face of lessened revenues from Southcenter, must carefully look at each and every annexation source of revenue that have the least disturbance to and indeed support the continuing quality of life in Tukwila. I believe that the P -O zoning, including the RMH zoning, does exactly that in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation. Sincerely, DHW /jj Attachment cc: Gary Van Duzer, Mayor of Tukwila Rick -1Eff Chief Planner w /attachment David H. Whitlow P.S. Ron Lamb would have you burn down your beautiful City Hall and go back to the old one on top of the hill since we positively, absolutely want no change in the Tukwila that used to be. 0A A.4. �¢ . 11,14 . LJ. ..J Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Commission Members: ._...__,.. .,..•.,.....,. •xir»;.ws:�frp:CiN :....:.rf =`t f *•.'. ?i.b.. ... ...: ... .. . 4251 South 139th Street ' :Seattle, WA 98168 August 29, 1988 r!�.1 Re: Foster Annexation zoning In attempting to resolve a number of land use issues, the Foster Annexation zoning task force was divided into two somewhat divergent viewpoints. On the one side were those who generally favor high- density multiple - family zoning in a number of areas, particularly in areas where they own property. On the other side were those of us who favor preservation of our single- family residential neighborhoods. Attendance and representation of each side varied from one task force meeting to another. Consequently, votes taken at different meetings had quite different results. No single meeting can be viewed as representative of the size of either group. To further explain the reasoning of the group that generally favors single - family zoning, let me point out that we are not opposed to all multiple - family zoning. We proposed multiple - family zoning for specific areas during the task force process, and we concurred in designating some areas for multiple - family uses. The difference between our position and that of the other primary viewpoint, then, is one of degree. In our view, Tukwila and the immediate areas have more than enough multiple - family housing now. Our attitude is not one of "We've got ours, now you stay out," but rather one of concern about the high costs local governments face in serving a transient population. Our schools consume considerable resources in having to constantly service new students and bring them up to speed with the rest of their classmates. This constant effort by a large percentage (about 30%) of the student population to try to catch up with classmates also has negative effects on test scores, classroom climate, and the educational achievements of the district as a whole. Local school, civic and governmental organizations have considerable difficulty getting volunteers because of the lack of "ownership" in the community by the large percentage of the population that is transient. Not everyone who lives in an apartment is either constantly on the move or uncommitted to the community, but the correlation between multiple- family housing and a 2 relatively transient, uninvolved population cannot be ignored. However, we are not hard -line extremists. Quite the opposite: We represent the backbone of the community. We work on school levies and bond issues. We work as volunteers in school classrooms and serve on committees. We are active in our churches. We doorbell for the cancer society and the heart association. In short, we are part of the segment of the community that is striving to improve our community. In fact, that is why we started the annexation effort: We felt that being a part of Tukwila would help improve our community. We want annexation. But we need to be able to show our neighbors that the city offers something better than the rampant "do your own thing" zoning of the county. Now let me address the three areas over which there is still some disagreement: - The west side of 42nd Avenue South, between 140th and 141st Street; - The east side of Macadam Road, north of 144th Street; - The area north of Joseph Foster Memorial Park, between Interurban Avenue and the freeway. First, the area west of 42nd currently a trailer court. The task force initially voted for R -2 zoning there because of concern about traffic on 42nd and concern about holding the line on high - density multiple- family housing in that vicinity. A tie vote at the last task force meeting left the recommendation undecided. We felt that R -2 would provide an incentive for the owner to redevelop what nearly everyone agrees is a less than desirable current use, but would not be BO dense as to drive out single - family owners on the east side of 42nd. Apartments looming across the street would not be the best neighbors for those who seek a single- family neighborhood. And once single - family owners are driven out, what becomes of zoning on the east side of 42nd? We are concerned that if multiple - family zoning jumps the "fire line" of 42nd, another single- family neighborhood will be doomed. Our concerns about traffic impacts on 42nd are that it has no sidewalks along the site (only a wide shoulder on the east side) and has heavy traffic volumes. We are concerned particularly about the school bus stops on the west side of the street, which has no shoulder, only a ditch. It doesn't seem reasonable to think that all traffic from a multiple - family development on the site would come and go only via 140th and 141st onto Pacific Highway South. There is no doubt that traffic from the site would use 42nd. However, we 3 are not saying that the site should be single - family. We feel R -2 is appropriate. Next, Macadam Road. Our concerns there are over the narrow, winding road and the dangers of adding more traffic to it. The roadway cannot be economically widened and straightened because of the terrain: The hill rises steeply on the west side of the road and drops abruptly on the east side. Those who want high - density or even commercial use for the site say no one would want to live in a single - family home there (as if residents of multiple- family housing aren't that smart or discerning). And yet there are several single - family homes along both sides of Macadam. As a practical matter, single- family homes are all that will fit in that narrow strip between Macadam and the freeway. The water line on Macadam also won't support any more intense land use in its present condition. But again, we didn't refuse to consider multiple- family in that area. The task force is recommending R -3 for the property immediately north of 144th, before Macadam narrows and makes its first turn, although some of us would have preferred R -2. Finally, the area I call Old Foster. Let me first say that I believe anyone who lives in the Foster annexation area -- indeed, anyone who lives in the Foster - Tukwila area -- has a right and a responsibility to comment on land use issues in Old Foster. It shouldn't matter whether one owns property in that particular neighborhood or not. This is OUR community. At the outset let me again point out that those who share our viewpoint on the task force were not unwilling to compromise. We have a great deal of sympathy for those who live near Terrace Apartments. Trying to maintain a single - family home beside one of the most dense developments in the city can't be pleasant. (In fact, that's our point on 42nd.) Multiple - family makes sense for that area. But again, the question is one of degree: How dense? At various times during the discussion of Old Foster, our group suggested a number of attempted compromise positions: Initially, we suggested R -4 on the east and R -3 or R -2 on west to give transition from more intense use on east into single - family neighborhoods on the west and south. That proposal was not acted on. We also suggested C -1 for at least part of the area, based on our concern about the impact of a more transient population that high - density multiple - family would bring. That suggestion was dismissed. We even suggested a special planning district that would allow PO but no down- zoning to multiple - family. That suggestion was dismissed, too. Proponents of PO zoning said they weren't interested in professional and office buildings for the entire site. So, what would PO zoning REALLY mean for Old Foster? It was "No" to R -2 and R -3, "No" to R -4, 4 "No" to C -1, and "No" to PO. That leaves RMH, the highest multiple - family designation the city has to offer. ..__...........,-- �...- ...w+n vresr.ry rxr�mt.•:Jt x:Y!.Y..t.RJ�107J;4:!!r17:.�"i �. . . RMH is completely out of line with what is currently on the city comprehensive plan for the area and out of line with current county zoning. The city comprehensive plan says low density. County zoning is a mixture, but the entire area isn't zoned high density. And in the surrounding area, there is R -1 to the southwest and south, C -1 to the east. Even the Terrace Apartments are only R -4. Although we still would prefer a combination of R -4 to the east of 51st Avenue and R -3 or R -2 to the west, we could support the staff recommendation for a change in the zoning ordinance to allow only R -3 or lower housing in PO zones. I have not mentioned two areas that were discussed in the staff report because there was consensus for those two areas. The task force had no difficulty recommending an R -1 designation for the south side of 139th Street and the west side of 42nd Avenue South between 139th and 140th. That area is almost entirely single - family homes now and appears to be very stable as such. In addition, the Riverton task force proposed and the planning commission concurred that the area on the north side of 139th should be largely single- family. The other area for which consensus was reached, although not as easily as on 139th, was the area along 144th Street between 42nd and Pacific Highway South. There, R -2 seems to make sense because of current use and similar proposed density on the south side of 144th by the Thorndyke task force. The task force could not reach a final recommendation on design review, although it had voted for design review for all but single - family construction at an earlier meeting. Many of us on the task force still feel quite strongly that design review is a crucial issue in improving our community. We look at Tukwila Hill, where design review for multiple - family construction is in place, and see high quality development. We would like to see the same standards in our annexation area where multiple- family development is appropriate. I appreciate your taking the time to read and consider our point of view. And I look forward to joining you as citizens of the City of Tukwila. Ronald A. Lamb JOANNE JOHNSON Xj Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting • AFF;AVIT OF DISTRI■„_,JTION Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet (J Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet El Notice of Application for [] Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1988 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project FOSTFR ANNFXATinN File Number 88-5 -R 88 -5 -CPA 88 -5 -CA 88 -3 —A hereby declare that: E Mituk Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice 7.7 2 Si gnatf e , V I CALL TO ORDER II ATTENDANCE III NEW BUSINESS IV DIRECTOR'S REPORT V ADJOURNMENT (21 /AGDA.8 -30) City o Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 1988 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall Public Hearing A. CASE NUMBER: 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA: Foster Annexation APPLICANT: Initiated by Foster Annexation petitioners REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment 2. Pre- Annexation Zoning 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments B. CASE NUMBER 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA: Thorndyke Annexation APPLICANT: Initiated by Thorndyke Annexation petitioners REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment 2. Pre - Annexation Zoning 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: INITIATED BY: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 The general location is north of 144th Street, east of Pacific Highway (SR -99), and south of 136th Street (See Attachment A) August 30, 1988 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA Foster Annexation petitioners STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared August 25, 1988 • 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments 2. Pre - annexation Zoning 3. Zoning Code Amendments Approximately 196 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments B and C ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment D Determination of Non - Significance (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Foster Annexation Area Boundary King County Comprehensive Plan Map Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map King County Zoning Issue Areas Map Tukwila Amended Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map STAFF REPORT to the 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission BACKGROUND In April 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. This petition has been certified by the King County Prosecuting Attorney and was signed by 44 qualified voters, representing 52% of all voting residents in the 1987 general election. After the Planning Commission makes their recommendation, the City Council will hold two public hearings. The public hearings are scheduled for September 12 and October 17. After the second hearing, the City Council will adopt by ordin- ance Comprehensive Plan amendments and the zoning to become effective upon annexation. The annexation is tentatively scheduled to go to the voters on February 7, 1989. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FINDINGS In developing the pre- annexation zoning for the area, the City has tried to provide a variety of opportunities for residents, property owners and businesses to become involved. On June 2, 1988 the City had a public information meeting concerning the annexation petition and zoning for the area. At this meeting, people were asked to join a task force to work with City staff in developing the zoning for this area. An average of 18 people attended meetings in June, July and August. On August 18, 1988, the City and task force had a public information meeting to respond to a draft zoning map prepared by Planning staff. After hearing the public comments at this meeting and other meetings, the task force made their recommendations as shown on Attachment G. The task force in many cases was unable to reach a consensus on all zoning designations. For the Planning Commission public hearing, notices with the task force proposed zoning was mailed to all property owners and a public notice appeared in the local papers. As part of the public notice, hearing dates for City Council hearings were also mentioned. REPORT ORGANIZATION The report contains three sections. The first section briefly discusses the proposed annexation. The second section addresses the Comprehensive Land Use Map amendments and proposed zoning districts. The last section discusses poten- tial zoning code amendments. ANNEXATION As shown on Attachment A, the Foster Annexation request is within the Tukwila Planning area for annexation. This annexation ties in with the Riverton annexa- tion to the north and the Thorndyke annexation to the south. The annexation area population is estimated at 752 people. Existing land use in the area is mixed between commercial /multi- family along Pacific Highway South, public schools along South 144th Street, and single - family in the central, northern and eastern areas. As part of the environmental review process, the City examined capital and operation costs of the annexation to the City. Based upon that preliminary information provided by the consultant, additional research will be done by City staff in preparing an amended City budget. The amended budget will be approved by the City Council this fall, to address the additional service needs if the voters approve the annexation. 2 STAFF REPORT to the 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission King County RM -1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling (24 dwelling units per acre) B -N Neighborhood Business COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING As part of the Foster annexation petition, pre- annexation zoning was requested. By requesting pre- annexation zoning, the property owners and voters will know before the election what land use regulations will become effective upon annexa- tion. 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 -1800 High Density Muntiple- Dwelling Zone allows a density somewhere in between the R -4 and RMH zone in Tukwila. The following table provides the most comparable zones with reference to uses. COMPARABLE ZONING CATEGORIES Tukwila SR -1500, RS -7200 Single Family Residential (2.8, 6 dwelling units per acre, respectively) RD -3600 Low Density Multiple Dwelling (12 dwelling units per acre) RM -2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling (18 dwelling units per acre) R -1 -12.0 R -1 -7.2 Single - Family Residential (3.6/6 dwelling units per acre) R -2 Two Family Residential (11 dwelling units per acre) R -3 Three /Four Family Residential (14.5 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 -G General Commercial C -2 Regional Retail Business 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. The task force recommendation as reflected in Attachments F and G. In certain areas this group was unable to either come to a consensus or a decision. The task force consisted of two general groups. There are those who live in Area #1 who are single - family residential who have been adversely impacted by apartment development to the southeast. Due to the increase in traffic and more transient nature of the neighborhood, their area is no longer suited as a single - family residential neighborhood. The second group lives west of I -5 and does not want future development to make their existing neighborhood no longer desirable for owner - occupied single - family housing. This concern is reflected in Issue Area 4B where the task force was unable to make one recommendation. FOS t ER PARK `\\ STRANDER The Terrace __ Apartments AREA 1 FOSTER ANNEXATION ISSUE AREA EXISTING (26 /FA.AREA1) RECOMMENDATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION KING COUNTY ZONING - LAND USE Low Density Residential S -R Predominantly single - family RM -2400 homes with a few duplex and one small apartment building As mentioned in the introduction, the property owners in the area feel this area is no longer suitable as a single - family neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. Freeway noise; 2. Use impacts of the METRO Park 'n' Ride; 3. Traffic impacts from existing /future apartment development; and 4. Potential impacts of commercial development in the Strander annexation. Most of the members and staff agreed this area is not going to remain a single - family neighborhood. The issue is what are the appropriate intensive uses for this area - whether to allow medium - density apartments or office uses which also allows high- density apartments. The close proximity of the park and METRO bus facility provides attractive amenities for apartment development. .However, the office designation provides the opportunity for development which is not as sensitive to the noise and is a transitional use from commercial uses. The concern expressed by some of the members was that, with the P -0 designation, high - density apartments were also permitted. Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map from Low - density Residential to Office, with pre- annexation zoning designation of P -0 - Professional and Office. (Note: See Zoning Code Amendment discussion.) DISCUSSION Many of the task force members who live west of I -5 do not want future commercial or apartment development to negatively impact their residential area. This area is impacted by noise from 1-5, limited water line size, and limited ability to improve Macadam Road. The task force recommended the area be downzoned from the County zoning due to topography in the area and to minimize future traffic impacts. The staff believes the degree of downzone is inappropriate. The area to the south (Area #3) has similar characteristics as this area which is being recommended for R -3 zoning. RECOMMENDATION The task force has recommended retaining the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of Low Density Residential and zone the area R -1 Single Family Residential. (26 /FA.AREA2) a W CC Q W GO Z O EXISTING 4 W Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - Low Density = Residential Z Q King County Zoning - RM -1800 CC W Existing Land Use - a couple of houses Q and vacant land U . DISCUSSION (26 /FA.AREA3) EXISTING Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - Low Density Residential King County Zoning - RM -2400 FOSTER ANNEXATION ISSUE AREA Existing Land Use - a few houses and vacant land The topography is somewhat level at Macadam and raises up to the west. The change in topography between this area and the single- family to the west provides a natural transition. Due to the topography and concern for traffic, the task force recommended an R -3 zoning. This recommendation also matches up the recommendation made by the Thorndyke task force for the area south of 144th and west of 51st Street. RECOMMENDATION Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, with pre- annexation zoning designation of R -3 (Three /Four Family Residential). : AREA 4C ■® L FOSTER ANNEXATION ISSUE AREA DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION (26 /FA.AREA4) EXISTING Sub -Area 4A Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - West of 41st - Commercial East of 41st - High Density Residential King County Zoning - RW -7200, RM -1800 Existing Land Use - single - family houses and vacant land Sub -Area 4B Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - King County Zoning - RM -1800 Existing Land Use - mobile home park Sub -Area 4C Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - High Density • Residential King County Zoning - RM -1800, RD -3600, RS -7200 Existing Land Use - single - family homes and two duplexes As mentioned earlier in this report, the concern for all three of these sub -areas is the impact of further commercial or apartment development and its impact on single - family residents to the east. In Sub -Area 4A, the task force felt the R -2 zoning designation would be appropriate due to the surrounding uses and would be compatible with the proposed zoning to the south in the Thorndyke annexation. Sub -Area 4B is the one where the task force was unable to make one recommendation. Some members felt the R -2 zone would be appropriate to reduce the traffic impact, and would be compatible with the single - family to the east. Other members felt the R -4 was appropriate due to the proposed zoning to the north and south. A potential compromise between the high or low density zones would be a medium density designation of R -3. In Sub -Area 4C, the task force felt this area should be zoned R -1 to reflect the prevailing single - family homes. 4A: Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan to Medium Density Residential with a pre- annexation zoning designation.of R -2. 4B: The task force was unable to make one recommendation for this area; Attachment G shows R -2 or R -4. 4C: Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan to Low Density Residential with a pre- annexation zoning designation of R -1. STAFF REPORT to the ; 8L... - R 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission DESIGN REVIEW PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS This section will review potential text amendments to the Zoning Code in con- junction with the pre- annexation zoning discussed in the preceding section. The task force has NOT made any specific recommendation to amend the Zoning Code. The following discussion focuses on three areas - Design Review, Professional Office Zone, and Single- Family Setback Standards. Under the current regulations, design review will be required for commercial development in excess of ten thousand gross square feet of floor area in C -2, C -1 /P -0 zones and multiple - family complexes in excess of 12 dwelling units. The task force was split as to whether to require design review for all development except for single - family development. Based upon further public comments at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may want to re- examine this issue. Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code is descriptively referred to as a cascading zoning code. As the code progresses from the single - family zones to the heavy industry zone, it allows the uses permitted in the more restrictive zones preceding. Specifically, the P -0 zone allows single, two, three and four family dwellings, apartments, townhouses, nursing homes, libraries, offices, and educational schools and studios. Proposed Amend the Zoning Code (TMC 18) by renumbering Chapter 18.26 P -0 District Professional and Office District to Chapter 18.17. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.26.020 Principally Permitted Uses - (1) Any principally permitted use in the R -3 district; Discussion Some of the members of the task force had concerns with the P -0 zone which also permitted high- density apartments. This was also discussed at the Thorndyke task force meeting. In two previous quasi - judicial decisions, the City has permitted rezones from single - family to P -0 subject to "conditions" of no high /maximum density (RMH) residential in the first instance and no multiple dwellings whatsoever in the second instance. City staff is proposing a revision in the P -0 zone which would only permit medium density apartments. The proposed change has City -wide implications. The P -0 districts currently within Tukwila are located along Southcenter Boulevard and South 178th Street. Many parcels within these districts have had office proposals made and approved by the City, only to not be devel- oped. The impact of the proposal is to eliminate the opportunity for high density residential in these areas. One of the purposes of the P -0 district is to serve as a buffer between residential districts and commercial and /or industrial areas. Recent legis- lative actions and discussions have focused on the concern about the high percentage of multiple family in the City and the opportunity for increasing this percentage through increasing P -0 districts. A comparison of bulk and size between the P -0, RMH, R -4 and R -3 reveals that R -4 and P -0 have the same height limit of 35 feet versus 45 and 30 for RMH and and R -3 respec- tively and that R -4 /RMH and P -0 are likely to be similar size and type developments. In order to fulfill its purpose as transition yet also control opportunities for housing density staff proposes allowing up to R -3 uses in the P -0 zone. STAFF REPORT to the k_,, Planning Commission (22/88- 5 -R.2) RECOMMENDATION 88v -,,LR, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA SINGLE FAMILY SETBACK STANDARDS The City has different setback standards than King County, as shown below: KING COUNTY TUKWILA Maximum lot width 60' 50' Front yard 20'* 30' Side yard 5'* 4' -8' (lOX of width) Rear yard None 10' Maximum lot coverage 35% None * In addition, the County allows projections of one and a half feet of eaves fireplaces, bay windows and enclosed stair landings in a required yard. The Tukwila Code places greater restriction on the front, rear and side yards; however, it is more flexible regarding the total use of the lot. A section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.50.070(3)) does allow the Planning Department to waive the front yard requirement and substitute a required yard that is the average of the front yards on adjacent lots. This provision would allow any homeowner who wishes to remodel an opportunity to extend an addition in the front yard to something less than the required 30 feet. Side and rear yard waivers are not however mentioned. It also would provide consistency in the building fronts along a street that was developed under different standards. Planning staff recommends that the text amendment to the Professional Office zone be approved. Based on public testimony at the hearing, the Planning Com- mission may wish to recommend to the City Council direction for further changes. 111111111411111:1111111111111B111111111111i1 311 1\ 11/111 Imne• Eb" • Its Riv 1111.11'111111111111111. I I; .i l l ! lllllll •.„„ I I \ , ,41111iliiiii1014 1r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIt : fl it!!140911\. if .11111A ENE& II WIMP, . ; . P Bea" Cam.. k ANNEXATION AREAS • FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 SEA-TAC INCORPORATION Ei RIVERTON ANNEXATION E FOSTER ANNEXATION 1101111 LII THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TUKWILA CITY LIMITS TUKWILA PLANNING AREA vw_A !I I I • a a. W itkC3 III" FOSTER ANNEXATION KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING HIGH/MAXIMUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY FACILITIES T — G.;t1 31 Acres of (Cr, • ATTACHMENT B / \ I •••• •c.:•■■■•■■ ..... ....... 1 - 7:17;• - •"' LEGEND ml HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL lig PARKS AND OPEN SPACE NI PUBLIC FACILITIES E3 COMMERCIAL - r rUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP - EXISTING FOSTER ANNEXATION ATTACHMENT C 189C1XEC ICI • • f:II=I=10 (eel 1st 36 Acres nor • RM-1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DWELLING • RM-2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DWELLING • RD-3600 TWO FAMILY DWELLING CLASSIFICATION El=1 RS-7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 7:1 SR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B-C COMMUNITY BUSINESS 111111 illB C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL KING COUNTY ZONING MAP ATTACHMENT D —r „III 1 IINIIII 1 if /1111111 1!P - ,� .._I1 I... 111111��� Ids 111 411191 r ..... • .......... )•• LEGEND : • IIII HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ; • LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MI PARKS AND OPEN SPACE El PUBLIC FACILITIES i- 0 COMMERCIAL OFFICE MIMED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL tfik TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ATTACHMENT F FOSTER ANNEXATION (AMENDED) - r 'OSTER ANNEXATION 'UKWILA PROPOSED ZONING R -1 JR2 3 R -3 R -4 I C -1 C -2 I P-o 3 RMH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS DISTRICT -LOW APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BUSINESS MULTIPLE - RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY ATTACHMENT G Govt 36 Acres .5 1377N ST S. 136TH T. 1 0 • A ,1S City of Tukwila 2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard August 22, 1988 Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 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 Sincerel Enclosure 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. 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. Ga y . VanDusen Mayor, City of Tukwila cc: King County Councilmembers 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 • incumbentand 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 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- District 24. 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 Now back to Chief Adsley's letter; 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 7 Page 3 of 3 Tukwila made such a statement 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 This is completely false. On the last paragraph of page two 2) 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 hire 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 -4701 . 1908 City Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard p Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen. Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Mayor VanDust.R • 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 `DATE August 15, 1985, 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 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 Comp shall mean Valley Communications Center. District 24 shall mean King County Fire District *24. District 18 shall mean King County Fire District 418. 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 •2 Page , 3 of 5 (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 for 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 . 5 of 5 At the rata of $1.50 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 122,500 per. year. We feel that it is 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 than paying out these monies each year a fund be established toward the construction of a fire station west of I -5 some time in the future. Respectfully submitted, Curtis Nesheim, Chairman 1 Dennis L. Robertson AFF AVIT OF I, JOANNE JOHNSON 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 E] Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project File Number hereby declare that: was mailed to each of the following addresses on O I S T R I..,;, °J T I O N O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice 0 Other XC�X Other PUBLIC NOTICE - FOSTER ANNEXATION FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1988 , 19 . August 18, 1988 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Dear Residents and Property Owners: In June 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 proposed zoning. The City will be holding the following public hearings on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and pre- annexation zoning for the area. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING August 30, 1988 8:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard i i CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS September 12, 1988 and October 17, 1988 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard PUBLIC NOTICE FOSTER ANNEXATION After the public hearings, an election date will be set for the residents to vote on the annexation request. If you have questions regarding the annexation, please call for a copy of our common annexation questions and answers brochure. 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. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 96188 (206) 433 -1849 Sincerely y Gary L. Van Dusen Mayor. FOSTER ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING m R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-3 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS R-4 DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS P-0 PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS RMH MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY vrrif:==to Govt tot 36 Acres 0%. LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE ' \\ -1 August 18, 1988 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433-1649 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Dear Residents and Property Owners: In June 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 proposed zoning. The City will be holding the following public hearings on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and pre- annexation zoning for the area. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING August 30, 1988 8:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall G200 Southcenter Boulevard CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS September 12, 1988 and October 17, 1988. 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard PUBLIC NOTICE FOSTER ANNEXATION After the public hearings, an election date will be set for the residents to vote on the annexation request. If you have questions regarding the annexation, please call for a copy of our common annexation questions and answers brochure. 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 y Gary L. Van Dusen Mayor FOSTER ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING R -1 m ■ ■■� Till! R -2 R -3 R -4 P -O RMH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS DISTRICT -LOW APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BUSINESS MULTIPLE - RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY W./AWN - -• CC L [I,l .q S /37TH rnr.I=taso - - - - -- - -- - - - -±:_ LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE =tor" 3 . \ IA i\Ve OPk R ( 614 i6 \ eC ate' Guir ' p e. } C� AL G 18 1988 Jae ' ac e C�. c 5 ' a Q; m■n \ v' D s u-W\06. ev B\ v , lik\( w`l 1z ck76\ Q ce/ O ea6e o o'(\ • reQeYfIc\ OP o - tie a l'lvleXakim k\ke._ 'Pos•\ Rir\e\z, .ke c l o •"\a. 1 � o( i A - G d( : r ' ? ( ) c\ 7S V\'\ \' 1,,,Ydcesr760n August 8, 1988 Mr. Gary Van Duzen Mayor, City of Tukwila, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Gary: I was disappointed to say the least, at the results which your Planning Department posted for the proposed zoning of the Foster Annexation. As I understand it, the City has had several task force meetings the last 60 days to get a handle on the zoning that is both needed by the market and requested by the property owners. I also., understand that the vast majority prefer PO zoning, or at the least C -1 zoning. How then does the City justify R -4 zoning? What with the Park & Ride, 1 -5, and Foster Park as buffers, this seems to be an ideal location to further broaden Tukwila's office market, while minimizing congestion due to pedestrian and auto traffic, and rehabbing an area that has certainly deteriorated. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, Ernest N. Patty President The Andover Company L, ' John Emanuels The Andover Company cc: ✓Rick Beeler Jack Pace THE ANDOVER COMPANY CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 8009 S. 180th Street, Suite 103, Kent, Washington 98032 .� 11' 'n11;• 1 AUG 111988 L- ...171H ST -• • ..... - • • •••T - - ..f4 • • • .•• • ..•■•■ 0 • S . 03 ■ V R-4 IN C-1 c a P-0 la ROAM FOSTER ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY -•••• . -- • • 1 iv4 NORTH \ . ... z. 4 _IL, • c o. i / .. ., o • .,, • .4. . ' ' .''e • ;/ q RGER SCALE MAP AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN PLANNING DEPARTM FO RY Dear Mr. Pace: AUG 17 1988 Mr. Jack P. Pace Senior Planner, Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 5408 153rd Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 August 16, 1988 I would like to put down for the record my version of the background and nature of the zoning problem in the Foster Annexation area and how the activities of the Task Force relate to them. Background Residences of Tukwila since its inception have enjoyed a way of life and form of government more reminiscent of the classic American small town in the midst of the Seattle Metropolitan maflstorm surrounding them. In more recent years they have been blessed by having the Southcenter tax base to support a sound City government and help finance the services the City supplies. The local citizens like their life style and rarely leave. They like their volunteer form of government and their friends and neighbors join in holding offices in their City government to help run the City. There is a feeling of community that these citizens share and the impression that they care about each other and would go out of their way to help each other and their City. In understanding the requirement for a balance between the need to continue to provide the revenue to keep the City financially sound and still protect the basic essence of the single family community, The City Council has wisely allowed a diversity of zoning, but only where appropriate. Where there is a highway or a high density shopping center there is an appropriate buffer zone of apartments between the commercial area and the single family residences. The southern hillside facing Southcenter is zoned all apartments as are most of the areas immediately adjacent to the 1 -5 highway at the southwest corner. Again, where appropriate, like along Interurban Avenue, the zoning is largely commercial. nxea�w.v;suvrr ,4110:u +x y`e'uy f It is recognized by the City Council that there is a basic danger of losing the Tukwila way -of -life in granting too much apartment development, as apartment dwellers do not consider themselves as permanent members of the City and do not typically concern themselves with City problems. For this reason, the Tukwila City Council has always maintained a cautious attitude towards allowing further apartment development, while still recognizing that certain lands, because of location and topography are only suitable for apartments. Changes in Revenue Sources A new consideration in Tukwila Planning has surfaced in the possible repeal of the Washington Sales Tax thereby threatening the Tukwila Southcenter Tax Base. Anticipating this problem, the City of Tukwila has launched a large program of annexation of other properties to broaden its tax base. I submit that with the possible loss of Southcenter revenue, the economic reality is that mere annexation is not enough to solve the economic shortfall. The new lands must have a higher proportion of income property than the present mix or either bankruptcy or a lesser capacity to provide city services per capita are the inevitable alternatives. While the city had Southcenter, it did not have to consider as seriously the economic impact of zoning changes, so more emphasis could be put on political and social considerations. This luxury may no longer be available and it will be very important to consider how best to develop the revenue potential of the new areas. This, of course, involves consideration of the emerging business growth trends in the Seattle Metropo].itan area- The emphasis will have to be on careful scrutiny of those changes that will produce the most revenue for the least disruption of the traditional Tukwila family way -of -life. These observation must be obvious to the Tukwila Planning Department and it was welcome news that they had formed Citizen's Task Forces to study the problem in each new annexation area. As you know, I joined with considerable interest the Foster Annexation Task Force and have attended all the meetings which were held on July 13, July 19, and August 2, 1988. -2- The People and The Area p Foster Annexation Task Force Report Of interest, first of all, is the people who attended the meetings. It is important to observe that to get people to volunteer to attend after hours meetings on their own time requires that the individual is particularly concerned about his or her welfare in a serious way. As could be expected, attendees at these meetings were divided into two factions: 1) those living to the West of the I -5 freeway, which will henceforth be called Westsiders and their area the Westside of the Foster Annexation Area. 2) those living to the East of the I -5 freeway who will be called Eastsiders and their area the Eastside. There was about an equal number from each side, but with completely opposite concerns or points of view. Again, this could be expected as the areas are also completely different in character. The Westside is a large area measured in square miles in size and is very appropriately largely zoned single family. Protected by its size and topography, adequate buffer zones from the I -5 freeway and Highway 99 can be provided. These residents were very concerned about retaining the Tukwila single family way of life and fought block by block to have the lowest possible zoning everywhere. The Eastside is a tiny area, perhaps 10 acres in size and roughly triangular in shape. It is bounded on the West by the 1-5 freeway, on the East by Interurban Avenue and the Metro Park and Ride; and on the South by the Terrace Apartments and Foster Park. It is impossible for the single family residence to have any kind of an apartment buffer zone because the area is so small that there is no room to surround the single family area with apartments. The noise and pollution from the freeway and the traffic from the Terrace Apartments (and even some new apartments) has made this area unlivable as a single family area and virtually unsaleable as no person in his right mind would buy this property with the hope of improving it enough to convert it into a decent single family area. The single family -.3- ... ..��..�...............e�<w�n�.r orate wNnseurn4 W SYS•v p residences in the area feel trapped and desperately want to move out, but cannot afford it. Most are elderly and few have the economic means and know how to promote a change. Most of them innocently bought their property before the freeway was built hoping for just a quiet family life. They had no vote in the building of the Terrace Apartments. The area is a backwater and is not even included in the County Master Plans. Hence, people here feel deserted by the County. For anyone to refer to them as a few radicals whose input can be largely discounted does not reflect the values of a community with special pride in their concern for human values. Economic Considerations in Upgrading the Eastside Area Economic values will dictate the zoning required to upgrade any area and this area in particular. There is a threshold of perceived value in which both the buyer and seller can make a deal. In this case, the value of the raw land alone to the new buyer as an investment towards developing it into higher grade property must exceed the value of the land and the buildings on it to the present owner. Although zoned SR by King County in 1973, the actual use includes single family residential, single family rental units, some multi - family rental units, and a 6 unit apartment. The owners of these properties can not afford to sell unless the price is high enough to sell, move, or destroy the buildings and compensate them for their lost rental income. It is my judgment that any zoning under R -4 will not make the property valuable enough to accomplish any change. Revue of Foster Annexation Task Force Progress With these considerations in mind, let me revue from my point of view the progress of the Foster Annexation Task Force. To your credit and my appreciation, the meetings proceeded in a very democratic fashion to examine in minute detail each and every block of the area. Lively discussions in which both factions and yourself honestly tried to find the best possible compromise for each detailed area in the annexation was accomplished, and a map kept up to date on the zoning recommendations made. -4- At the meeting on July 19, the area East of the I -5 highway that I have described previously in this letter came up for discussion. By a vote of 17 to 3 in favor of PO zoning for this area East of I -5 was recorded. This high number of people for this zoning resulted from many people from the West side of I -5 to "cross the aisle" and vote for the PO zoning, influenced by the arguments not their prior prejudices. The three votes against were by the hardline "single family zoning" group who evidently would like the single family areas to pay for all the expenses of the City government so that a much richer class of people would be the only ones who could afford to pay the resulting high taxes could live in Tukwila. At the next meeting on August 2, 1988, the map that had been used to show the zoning recommendations of the Task Force showed this PO zoning for this area. It was understood by all attendees that these were the decisions of the Task Force and that they would be shown to the Tukwila City Council for approval. On August 6, 1988, I received in the mail the staff prepared draft proposal that had unilaterally changed the PO zoning of the above area to R -4 and inferred that area residents and property owners and member of the Task Force approved of this staff position. I believe that the R -4 designation on your map if presented to the Tukwila City Council will be like waving a red flag at a bull. Coupled with noticing the absolutely misleading R -3 zoning across the street for the Terrace Apartments, which must be RMH zoning in density, they will immediately downgrade this area to R3 or R2. If you would have left it PO zoning, the Council would not have felt threatened by additional apartment house dwellers and would have at least studied the PO zoning possibility. Of course, you can say to all us betrayed Eastsiders that you tried your best and it was not your fault that "The Council Did It ". Now I understand that the objective of the Task Force was to not merely "Appease the Natives" but to gather information for the larger goal of advising the Tukwila Council on the best course of action to insure a sound financial future and still retain its traditional values. I know that you have prepared alternative budgets depending on the outcome of the annexation process. Surely some of the inputs must have been -5- t An Analysis of Zoning Alternatives of the Eastside Part of the Foster Annexation Area. an analysis of the business growth potential of the annexed areas. My consultants are quite enthusiastic over the prospects of PO zoning for this little Eastside island of Tukwila compared with the R -4 potential and their opinion can be summarized as follows: First of all, let me point out that the area is so small and so well buffered from the rest of Tukwila that whether it is zoned R -4 or P0, it will not be a significant threat or dangerous precedent to the single family character of Tukwila. In fact, it should be the buffer between I -5 and the commercial development along Interurban Avenue from the single family area South of the Terrace Apartments. It should be the kind of new precedent that Tukwila needs to acquire more revenue with the least impact to the surrounding community. As you know, I have a 1.4 acre apartment site adjacent to the I -5 freeway on the upper West edge of the Eastside part of the Foster Annexation. It has been zoned RM2400 by the King County Council although I originally asked for RM1800. Although I have always considered it an appropriate apartment site, I have never felt comfortable with this zoning and have been hesitant about committing my hard earned life savings into its development. The reason is that the Seattle area is basically overbuilt in apartments. When there were attractive tax writeoffs, too many people invested in apartments. The situation is slowly changing as it is becoming increasingly difficult to afford single family homes and apartments are more affordable. Even though Tukwila apartments show a good occupancy rate, I am not sure I would pick this area for development of an apartment if I did not already have the site and the zoning. A further consideration is that I did not look forward to a continuous struggle with a City Government that was against my project and felt that I had forced apartment zoning on them. Contrast this situation with the prospect of PO zoning instead of R -4. If the city can acquire lands with the highest possible income potential with the least disruption of the traditional Tukwila way -of -life and with the full approval of the local property owners, it would seem to one of those rare situations where you can have your cake and eat it too. -6- p The very reasons that make this property so terrible as a single family area contribute to making it an excellent site for professional and office development. That big noisey freeway right alongside shouts the magic word "ACCESS" to the business park developer. With high tech, high quality business moving into the Seattle Area from all over and business parks springing up all over the place; to avoid the opportunity seems almost irresponsible. Need I repeat some of the advantages: 1) It is only 10 minutes to Seattle by multiple routes to avoid traffic jams. 2) It is a big piece of property that can attract large developers who have the resources to do a professional, minimum headache, job on it. 3) It can be developed right away and start the revenue stream that Tukwila needs. 4) Competing areas for business parks have big problems. The I -90 corridor from Factoria to Issaquah is much further away from the City of Seattle and will always have bridge problems. The Renton area has I -405 and internal street problems - try and get in or out of Renton at any time of the day - it will always be a mess. 5) The property owners are begging to get out. They are signing a petition for PO zoning and will have almost 100% participation. 6) It will give a wonderful first impression of Tukwila to people driving south on I -5 as a progressive attractive city. The point is that in the new climate of no free lunch from the Southcenter bonanza, the City of Tukwila must seize every little opportunity to increase its revenue with minimum pain to its citizens. It is a new operating mode and it will take time and patience for all involved to realize that this is only good management. As a staff management advisor you owe it to your employers to inform them of the real significance of their choices and not what they are used to hearing or what you think they want to hear. -7- Sincerely, P.S. J o„,,.. 0 1, boivaitcrv.--- David H. Whitlow p I trust that there is still time to change the plan given by the staff letter and the accompanying map showing the R -4 . zoning to PO zoning in the Eastside of the Foster Annexation Area. Please call me at 237 -0464 with your questions and comments. DHW /mam cc:Gary Van Duzen, Mayor of Tukwila Rick Beeler, Chief Planner By the way, you have never asked what I do for Boeing. I am a senior operations analyst for the Product Development Section of the Commercial Aircraft Division of the Boeing Company. My function is the same as yours, namely, to advise higher management on their future best choices of action. )4) IA) .. 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 33 August 10, 1988 1214C:SM:mls ,.1. 117:3 MOTION Nd 7285 416 Nl �y INTRODUCED BY: PROPOSED NO 8 - 61 1 tf 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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 B. City of Tukwila proposed annexation (Thorndyke) BRB File No. 1538; and C. City of Tukwila proposed annexation (Foster). PASSED this 2.2A4L.day of , 1986 • ATTEST: 1214C:SM:mls KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON airmai -2- 7265 ! •GWAawr — A F F IA V I T JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1988 was mailed to each of the following addresses on , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project FOSTER ANNEXATION File Number 88 -3 —A OF DISTRIt TION [� Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance J Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice Q Other XkL PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING Other USING ASSESSOR INFORMATION Signs City Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FOSTER ANNEXATION You are invited to a public information meeting on the pre- annexation zoning for the Foster area. The City of Tukwila has received a petition to allow Foster area residents to vote on annexing to the City with pre - established zoning. Area residents and property owners have been working as a task force to review the Tukwila Compre- hensive Land Use Plan Map and potential zoning for the area. The staff - prepared draft proposal is shown on the back of this notice. The staff and task force want to hear your comments and concerns regarding the zoning for this area. Please plan on attending. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Jack Pace of the Tukwila Planning Department at 433 -1847. (26 /NTC.8 -18F) WHEN: Thursday, August 18, 1988 7:00 p.m. WHERE: City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98188 (206)433.1849 14.4 r_ 7," •/11 =Z:111.1 hill FOSTER ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS ( • - !I ti , ..11 ...: :II 1 ' ' ! I RMH MULTIPLE-RESIDF-NCE HIGH DENSITY WWI ::1 :::::::::::::::: \,...\\ .1 II 11 iis • - -: \-4, .\\\'‘ \\' Kca Km m44 odox hja WE 9S5SS 3222 SM. a ERI WO CSION OM MO In WS 5562 ScS5 Egn MG MiX i MX ZOS : ,....'' MIME MHOS , \ . SS 5552i 5552 5552 Kowa 0:141 OM \ IRV OS SW 3552 xicoraya mama 1111116 \ \ \ iglingi 11111 NII;;If ni 111011E 11 810888 netUfiliiiii - -144TH LARGER SCALE MAP AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN PLANNING DEPARTM FO -TT JOANNE JOHNSON AFFIAVIT O Notice of Public Hearing U Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [( Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit [I Shoreline Management Permit (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) BUSINESSES: Name of Project THORNDYKE. RIVERTON & FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA File Number 88 -3 —A OF DISTRI( JTION hereby declare that: O 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 El Other MEETING NOTICE - WED AUGUST 3, 1988 was mailed to each of the following addresses on MONDAY, JULY 25, 1988 , 19 Dear Businessmember: 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 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 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Thomas Brothers P 1 ate No. IL Entity: Action: Title: RESPONSE LETTERS Department of Public Works 8-9-88 Util. Coord./Planning Division Counsel to Board 8-15-88 Entity Notified of Filing On 8-10-83 ADDITIONAL ENTITIES/AGENCIES NOTIFIED Council Member(s): Sims, Nickels Clerk of the Council; K.C. Dept. of Assessments; K.C. Fire Marshall, DOE; DSHS; PSCOG; King Subregional Council Cities and Towns: Sea-TAc Committee K.C. Fire Districts: #11 Sewer Districts: Val Vue; Rainier Vista School District: SEPA DECLARATION: NON-SIGNIFICANCE 7-1-88 COMMENTS OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Location File No. 1537 Land Area 223 Acres Population 1224 Assessed Valuation $43,039,670 Community Plan Area Highline Community Plan Designation various County Zoning various City Comprehensive Plan City Zoning District Comp. Plan District Franchise Sewerage General Plan LSA ON FIRST REVIEW: 8-24-88 CITY OF TUKWILA Annexation Riverton SUMMARY Received: 7-19-88 Date Filed: 7-19-88 Expires: 9-2-88 Jur. Taken: Hearing: South Central Water Districts: #125 Along the east side of Pacific Highway So., between the Duwamish River on the north and So. 139th Street on the south ON SECOND REVIEW: 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 August 10, 1988 1214C:SM:M1s INTRODUCED BYY. wwNIQ I.s 8 $ 611 PROPOSED NO. . MOTION N0. A MOTION'requesting: the Boundary Review Board to review proposed specific pending annexations pursuant to RCM 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 RCM 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, RCM 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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 / B. City of Tukwila proposed annexation (Thorndyke) BRB File No. 1538; and C. City of. Tukwi•1.a : Proposed annexation (Foster). PASSED this ;+ day ATTEST: Clerk. Of, the Council KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON Chairman 19 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 TO: BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS August 16, 1988 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) /,s 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- MEMORANDUM, Cont. August 16, 1988 Page Two Whole meeting on Friday, August 19th. The Executive Secretary will attend. The timing of the request, if 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 C: The Honorable Gary Van Dusen, Mayor, City of .Tukwila Ms. Barbara Blake, Chair Sea -Tac Committee J u,1908 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: 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. JP /sjn enclosure FILE NO. 1537 - CITY OF TUKWILA ation (Riverton) FILENO. 1538 - CITY OF TUKWILA ation (Thorndyke) Sincerely, - Proposed Annex- Proposed Annex July 19, 1988 C OOL ck Pace Senior Planner 8 84 J v�'�SHjNG V( 9 1988 FOR 1 01vG Pr' 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 INTENTION4& Riverton Annexation Page 2 9.8. 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 1$ miles. Various parks including Foster Golf Links are Z 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( Riverton Annexation Page 3 9.H.3 Present costs in the annexation area and in the City of Tukwila are described below. a. PROPERTY TAXES Taxing Districts 1987 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 Tax Rates (per $1.000) b. WATER RATES Water District No. 125: City of Tukwila: c. SEWER RATES Val Vue Sewer: City of Tukwila: 12.62507 $11.96975 Meter. Size Minimum Charge 1" $ 5.00 1" 7.00 1#" 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 40t for every 100 cubic feet over 100. Meter Size Minimum Charge 1" $ 6.80 1" 10.80 1#" 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 50t per 100 cubic feet. Residential - $26.90 for every two months Commercial - $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. r NOTICE OF INTENTION( °� Riverton Annexation Page 4 d. ELECTRICITY 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. 13, 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. MCB /sjn Attachments: 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 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. JD ?'D ' Attachment 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 367$C3 Page 1 .annexed, a proposition that all property Within area to be annexed shall, upon annexation, become subject to such Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan designations and zoning ,regulations as shall hereafter be prescribed by Ordinance of the City pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.'340. Section 4. Notification of Petitioners. The City Clerk is hereby directed to notify each of the Petitioners signing the petition for election filed with the City of this resolution either by mail or by publication as requested.by RCW 35A.14.020. Section 5.. Filing of Petition. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file the approved petition for election and a copy of this Resolution with the King County Council, and with.the King County Boundary Review Board. ` RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON / 2 0. DAY OF 1988. • 1 1 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 7- /S- t r PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 7- 1p-ra PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ONIMIid8 NO.: /080 Re s.ltato 0 n MAXINE ANDERSON COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MABEL J. HARRIS 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 APPRnxTMATFIY ROUNDED BY THE' DUWAMISH RIVER. PACIFIC HIGHWAY. 139TH STREET. TUKWILA CITY ITMTTS Awn TNTERURBON 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 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tuk 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. FM.DNS DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Planning Director 1 ttachment D Phone 433 -1846 lumina ri4=16" �YlIL1YIli��' I . IIIIII�fIIP 91 1111 Il��ssitti AIIFlI IIIIt;1II1111 111C=111111,,PW,111111111E .1111111 1111 gm MN NO "114114111 15-':41:432":11"717-4. L 1. ■ i.3��1.� rim. MINI • i i� i IuI'I '� Illll11111 iw ' t pal e llfr c 41. N I.NIIN. y PA I I C ODIUM A w • t ANNEXATIONS • ""•727:" NO. I fII! Ills Q 118114110 NICORPO RATION ,Ills JANUANT IRIS NIVINTON ANNl1[ATION — mKIO PISNWNY IRIS — FOSTIN ANN!=ATION CARO MAY ISIS i TNONINIYK■ ANNCIATION ' n mS JNNS ISIS TUKWILA CITY LIMITS Q MI NN.A PLANNING ASIA N 1 arm" 1 !VI i IUPI It r E•• r VI DJ �'7-4 I PL 7 I ou l.L . J. �. City - of Tukwila ? Jack Face - Planning Division 6200 Southr_enter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 99198 (20 47 -1949 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Pre- Annexation Comprehensive'F'lan Amendment, Zoning and annexation of area known as Riverton. June 2,. :999 City of Tukwila EPIC FILE NO: 1 -88 . Comprehensive •Plan•review and amendment and pre - annexation zoning .are scheduled, for..July through November 1988; Annexation election is . sc:iedul ed for February 1999.. :There are no future plans for additions or expansions •o4 the subject .proposal and•its.area; however, future.annexations. oontiguous to the subject area are possible. Text :amendments. to the zoning code ar-e possible in order to reduce land use conflicts and provide :crparab • zoning. .2. If, text amendments_ are proposed additional environmental wcr::: will be Cone.. 9. There may be .l and, .use. applications .and permits •that are pending on" individual parcels with King. County that would be affected by this proposal. In .addition ,. King County ..has. scheduled an area -wide Community Plan update that would include area covered by this proposal.• ''1. The governmental approvals and permits are needed are included within the annexation • process— City Council adoption of pre - annexation Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning and annexation. natice of intention will be submitted to the ring County Boundary Peview Board where review may be • invoked. The County Council must pass an ordinance placing the election on the ballot. '11. • The, proposal is an annexation by election of the below describes property. The prapas.al also includes a review of T ukwi l a's .Comprehensive Plan of the area with amendments, pre - annexation oning to allow for simultaneous adoption of zoning if area is annexed. 12. The proposed site is roughly bounded b,• the Ouwamish Ri -z• - , =r; 9q (Pacific • Highway), .S. :79th Street, the Tukwila city limits and Interurban Avenue on the east, • and i5 referred to as "Riverton." The size of the area is approximately 1.2 acres. one of the areas within the proposed annexation' areas do lie wi'•_i= environmentally sensitive area. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH . The Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexation Areas :lave a _cmbina_ion of flat, rolling, hilly, and steep & apes. Thorh, are no mountains. a-. ;a. Z. AIR 3. WATER The steepest slope in these sites is 100 percent in some areas.. T'Zc_ .ifserent 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 be done. f. There .ill be no construction clearing during this project. Imperviou surfaces will not need to be built after this annexation because there is no construction occurring during this project. Currently, there is no proposal to reduce or control erosion to the earth. a. The study of emissions is not applicable to this project. b. There is no off - site, sources of emissions that will effect this project. 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. 3. c. e. c. 4. PLANTS a. b. c. Water Runoff • • No work in the vicinity of the above is required in Order for this annexation to take place. =ill and dredge materials are nct needed in the annexation cf • these areas. There is no need for. surface A3ter asithdrAwals cr diversions g the nature of these annexations. A . perti on of the proposed annexation area does lie w :thin a 100 ^�- ticccplain. '•-'c waste n terials wi.11 be dealt .yith in this project. b. Ground .round wateer not be withdrawn :during this ?ro ject. No waste materials will be dealt with during this project. 1. Major runcf occurs from the highways that traverse the areas - SR 518, SR 99 and Interstate 1 -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 pr_mar means of. :cllection for eventual discharge to the =reer!D.awamish River. The discharge and seepage of waste materials is not effected by this annexation project. Currently listed surface water improvements will be reviewed for consideration in the City of Tukwila's CIP. Engineering personnel will 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. The types of vegetation found on the site are deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, grass, and wet soil plants. No vegetation will have to be removed from the site. r , No endangered species are known to be located in the area.. ,d. There is no proposed .landscaping for the proposal. 5. ANIMALS a, The animals which are located on • or near $ he si =e are as follows: c. d . Bs_rds: . Hawk, Heron, and Songbirds iammals: Raccoons, Foes, Coyotes, and Musk Rats Fish:- Steelhead, Bullheads' • There are no endangered species known to be located on or near the =its. The area is part of a mi gr-ati _ n route but the swamps and wetlands have been filled to discourage the large gathering of waterfowl. There are no measures proposed to enhance the Nildlife. b. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. 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 adjacent properties. ti. not applicable 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. • There are no environmental health hazards as a result cf this proposal. The City of Tukwila would assume responsibility for all fire and police services. There is no need for.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 sate area. b. There would be no construction noise occurring in the area as a result of this project. 4 L • z. There are "no changes proposed to control the noise impact on the area.' The City'Of Tukwila will enforce its noise ordinance to control the noise. 9.' LAND AND SHORELINE USE Il . he Riverton _annexation area there are • -eav and 1i i ght industrial and commercial ses located in the norm residential uses in the Southern half of the proposals ar en,. , 1-b Foster annexati :n area there are commercial, residential aid public facility lard !uses. In the area of Thorndyke, ccmmerc; al • *_i.al and puhl.c facility .ases predominate. ,. The Riverton area has ben used _agriculturally for -armlards. Some of thm st- - ,•ctures ir, the anrex•ation areas are comprised of fast food Testa- _tracts, ,T,o elc, commercial businesses, neavy and light industries, and various densities and types oT residential :d.yel I i iigs. No 'struct•_ires will he demolished in this annexation process. e. The existino King County zoning : Riverton -MH ! -icavy Manufacturing MP ?Mans :factoring Par k M! Li :1ht `1anufa_turing CG General Commercial BN rJei ghtinrh':'od Business RM P00. Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RD 76100 Two Family Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling SR Suburban Residential Faster CG General Commercial SC Community Business RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling FM 1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Swelling SR Suburban Residential Thorndyke CS General Commercial BC Community Business BN Neighborhood Business RM 900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RM 1300 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 Mesigna ti • area as urban with Southgate ,7 designa' 4rk. TI ighline Community Plan'designates th us in a north, t' sout.h • 1 7r% Manufacturing, Fingle Ngorhnod.. and Community F,• •■mi-Ac-: L .Densit'y eiz ; ; Thmpreh.=rsive i.rI citre ,= it rd: ; C. irci1 t -1 r.eri= 01:=71'" ;: -•;.• P-7t aind - Cr.:rnmomity FlAn LEA, rensity Faroily• Commu-lity 1 and Parks rp. Thie T kwila Comprf. Plan , 'e , igraff=s 4. he are =.111 47, -Y:f7smirsg: 1, T4 -igh Density Comnerr:ial, Public Parks anr Open Space. - .:in: County Campreh 1A• -esigra-7. the area as The LJig 17. Plan de=ignaf7es •;-ea with the fc11.).41-gl ghway Ori.ented Commerril, High/M.i Density 7-7:mmunity '-' Park and nro Pctace, \leighborhood '..diMedim Density Pesinential and Singla The Cor7Tireensis-P Plan designates the area with the -ligh Density Residential, Public Facility, ,Inc. Low Density Residential. shoreline in the Thornriyke or Foster area however a small Factz 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 is classified as environmentally sensitive. as well as the hillside running generally northwest to southeast from Pacific Highway around S. 177rd Street across 42nd Avenue around S. 17.5th street to Macadam 'Roao 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 a. . Thorndyke - The hillside running north and south along the west_ Std.= of 51st Avenue S. and the ravine and hillsides r'Ary i ng west and east south of 150th and north of 9. 154th Avenues 3et:',een 51st And ;0th are designated as environmentally 'sensitive. No new construction is associated with they project that would cause •- chAnge in the -number ex people who reside' :cf :':irk in the a= e.a; hnwe er _ ,. few comprehensive plan changes ara ercpcsed t h.a : :4'11 charge potential residential densities. In the F'i':?r _cn area, .a high lens i t_y m u l t i p l e family area will be change's to 'cw density and the overall permitted densities in the low density .-+real will Or' increased to urban ma.!:imum standards. Riverton's residential population is estimated to be 1200. This project will not displace any people. k. Since `here is no di splacement of individuals, there are no proposed measures to deal with this issue. 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,. cor the most part_ the proposed zoning will be reflective of the existing uses. Text amendments to the City's zoning code are potential mitigation to impact= associated with the land use /zoning.changes. 9. HOUSING a. Mo new housing will !:e provided during this project. b. There is no need for Any of the housing units to be eliminated due to the nature of this project. c. . No housing impacts will be caused by the annexation process under review. 10. AESTHETICS 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. 7 a. The recreational opportunities in the annexed „areas are•SplAthoate P=rk, Tukwila Community Center, 'the Duwamish/Green ri:er tnail, Foster pool and playgrounds and ball fields, .he Mc.r play and the Foster. ball fields and tennis court. • . b. There are no construction. activities within this annexation prr that will displace any recreational areas. There is no need -4-or• 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: River7dn -Harrison Cabln 13017 40th Avenue F. - 1903 Delta Masonic Temple 13034 41st Avenue S - 1926• Nash House •106 S. 130th Avenue 1910-2920 Albert Tutt 17000 E. Marginal Way • 1920's Riverton Park United Methodist Church • 13001 77tn Avenue • 1910 • Thorhdyke -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 !AighwaY 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. The proposal will not require any new roads. 8 3• 15. PUBLIC SERVICES 16. UTILITIES e. Due to the nature of this project_, there is not need for water, rail. or air transportation. • t. The number .of:vehicular trips is not necessary to this project. There are no measures to reduce or := ontrol transportation impacts. a. There will he an increased demand on Tukwila m u n i c i p a l a. d legislative .ervices. The following • is a reeds projection t" provide urban level services to the area. b. There are no proposed measures to reduce impacts on Tukwila serve. To try and _ortrol the impact, a fiscal budgetary study wi 11 ho completed that refines the revenue projections. Lateral transfers :f personnel in health, life safety departments will he made to handle the immediate i mpact. The budget process will review the needs and adjust personnel levels to accommodate the service demands. A. The utilities available in the area are electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telepho sanitary sewer, and septic systems. Thmse services are provided by Seattle City Light, WNG, Writer District 125, Sea -Tac Disposal, PNB, V.al -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 =11 an annexation. Land uses in Tukwila will be substantially the same as the current King 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. 7. 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 he more subjectively treated with perhaps uncertain outcomes. 9 = To avoid or reduce.impacts, the ereiiranmental review process w,11 te continued and used to protest sensitive sites. ‘10 impact is to be expected dr! the use.o* the Shormline or the 1-.nd. T.Awila will designate the oee area of shoreline as urban whicn eempatible with its cur-ent designation and with the Tukwila ce-egr.i..m. The ef*ect cn land use is expected to be minimal beceuse t el to provide compatible zoning: The ovsrall density single family dwellings is eepacted to increase because Te;:wtla coe.e nn* have the Suburben Pesidential density of. 7:5,000, 3oee emeiOentei eeees will be lowered frcm their current hich end medium deneities yet some areas of low wil.1 be raised to medium or high, To Avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts, a pre-annetice .: plar aod zenieg analysis is being eenoueter. 74 necessary, to mitigate zoning impacts the zoning cede :4111 trI aeended. The Tukwila shoreline program will be amended if the is annexed. The shoreline. is. protected in the interim because shoreline •eve;opment would continue under the county's regulatices until it is added to the Tukwila Program. T- ennexation will increase the usage of Tukwila police, fire, iudicial,. administrative, legislative, planning and engineering services. As was mentioned in 15. above, a fiscal/budget projection is being donm• to plan for the increased needs . The increase in police security on Pacific Highway South (old ) dLe to the social problems existing there in the farm a+ d • .prostltution, etc. 7. The annexation and Comp Plar and zoning proposals do not ccr14:lict with local, state, or federal laws with regards to the protectioe •f the environment. S. The annexation proposal does not conflict with Tekwile's Ccmprehensive Plan as it lies within the City's Planning .Area. - hcs amendments proposed for the Comp Plan primarily reflect existing (tees in the areas or are being made to be more comparable with surreunding land uses.• E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS 1. The objectives of the proposal are to respond to the request .74 residents in Tukwila Planning area. In addition, the proposal would expand city boundaries to include .adjacent service, impact end planning .area and co-locate with South Central School Distriet Anti provide urban level services to an urban area. 10 11 An alternative means of achieving some of the above Objectives wom l d be through the formation of an alternate m +.:.nip =ica1 3ov.srnment As Tukwila is the only city agency whose boundary is contingent to t ^e area or in close proximity. . 7f the two alternatives, annexation is nre+rrable *e inr:r?rpor �n because; a. Policies and 'economics would support a lid .t)ry he : '.of governmental agencies. b. Tukwila is small in size and population and should be . encouraged to assume a stature comp.ara0l:4 with other suburban municipal governments. c. T'uc:wil.a is •logical urban service provider. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's General Goal #3 p. l2 .,."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 prcp:osed annexation area. !n'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 CS p.17) To reduce potential conflicts in equitable allocation of ser - vices a plan 4 or the proposal is prepared by the City departments to ,.ssist in budgetary personnel and service decisions. Basin Boundary --- Subcatchment Boundary O 2 Collection Point — ti Stream 000i Tributary Number 401301 Proposed Project C ' . 4 Ni IAV � ' �// /1 tiii � 1 1111 111 ICE; � :lrrkl///rI I mgr •• � r 111 �. •� / /�� ,; � l� AV 1t = : IMN• Nan 1=1:0 - ► � - ill>'lIIl1��� ,�,, III' �I�I(il I : IIIIi�tU� /'�t�n1 d „ I ned J • ' � , 1111111 ..... (I N IInI i iiiiii1 I ,I m I lull�l IN I o �;IIQ�O IIn • I I II III .III I z W I I IIII III IN hlnitl ,Ili a 3 I ,,,• I 'M W ' .:+11 N .,,IIull�huu I MIR mo "' I 1 IIII ., ��I` 11111.111: n 111111 n► Inlinilhilll 11111:1 11111111 ''' ; (1 'L 1 I I IIIIIIIIII IE! IOU IIIIIIIIII II �� 11: I IIi11IIII1III ' I 11111111 "' , II lilllll � Iilldln:: 1 /1111111 - III, _ II tlI �l�III i h1uhuh 1 ' Pit lAw ' I - IA • • 4r AMEN. if q,410' , Ave% WEIIIIIMMEI T e f I ii j i l rporiiikliMiiiia b •f �A! � tfr� •r. r. qq 7 `7�rf":1r rh::. t. ,.ri rfl r ?;; r. (q Ill 'r: J�r• ': Jr� d �,. fi!••7J a 111..17- 't.i t •rr.4 rjt �7f 1 11101 WA IIPMMIIMIII ii1t 1 i EC; MiTi A I a ri: s7!I -11P u1� :9 ST ,.e - Attachment H S • IT t 7 1h RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2 RENTON SCHOOL DISTF Pa 7r.'"*".•;,"" I 1 811A1164/1111111T11.111 !••■/ ear titrawfLI••••• vi• OUWAMSSH T. Attachment 1.1 • 19 8.• ■ A1/10,10 1 . "'S 14r ea•i• 3:1 • all . 0 4 vtlt ING COLoaiTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGEND AINEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BUSINE: • HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL • a • to c, •—■-•-•• • • 4 els INDUSTRY • MANUFACTURING El HIGH/MAXIMUM DENSITY HOUSING 12 LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING Ei SINGLE FAMILY 13 PARK AND RECREATION Eft AIRPORT FACILITY r wA 1 1 ta ° ; . •V _ p ..-.:. , ,... —; - Z S '1•.. I ' a : :.--!. -•.— ......r..• I 1 . —• r- -:—• i -%\, a .„,•••• / „ jr-1 VCOMV11 e j = X. r 1;12. � s ATLAS ar starts U G: , Q. wive I r ,,r .9 •4•4439 Gw.• . KING COUNTY ZONING eat Attachment K 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 C w A C O R "A r • I ni ;N / /� . "',:: Z 4 J d W - a Z W Z W C d 2 0 v 4 a 3 Ng m I ■ ■ /ffff ■ ■ff. 1■ [tf. ■■■f■ff■■fff■ ■f■■■ ■Si37.1.■ 1510■ff■ ■ /R9 /f■■ //\ IMO .I'1■■ / /■.I.Qa / /f■ //. /■■ Ils1 /C■■ / /■ / /■ /■ •1111■/■//■\ I■■■L./ ■/11111111 ■.11 / MINN ■ /!■■ l / /■11a ■11//11 ■1111 ■ ■/� I ■/11■ Ir11wr IiJa. I.... • MIA. OP =1 S W.. 1w ' 1 ft ewes I; I1IVt ATor CI1t1T �: ctrtrtllt C -.. r Attachment M RIVERTON PROPOSED TUKWILA ZONING R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R -4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C -1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS •- ISM. }_L C -2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C -M INDUSTRIAL PARK • M -1 LIGHT INDUSTRY M -2 HEAVY INDUSTRY C s ..\\ O A'f C. s • wA R AP � fr A " NORT' ANNEXATION BOUNDARY as •SU a Lot.Y e'a LARGER SCALE MAP AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN PLANNING DEPARTMENT TUKWILA COMMUNITY CENTER CRYSTAL — SPRINGS PARK LEGEND ...am* TRAILS •PARKS CITY SHOPS CITY HALL 11111 i•Itt s . 4 ••• • ▪ •• k s4 JOSEPH FOSTER MEMORIAL PARK - r. ootogar••■,1 , 1 a .4 • '. k ' ••••■, .• / • • • • I .- t ••• • ' '.&'' •••"• ,': • . L ! 4 . A . . t.. r 5 It t• St \ .../..". • I • 1 1 LW,. •(, C Till , • ,......, 5•5Sts _ . ,,,,,„, ,a.,••■•• ,,4 SOL, it'lliArE . " .• . 4 - •• ..... uA.STAINUM /T SCHOOL Q LIBRARY A. SWIMMING POOL • FIRE STATION " • - N 9 • \_ -...., t , \ -. . tat,. .b9. 4 • ' • . ''''.7...•... I • . ' • • .4\ P . i 1 I C 1 S .‘ 1 \ 1 •.,, 4 7 7 2 P 4 ;..• i. 1 .• ; .r. ... ... ..., .- • l't '':. ........ . ' . • 1 ''' l' t , 4 ■ . . ... 1 ' - •. ' REA ' ' PA C T C H • '.. - 111,_ 1 ..t• 1 A St 1 `t 6 21 41, So a •••• ,,o7* N., %,.....7-- e '•/i' .1 f'■ st , • t ■. •';‘ r ,.1 • PARK 'W-2.11.1.6- • •• •••••••• rr - •• eta 4 IISTVIE • .. ; t 54• v.* l ..K C MeMICKENIZ . . PARK • t • ; . • t'• • P. 4: d• /I .6 al • ; 1:1 --.. , % 3 1 • .il ' la 1,1 . • ..... ,1:•,_,,10. • • • • • - . / ■ ..: , . n 17 • rt■ 5C — : 11 , . ..._ . , et it i-• • • , 'ff Ps Sot • Z - . 1 .. ...1 • 1 CH 7C '•••••. • 2. . :17 • ••• I • r - • ••• _ ••• .• ••1 ■` ..... . _ it' , 5 ! ,•„ — 7,.% — ' ••■•• ., i . . . 11 . -......),!..,.. \ ?,---. -1..• . ?, ...M g El t9■ • i 4 c . ' , -..r. 4. , 5 t44 fit a a a ,t: Y: .v ...• It 4 I .. ..... DE--NT-PAR-K a: , \ ..c C (7)1 .1.• . ` '.4 ::,■ ....„/. A 4; X Ki 'PA' t .1: C' i ; t.."0-. I N oleos es BEI • al ' .A1 7r--. 7 .., 471' A %' 4 \ t■ --..,, ■, :-----A., ,--...-. -7 ,,,- ‘.. .....,...;--,,.... „ \ c, . yr t 1 t's. 1- N • • i In ,•••• st.16.thot • . ,. -.% , ..}--... _ . ..• se .../••••• t '' ‘, N '-s--.■•••• . • - to ott tt.rIsso . - . 1.:1- ,,, 4 * i• __ ; ' ;;‘..-- • .1" - . — " _ .. _.;.% • s 1 , 6 rs 42. a a ...F.■:,.4.--.... . N . IK.../ .. Aw . ..x.1.;/ILA pAltmloSSY 3 1 K.0 • 1 O * r• * -- . 9 ,opmarasnos PARK 7* ts•sett Soso : u.roirstor • a kL • • • 7/. • - 1.1. ..., .• KC VALLEY .1 RIDGE PARK • - 1 • *„ i; a czar a *1 vit.tuctsoje .K.P1-0040 •rtt.A 38 t5 t. .2.• Attachment N <• 1 A t Facilitie! Guide KENT BRISCO MEANDER PARK KENT RIVER TRAIL FOSTER GOLF LINKS HAZELNUT PARK TUKWILA F BICENTENF PARK 1 GREENBEL PARK cvsr s 3 -a K C NTERURBAN TRAIL 1 s. 1aa 'rH sr. ti 111114,,1 �YIIL�11 vo ' � II IINIIIIII! IlllllHhhI ' \ mums .rIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIcIIIIIII �► 1l� 1 11111111- . 1111111iiiii 61�IIIIIIII (ii d , ►�: ��>� .11111111111 11. -, ,1 IIIIIIIIIIIiili►IIIII�III1 � ' ' ,.:: \ q,,,` :\ illllllll . ,1111111 1 ! ' 160 ENE& j7 401!45 ®LIEN . i2 ,�'•• !rRlA 1 <v ' s. taoTN sr. rit Fowl, 1 = Ca • -w e /I III . , 1 % 111 , \ 1 �1 j q ; i 1 1 h1 1 \ 1 r ' I;III1,��111111 II • rl i l i l 1 1' ll al''� ' i' 1 -nil ;11 Ili f ,'111111111 •11' '"1'''.'II:i'''1 Iliffir ll�i, ��i:,1,1,,,11 1 11 111'11 4,1 11 a. 1 ' 11 11,'1 1 ', , I I QED ti Rama Oft& Attachment E ANNEXATIONS ■ PIRE DISTRICT NO.1 PILED DECEMBER 11US • SEA•TAC INCORPORATION RILED JANUARY 11111S RIVERTON ANNEXATION PILED RESRUARY Ill$ ® POSTER ANNEXATION PILED MAY ISIS THORNOYKE ANNEXATION PILED JUNE SIBS TUKWILA CITY LIMITS TUKWILA PLANNING AREA • .•.•••• ••••• ••• U Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Public Meeting AFFI"AVIT OF DISTRIBUTION Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Name of Project File Number 88 -3 —A hereby declare that: Determination of Nonsignificance Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice C1 Notice of Application for [I Other Shoreline Management Permit [I Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on '� z �� f Y f 1 b/) , ig (Interested Parties) • Subject: FOSTER ANNEXATION TASK FORCE City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 To Petitioners for the Foster Annexation July 8, 1988 The City is in the process of responding to the annexation petition we received from your area. One of the first things we are doing is forming a Task Force of interested people of your annexation area. We are discussing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and pre- annexation zoning in your neighbor- hood. Your input is desired now before we take a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council in August and September. You will be notified of the hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. If you would like to participate, please join us on: If you have any questions about the meeting, please feel free to call me at 433 -1947. JP /sjn Wednesday - July 13, 1988 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3 Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Sincerely, ) rv4"Gt ack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Mr. Kevin M. Raymond Deputy Prosecuting Attorney E 550 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: "FOSTER" PETITION FOR ANNEXATION June 29, 1988 Attached is the petition for annexation to the City of Tukwila referred to as "Foster ". The legal description has been corrected in accordance with your letter of June 27, 1988. The names on the petition have not been changed, just the legal corrected! Also, the map is the original; it has not been changed. Please note the explanation on the correction to the legal description submitted by the Public Works Department. They drew up the original and have made the corrections according to your letter. I hope you will look favorably on the corrections we have made and will certify this petition back to us so that we may continue the annexation process. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call at 433 -1800. Very truly yours, Maxine Anderson City Clerk NORM MALENG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY June 27, 1988 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: "Foster" Petition for Annexation to the City of Tukwila Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION E 550 KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 296.9015 On June 6, 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. This petition has been referred to as the proposed "Foster" annexation. 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. If it does, RCW 35.13.025 requires in addition that it be the prosecuting attorney's opinion that the City is legally authorized to take the actions specifically requested in the petition. The petition itself fails to meet the 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). The petition, however, contains a legal description that is inaccurate in a number of substantive respects. With regard to the first sentence of the legal description, the reference to "land situated in the southeast 1/4 of Section 15" should read "land situated in Sections 14, 15 and 23 ". The line reading "thence easterly along- said Donation Claim line to the west line of" should read "thence easterly along said Donation Claim line extended to the west line of ". The line reading "thence south 49 24' 00" east, 17.5 feet to the Ms. Maxine Anderson June 27, 1988 Page -2- southeast margin of" should read "thence south 60 30' 00" east, 17.5 feet to the southeast margin of ". The lines reading "thence south 31 03' 30" west along said southeast margin to the northeast margin of 53rd Avenue South;" does not follow existing city limits and, as a consequence, tax lot 38 would remain in unincorporated King County completely surrounded by the City of Tukwila. Finally, the lines on page 2 of the description reading "thence easterly along said north margin, 535 feet more or less to the centerline of 53rd Avenue South" is inaccurate to the extent that City Ordinance 1411 has already annexed part of this area to the City. In short, this legal description, in addition to including territory already annexed, would create islands of unincorporated territory completely surrounded by the City of Tukwila. For these reasons, we do not believe that the petition contains "an accurate legal description of the area proposed for annexation ". Based on the foregoing analysis pursuant to RCW 35A.14.020, we must regretfully refuse to certify the enclosed petition for annexation. Pursuant to our telephone conversation, would you please return the enclosed petitions to the petitioners with a copy of this letter? Very truly yours, For NORM MALE G, King County Prosecuting Attorney KEVIN M. RAYMOND Deputy Prosecuting Attorney KMR /sj Enclosures cc: City Council, City of Tukwila King County Boundary Review Board FOSTER REV. JUNE 28, 1988 A parcel'of land situated in Sections 14. 15, and 23. T23N, R4E, W.M. described as follows: BEGINNI11G 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 Ring 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 Ring 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 Ring 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 Ring 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, thence, ;:" $th 31 03'30" vest along said southeast margin to the norths' 4Asargin of 53rd Avenue South; thence J th 23 ° 49'15" east, 189.97 feet; thence:: ciith 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 Ring County, WA; thence southesterly 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 southwesterly margin of 56th Avenue South; thence continuing westerly along the south margin of South 137th Street to the southeast margin of South 138th Street; thence 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 ° 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 east sly along said north margin of South 139th Street and the easterr' } thereof, to its intersection with the west line =s.' =; - lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded i �':Jim* 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 OT BEGINNING; Page 2 NORM MALENO PROSECUTING ATTORNRY June 27, 1988 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Anderson: L FFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Re: "Foster" Petition for Annexation to the City of Tukwila E 550 KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 296.9015 On June 6, 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. This petition has been referred to as the proposed "Foster" annexation. 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. If it does, RCW 35.13.025 requires in addition that it be the prosecuting attorney's opinion that the City is legally authorized to take the actions specifically requested in the petition. The petition itself fails to meet the 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). The petition, however, contains„ legal description that is inaccurate in a number of substantit s; respects. try J� With reg the first sentence of the legal description, the reference '`to - "land situated in the southeast 1/4 of Section 15" should read "land situated in Sections 14, 15 and 23 ". The line reading "thence easterly along said Donation Claim line to the › west line of" should read "thence easterly along said Donation Claim line extended to the west line of ". The line reading "thence south 49° 24' 00" east, 17.5 feet to the w.,rfl: •te`• 'r�MUnu��uvrinr.r..r wu� u� +au ure Ms. Maxine Anderson June 27, 1988 Page -2- southeast margin of" should read "thence south 60 30' 00" east, 17.5 feet to the southeast margin of ". li The lines reading "thence south 31 03' 30" west along said 57" �1 ' (� southeast margin to the northeast margin of 53rd Avenue South;" ii ' d or does not follow existing city limits and, as a consequence, tax M/04 lot 38 would remain in unincorporated King County completely p*tst surrounded by the City of Tukwila. Finally, the lines on page 2 of the description reading "thence easterly along said north margin, 535 feet more or less to the centerline of 53rd Avenue South" is inaccurate to the extent that City Ordinance 1411 has already annexed part of this area to the City. --- I. ` P•c4a. '4,4, 4 u. i,M r se4i pry , In short, this legal description, in addition to including territory already annexed, would create islands of unincorporated territory completely surrounded by the City of Tukwila. For these reasons, we do not believe that the petition contains "an accurate legal description of the area proposed for annexation ". Based on the foregoing analysis pursuant to RCW 35A.14.020, we must regretfully refuse to certify the enclosed petition for annexation. Pursuant to our telephone conversation, would you please return the enclosed petitions to the petitioners with a copy of this letter? Very truly yours, For NORM MALE G, King County Prosecuting Attorney KEVIN M. RAYMOND Deputy Prosecuting Attorney KMR /sj Enclosureik C cc: City Council, City of Tukwila King County Boundary Review Board fr RIVERTON II REV. MARCH 31. 1988 A parcel of land situated in the southeast 1/4 of Section 15, T23N, R4E. W.N. described as follows: BEGINiume at the intersection of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Clain No. 37 and the vest aargin of Macadam Road South (46th Ave. 5.); thence easterly along said Donation Claim line 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 vest line of said Primary State Highway No. 1 to the southeast aargin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue) as shown on Subdivision of Lots 7. 8. 6 9 of Fostoria Garden Tracts. as recorded in Volume 11 of plats. Page 76. Records of King County. WA; thence northeasterly along said southeast aargin to the the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South (formerly Secondary State Highway No. 2M); thence southeasterly along said southwest aargin 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 cost 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 aargin of 52nd Avenue South (Foster Street); thence north 29 ° 30'00" east along said aargin. 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 49 east. 17.5 feet to the southeast aargin of 52nd Avenue South thence south 31'03'30" west along said southeast aargin to the northeast aargin of 53rd Avenue South; thence south 23 ° 49'15" east. 189.97 feet; thence a'' °,. , . b 40 east to the southwest aargin of Interurban Avenue Y thence } tksasterly along the Tukwila City Boundary and the southves, 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; w... w. v. �w,..........,. vr+. w. ..,...«�...._._..._._....�... _._....... w. w......... w*r... r. w.•.rw. a.avmvu- re.nr «eurwara+rvdm••••• ro+av •vnM.a..+vvaclr.•w ••2.4(.. ... ••• June 29, 1988 Tukwila Public Horks '�.. b-7' 6300 Southcrotrr Soultvird Tihw116 Noshtn ton 98188 �ti . 1 17, Merest, Director MEMORANDUM notes on foster annexation In response to the June 27, 1988 letter from the King County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, the attached legal description has been corrected as follows::. The first two comments regarding the missing section numbers, and erroneous text were relatively minor and easily corrected. The third comment regarding an alleged "island" is legitimate insofar as assessment records still show tax lot 38 in unincorporated King County. The legal description is correct as previously shown because tax lot 38 is the subject of a formerly petitioned and certified annexation known as STRANDER. The final comment concerning Tukwila Ordinance 1411 was in fact left out. The attached legal description now reflects Tukwila Ordinance 1411. We appreciate these comments and trust that you will find the revised legal description accurate and complete. Patrick' = 'tfiir Tukwila Engineering Division *ILA 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 max 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. BACKGROUND 'INFORMATION Entity: Action: Title: Thomas Brothers File No. 1544 P f ate No. _ RESPONSE LETTERS Department of Public Works Counsel to Board ADDITIONAL ENTITIES /AGENCIES .NOTIFIED Council Member(s): Sims, Nickels Clerk of the Council; K.C. Dept. of ,Assessments; K.C. Fire Marshall, DOE; DSHS; PSCOG; King Subregional Council Cities and Towns: Sea -Tac Committee K.C. Fire Districts: 111 SEPA DECLARATION: CITY OF TUKWILA Annexation Foster NON - SIGNIFICANCE Land Area 196 Acres • Population • 752 Assessed Valuation $28,062,113 Community' •Plan Area . Highline Community Plan Designation various County Zoning various City Comprehensive Plan • City Zoning District Comp. Plan District Franchise Sewerage General Plan LSA ON FIRST REVIEW: 8 -24-88 Received: Date Filed: Expires: Jur. Taken: Hearing: 8-17-88 Util. Coord. /Planning Division Entity Notified of Filing On Sewer Districts: Val Vum Rainier Vista School District: South Central Water Districts: 1125 COMMENTS OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Location Along the east side of Pacific Highway So, (immediately adjacent to the Riverton Annexation), between So. 139th Street and So. 144th. ON SECOND REVIEW: C16 of Tukwila . 1908 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (2O6) 433 -1849 Mr. Brice Martin, Executive Secretary 'King County Boundary Review Board Room W378,. Kings County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION- FOSTER ANNEXATION Dear Mr..Martin: This letter is to officially notify the Boundary Review Board that the City of Tukwila has received a petition for the annexation of an area referred to as "Foster ". to the City of Tukwila. The petition is for the election method of annexation, and has been certified for correctness by the King County Prosecuting Attorney's office and certified for sufficiency by the Tukwila City Clerk. Enclosed is the Notice of Intention on the annexation, along with eight copies and a $50.00 filing fee. If you have any questions or require additional :information. :at:this time, please call me at 4334847. MEEMEM AUG 171980 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING CO August 16, 1988 Sincerely, ack Pace Senior Planner FILE NO. 1544 - CITY OF TUKWILA - Prop. Annex. (Foster) Dear Mr. Martin: JP /sjn enclosure City . c4 . 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: NOTICE OF INTENTION - FOSTER ANNEXATION August 16, 1988 This letter is to officially notify the Boundary Review Board that the City of .Tukwila has received a petition for the annexation of an area referred to as "Foster" to the City of Tukwila. The petition is for the election method of annexation, and has been certified for correctness by the King County Prosecuting Attorney's office and certified for sufficiency by the Tukwila•City Clerk. Enclosed is the Notice of Intention on the annexation:along with eight copies 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, )4 " C- Xnk 1 a t ck Pace Senior Planner City o • Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor FOSTER 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 Foster area for election-method annexation to the City with pre-annexation zoning. This petition has been certified by the King County Prosecuting Attorney and was signed by 44 qualified voters, representing 52% of all voting residents in the 1987 General Election. There are a total of 337 registered voters in the area. , .,: The. City has held several public hearings and information meetings, as -- action. NOTICE OF INTENTIOr Foster Annexation Page 2 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 and Tukwila Municipal Sewer Districts (Attachment G), and the South Central School District (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 752 persons on 196 acres, yielding a population density of 3.84 persons per acre. The 1988 assessed value for the area is $28,062,113, therefore, per capita assessed valuation is $37,316.64. 9.B. Existing land use in the area is mixed between commercial /multi - family along Pacific Highway South, public schools along South 144th Street, and single - family in the central, northern and eastern areas. 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 Foster 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. NOTICE OF INTENTION Foster Annexation Page 3 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. The Foster area is located atop the west wall of the Green River Valley. The area is relatively flat on the southwest, but has 10 to 50 percent slopes in the northeast. There are no significant "natural" boundaries. However, logical boundaries seem to be formed by Pacific Highway South on the west, the Tukwila city limits on the west, the southern extent of the Riverton annexation petition area on the north, and the northern extent of the Thorndyke annexation petition area on the south. These are in fact the proposed Foster annexation area boundaries. 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 approximately 2.5 miles from the Riverton area. The Tukwila Community Center is approximately one -half mile from the . area; the Tukwila Library is approximately } mile, and various parks including Foster Golf Links are to 2i 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 INTENTIO a. PROPERTY TAXES Taxing Districts Annexation Area The rate shall be the minimum charge, • and 40t for every 100 cubic feet over 100. Foster Annexation Page 4 9.H.3 Present costs in the annexation area and in the City of Tukwila are described below. No change in water, sewer, or electric purveyors would• result from this annexation. 1987 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 M ali MN Tax Rates (per $1,000) 12.62507 $11.96975 . WATER RATES Water District No. 125: Meter Size Minimum Charge I" $ 5.00 1" 7.00 a" 10.50 2" 17.50 3" 31.50 4 " 59.50 6" 115.50 8" 170.50 City of Tukwila: Meter Size Minimum. Charge $ 6.80 1" 10.80 1U "_ 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 50d per 100 cubic feet. NOTICE OF INTENTION Foster Annexation Page 5 c. SEWER RATES Val Vue Sewer: Residential 526.90 for every two months Commercial - $26 :90 for the first 750 cubic feet and 53.59 for every additional 100 cubic feet City of Tukwila: Commercial /Industrial: A minimum charge of 59.50 per meter for up to 900 cubic feet plus 59.50 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 54.00 with no additional charges for volume. Residential: Each dwelling unit will be charged a flat rate of 54.00 with no additional charges for volume. d. ELECTRICITY 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. NOTICE OF INTENTIO' MCB /sjn 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, eg, Jack Pace Senior Planner Attachments: A. Assessor Map of Foster Annexation Area B. Legal Description of Foster 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 Foster Annexation Page 6 3 1ZCZ CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. /C A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE PROPOSED FOSTER 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 Page 1 :7t &e << 14 i t ;.•; Clerk of the City of T:.j, .;, ao tr•;;::r is ;5 trua and cirr`ect :c;)V of the orir. �,3I on file with the City V F P.\T .2:701441t-t— E D this 1�. dtty of / I '� , 1 y� City Clerk • 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. Foster 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 ATTACHMENT C annexed, a proposition that all property within the area to be annexed shall, . upon annexation, become subject to such Comprehensive Land: Use Policy Plan: designations and zoning regulations as shall hereafter be prescribed by Ordinance of the`.. City pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340. Section 4. Notification of Petitioners. The City Clerk is hereby directed to notify each of the Petitioners signing the petition for election . filed with the City of this resolution either by mail or by publication as requested by RCW 35A.14.020. .Section 5. Filing of Petition. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file the approved petition for election and a copy of this Resolution with the King County Council, and with the King County Boundary Review Board. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWI WASHINGTON, AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON JA 4 DAY OF ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: ITY C , MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By . FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 9-/4" PASSED BY . THE CITY. COUNCIL: 8 - i.r - E Pik: MEEMMEMEOMEE: OBBBi1 J IU NO.: j064 rissoliebon WAC 197 -11 -970 MODIFIED * DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal PRE - ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ZONING p AND ANNEXATION OF "FOCSTUER`.: E gE E I �J * TI Wi5A i MFNT S EFXPI 11t�E THIR AS T CONCERN Proponent EING ADDRESSED INCITY J1 TEUKWILA PROCESS.) Location of Proposal, including street address, if any APPROXIMATELY 139TH STREET PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (99), 144TH STREET, AND TUKWILA CITY LIMITS. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC-15-88 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 Responsible Official Position/Title Address Date FM.ONS There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is* issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by JULY for 15 days The lead agency will not act on this proposal or 1 days from the date below. Rick Beeler Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 6200 Southcenter Boulevar // 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. 4mET Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 July 14, 1988 Rick Beeler, Planning Director 6200 Southcenter;Blvd. City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA. 98188 -Determination of Non - Significance File No.: EPIC -15 -88 City of Tukwila Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to. review and comment. Sincerely, Grogory M.Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:plg King County Division of Roads and Engineering Department of Public Works 956 King County Administration Bldg.. 300 Fourth Avenue _Seattle. Washington 98104 (206) 344 -:480 July 14, 1988 Sincerely, Mr. Rick Beeler • Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard- . Tukwila,. WA 98188 RE: pre - Annexation' Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Amendment. for "Foster." "Thorndvke. "'and "Riverton" 'Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Declarations of Non- Significance issued by the City of Tukwila for the subject proposed annexations. The Roads Division of the Department of Public Works has . reviewed the environmental checklists issued for the three areas and has no comment. Information regarding road maintenance activities in th.s. areas was provided to you in a June 30,`1988 letter from Doug Mattoon, Maintenance Engi- neer addressed to Laurie Bender of the consultant firm CCA Incorporated. Comments from the Surface Water:. Management Division are . enclosed for your consideration. If you have any questions, please call Sandy Adams, :Intergovernmental Relations Coordi- nator at, 296-3724. Paul Tanaka Acting Director PT:sr Enclosure cc: Lou Haff, County Road. Engineer an: Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section Doug Mattoon, Maintenance. Engineer John Logan, Traffic Engineer Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management Division ATTN Susan Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator Washington o � •partmont of Transportation District 1. 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue. Washington 98007.6568 (206) 562.4000 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: Rick Reeler RE:dp • tl:wk2 cc: State Aid Duane Ssnntsen Secretary of Trarsoora: on SR 99 MP 20.12 - 23.0 Vicinity CS 1701 and 17320 Determination of Nonsignificance for Zoning and Annexation Proposals File Nos. EPIC- 15 -88, EPIC -1 -88, and EPIC 14 -88 Dear Mr.. Beeler: This letter is in response to the Determination of Nonsignificance reviews for three annexation proposals that we received from the City of Tukwila on July 8, 1988. The three file numbers mentioned above are for amendment zoning and annexation of "Foster ", "Riverton ", and "Thorndyke ". The proposed annexations should have no immediate adverse impacts upon any state highways in the vicinity. However, upon development of any part of the annexations, especially development adjacent to SR 99, another evaluation will be required: to determine what impact traffic generated by the developments will have on the area's transportation network, and what mitigation measures will be needed, if any, to state highways. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Donald Hurter (562 -4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562 - 4297) of my Developer section. Sincerely, JAMES L. LUTZ, P.E. �m District Utilities Engineer ► J King County Surface Water Management Division Department of Public Works 701 Dexter•Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 (208)344.31M 12, 1988 TO: Paul Tanaka,. Acting Director, Department of Public Works ATTN:ndy Adams, Program Analyst VIA: Jim Kramer, Manager FM: Susan Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinat RE: Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke Annexations Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Oeclaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) Issued . by the City of Tukwila ;on.the proposed annexations of the Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke areas. Based on a limited review of the DNS, King County Division of Surface Water Management has the following obser- vations: ,. 1); King County, through its Division of Surface Water Management and 'related policies, procedures and programs, advocates a watershed context , for consideration of storm and surface water quantity and quality . control measures. We are not aware of any storm and surface water management program providing comprehensive watershed planning and manage- ment services in. Tukwila, at this time. The DNS does not address strategies for resolving present or future drainage problems within a watershed management context. 2) Portions of the Ouwamish River appear to be within the proposed Riverton annexation. The DNS is not explicit regarding the extent of the pro- posed annexation along the River, including what portion of the river - bank will be annexed and how the riverbank will be stabilized, protected, and maintained. 3) King County has two capital improvement projects scheduled in the pro- posed annexation areas. The first to be built (scheduled for 1989 construction) 1s a siltation and detention facility to be located in an area bounded by South 133rd and South 137th Streets just east of Pacific Highway South (99). This project is part of the Soil Conservation Service Westside Watershed Plan for the P =25 Outlet Improvements proposed for the Riverton area. Paul Tanaka July 12, 1988 Page Two The second project in the proposed vicinity of South 152nd Street and area. This project, scheduled for Drainage Basin Study undertaken by 1987. annexation areas is located in the 42nd Avenue South in the Thorndyke 1991, was identified in the Fostoria Tukwila and King County completed in 4) The maintenance of any King County retention, detention, or other drainage related facilities is not discussed in the DNS. King County could provide Tukwila with an inventory of existing facilities and maintenance procedures. 1 Since storm and surface water management issues are not limited by political boundaries, King County and Tukwila should begin discussions regarding cooperative management of surface water and river resources. Because the DNS format does not lend itself to a complete discussion of the impacts on the surface water and river management aspects of Tukwila's annexation, it is SWM's recommendation that consideration be given to . a mitigated DNS which includes interlocal agreements between King County and Tukwila to address shared drainage concerns. ` " Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Tukwila annexations: ; :ds(C- M276) 1 cc: Ken Guy, Assistant Manager, Surface Water Management Division • Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resource Section Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer 7. 4. June CT l ° S8 City of Tukwila A. BACKGROUND 1. '=re- Annexation Comprehensive Flan Amendment, Zoning and •;nnexa *_ion of area known as Foster. Jack Pace Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA Q81E9 r206) 47771249 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Tukwila EPIC FILE NO: 13 -88 h. Comprehensive Plan review and amendment and pre- annexation zoning are scheduled for July through November 1988; Annexation • election is scheduled for February 1989. 7. There are no future plans for additions or expansions of the subj ect proposal and .its area; however, future •annexations contiguous to 1 subject area are possible. Text amendments to the zoning _:�.ie� possible in order to reduce'land use conflicts and provide ccmpara Zcni ;'g. 8. If `_e::t amendments are proposed additional environmental work Core. There ,ray be land use applications and permits that are pending On individual parcels' with King County that would be affectec•by th =s proposal. In addition, King County has scheduled an area - wids Community Plan update that would include area covered by .this proposal. 10. The governmental approvals and permits that are needed are incl•macsd within the annexation process. City Council adopt on of _-e- annexation Comprehensive Plan amendment, 'zoning and annexation. g• notice of intention will be submitted to the King County 3ou•ndary Review Board where review may be invoked. The County Council m,., -t pass an ordinance placing the election on the ballot. 11. The proposal is an annexation by election of the below descrlted property. The proposal also includes a review of Tukwila'_ Comprehensive Plan of the area with amendments, pre- annexation :onir to allow for simultaneous adoption of zoning if area is annexed. 12. The proposed site is roughly bounded by South 144th Street, SR 99 (Pacific Highway), S. 19th Street, and the Tukwila city limits on the east, and is referred to as "Foster." The size of the area is approximately 196 acres. 17.• Some of the areas within the proposed annexation areas do lie : environmentally sensitive area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS • 1. EARTH a. The Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexation areas have a combination of flat, rolling, hilly, and steep slopes. There are no mountains. 5. The steepest' slope in these sites is 100 percent in some areas. • c. The different types of soils are varied and include clay, sand, silt 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 be done. f. There will be.na construction clearing during this project. g • h. Impervious surfaces will not need to be • built after this annexation because there is no construction occurring during this project. Currently, there is no proposal to reduce or control erosion to the earth. 2. AIR a. The study 04 emissions is not applicable to this project. • h. 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. 3. WATER 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. C . b. No work in the vicinity of the above waters is required in order for this annexation.to take place. c. Fill and dredge materials are not needed in the annexations of these areas. There is no need for surface water withdrawals or diversions given the n• t:_tre of these annexations. e. ' A portion of the proposed annexation area does lie .iithir• a 100 year flcadpl ain. f. No waste materials will to dealt with in this project. b. Ground 1. • ^round water will not be withdrawn during this project. No wc+ste materials will be dealt with during this project. . 4. PLANTS c. Water Runoff 1. Major runcff occurs from the highways that traverse the areas - SR 518, SR qq and Interstate 1 -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 weans of collection for eventual discharge to the Green /Duwamish River. The discharge and seepage of waste materials is not effected by this annexation project. 3. Currently listed surface water improvements will be reviewed for consideration in the City of Tukwila's CIP. Engineering personnel will 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. •3. 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. No endangered species are known to be located in the area. d, "here is no proposed landscaping for the p =_al. S. ANIMALS e. The animals Nnich are located on or near the site are as follows: Birds: Nawk, Hs-on, and Songbirds Manmals: Rac=oons. Foxes, :oyotes, and Musk Rats =i.sh: Steelhead, ?ullheads Thera 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 filled to discourage the large gathering of waterfowl. d. There are no measures proposed to enhance the wildlife. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. There are no changes to be made in the sites energy requirements.' 5. This project .will not affect the potential use of solar enerc : in adjacent properties. c. not applicable 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a . 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. c. There is no need for 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 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.. s. LAND • AID SHORELINE USE a. 7n the Ri vertcn r.exati en area there :. are heavy a.nc. light indu=_.tria: and commercial uses. located in the north wi`n residential uses the southern half of the•prcpasels area. Er the r=aster annexation area :here are commercial, : esidential and public facility land uses. 'r! the area of Thorndyke, commercial, r -a=i-iential and public Facility uses predominate. b... The Riverton. area has been, used agriculturally for farmland c. Some of .the. structures in the annexation areas are comprised a.; fast food restaurants, motels, commercial businesses, heavy and light industries, and various densities and typos of residential dwellings. d. No structures will be demolished in this annexation process. P. The existing ':in:) County zoning : Riverton -}^H Heavy Manufacturing MP Manufacturing Park _ Light Manufacturing CG General Commercial BN Neighborhood Business :t1 X00. Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RD 3500. Two Family Dwelling H. RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling SR Suburban Residential Fo _t_er C3 General Commercial BC Community Business RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling RM 1900 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 1800 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 designates this . Irma as urban with Southgate park designated as park. The Highline Community Plan designates the area with the following ._ices in a north to south direction Industry, Light Manufacturing, Single Family, High/Maximum Density lulti- =ami l ;r, Nei •jhborhoad . and Community Rusi ness, Farb:: and Recreation, Lcw /Medium Density Multi- =amily. The Tukwila Ca:npr ehensive Plan currently designates the area as follows: '._ ght Industry, Commercial, Low Density Residential, High Density Residential ; and Parks and Open Space. . Foster - The c:.`i rg County Comprehensive F'l.an designates the area as '_ :r The Nighline C:ommunity Plan designates the area L•.ith oriented Commercial, Low Density Residential, High /Maimum . Luw /medium Density Multiple Family, Community Facilities and =ar and Open Space. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area with the following: Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Commercial, Public Facilities, and Parks and Open Space. Thorndyke - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as L:rban . The Hi gh l i na Community Plan designates the area with the following: Highway Oriented Commercial, High /Maximum Density Residential, Community Facilities, Park and Open Space, Neighborhood and community Business, Low/Medium Density Residential and Single Family. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area with r..hne following: Commercial, High Density Residential, Public Part:: and Open Space, and Low Density Residential There is no shoreline in the Thorndyke or Foster area however a small section of the Duwamish River is located along the north !ocund.ar : C Riverton. h. The following areas have been classified as envi ronm 1 1 sensitive. Riverton - The h i l l east of E. Marginal Way and north of S. Vnth Street and south of the Rainier Bank Processing Center is classifiFd as environmentally sensitive as well as the hillside r;!r -i - .j generally northwest to southeast from Pacific Highway around S. 177 Street across 42nd Avenue around S. 13th street to Macadam Road ?rd the hillside running north to south along the west side of Mac._tc a, Road from approximately 135th South into the Foster annexation ar ...a . . Faster - The hillsides just northwest of the Foster Park at 52nc S. 137th and along the west side of Macadam Road for its entire length through the annexation area are designated as environmentally sensitive. 6 A Thorndyke - The hillside running north and south along the wesr. , side of 51st Avenue S. and the ravine and hillsides running west and east south of 150th and north 'of S. 154th Avenues between 31st and - : 0th are designated as environmentally Censi No new construction is associated .with the project that would cause a change i. the number cif people who reside of '.pork in the ar =_a; however, a few comprehensive plan •changes • are proposed that rat i 1 charge potential residential densities. In the Riverton area, h gn density m u l t i p l e family area will be changed to low density and tie overall p' teed densities in the low density ar aas qi _• 1 re increased to urban maximum standards. Foster's residential population is estimated to.be 755. j. This project will not displace any people. !:.. • Sin•=e there is no displ = cement. 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 he 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 code are potential mitigation to impacts associated with the land i.se /zoning changes. 9. HOUSING a. No new housing will be provided during this project. b. There is no need for any of the housing units to .be eliminated due to the nature of this project. c. No housing impacts will be caused by the annexation process a. under review. 10. AESTHETICS The tallest height of any proposed structure allowed by t e Tukwila Zoning Code is 45'. However, height exception areas to this height restriction allow building heights of up to 11.5 '. 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. 7 4 11. LIGHT AID BLARE a. Light or glare is not applicable to this proposal. b. :_fight or glare is not .a safety hazard in this proposal. There . are no off -site sources of light or glare considerations. d. There :re no proposed measures to control light and glare. 12. RECREATION a . The recreational opportunities in the annexed areas are Sout Park, Tukwila Community Center, the Duwamish /Green ri'.erfrnnt trail, Poster pool and playgrounds and - ball fields, tie Ther playfieid _nc the Poster all fields and tennis co+_rt. b. T re ars no corstructicn activities within this annexation p,r•c'ce =_s that will dis,alace any recreational areas. T here : s no need for proposed measures to lessen the impact on r•ec= ea t i onal areas. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. The King County Historic Landmarks Office provided the following list of historic properties: Rikertor - Harrison Cabin 13417 40th Avenue S. - 190.Z Delta Masonic Temple 1.=0:34 41st Avenue S - 1926 Nash House 4106 S. 130th Avenue 1910 -1920 Albert Tutt 13000 E. Marginal Way 1920's Riverton Park United Methodist Church 13001 7.7th 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 1 112th Streets. Metro also serves some of the area along East Marginal Way South. b. The zrea 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 or air Iran f. The number g. There are a. b. impacts. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES :There' will legislative L•.rban level b. Theme are n To try nd completed t personnel i the. immedia adjust pars 16. UTILITIES D. SUPPLEMENTAL 1. There are n an annexati as the intensifica w•at ^r, air, Expected to The City of comply with 4. The City of the annexat legislation of sensitiv around thes more subjec nature of this project, there '_s not need for water, sportation. of vehicular t-ips is nct necessary to this project_. no measures to reduce sr control transportation to an increased demand on T..ikwiia uni:ci7..ai services, The following is .a needs projection to prs. _c services to th-_ area. • ;roposed measures to reduce impacts nn Tukwila :per : css. control the. impact, a fiscal budgetary, st_lc y -, .at refines the revenue projections. Laterai try n.afer:. o f ▪ health, life -safety departments will be made to f.a impact. The budget process will review the needs and onnel levels to accommodate the service demands. z. The utiliti =s available in the area are ?lectricity, natural gas, water, reface service, telephone, sanitary sewer, and septic systems. These services .ire prov.i ded by Seattle City Light, WNG, Water District 125, Sea -Tac Disposal, ?NB, Val, -Vue Sewer District. There are no utilities proposed for this project. SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS o changes to the existing environment because t h i s r : on. Land uses in Tukwila wi 11 be substantially tt _• I am= arrent King County uses and districts. Be:_au Lion of use is projected the environmental impacts :o and of toxic and hazardous substances and noise are *. i ncrease. Tukwila will enforce its =odes in the annexed area_ SEPA to control the environmental impacts. This annexation process does not effect plants, animals, fish, cr marine life nor is it .expected to deplete energy or r•at:r_..1 resources. Tukwila has mapped the environmentally sensitive areas rf ion areas. The County in contrast with the Cit- which protects and regulates development adjacent tc .=^d e sites. Tukwila does not. Therefore development o= �r- e areas while covered by SEPA review in Tukwila w i l l 'QE tively treated with perhaps uncertain outcomes. 9 To avoid or reduce impacts, the environmental review process wii be continued and used to protect sensitive sites. _ . No impact is to be expected . on the use of the shoreline or the tend. Tukwila will designate the one area of shoreline as urban which is compatible with its current designation and with the Tukwi l Progr;.t.m- rna effect en. land use is expected to be minimal bncaus= the objective is to provide compatible coning. Th.= 'overall dense. t`/ ._ single 'family dwel l i ngs is expected to incr - sa•se because ":_, wi l.a does h..3ve the Sl:b'.irian Residential density of 7.5,000. Some res%d.in :i ai he lowered from their cur• sigh and med T cen_ i tie et some .Areas of low will be raised to :•,ediiim or nigh. To avoid or r ^_dU.ce shoreline and land , .t =_e impacts, a prc._ann e:; .a r i c•o��prehn i a ;-: l a.(� ard zoning analysis is bei n'- concl •cted recessa• try Mitiga`e zoning impacts the zoning code will .•-.mended. rt Tuk ;•!i?a shoreline program will be amended if tha area is 'an.iex ed . The shnrei i ne is protected in the interim because shoreline development would continue under the county's regulations until i`_ is dded to the Tukwila Program. The ante at i cn w i l l increase the usage of Tukwila police, fire, ?udicial, administrative, legislative, planning and engineering services. As was mentioned in 15. above, a fiscal !budget projection is being done to plan +or the increased needs . The increase in police security on Pacific Highway South (old 7 to the social problems existing there in the form of d and prostitution, etc. 7. The' annexation and Comp Plan and zoning prcpcsal•s do not conflict with local, state, or federal laws with regards to the protection of the environment. The annexation proposal does not conflict with Tukwila' Comprehensive Plan as it lies within the City's Planning Area. T amendments proposed for the Comp Plan primarily reflect existing s_es in the areas or are being made to be more comparable with surroundi -g 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. Iii addition, the proposal would e: :pand city boundaries to include adjacent service, impact and planning area and co- locate with South Central School Distrct and provide urban level services to an urban area. 10 An alternative means of'achieving some of. the above objectives wculd 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 ircorporaticn Hbmcausei a. Policies and economics would support a lid or, the number of; governmental agencies. b. Tukwila is small in size and population and =hculd be sncauraged ro a Stature :comparable with o * suburban municipal governments. T�f�:wi is. Iagicai .urban service provider. 4.. The Tuk:wi l a Comprehensive Plan's General Goal. Mme. ' p.,12 "enccuragss this planned expansion of the corporate boundaries of Tukwila while providing adequate service levels and Improvements to Any. expansioncf the. City area especially into residential areas wil; craate greater demands than revenues generated to serve those arsas on 'a one to one basis. But service levels.and improvements can be maintained at.adequate levels for the prcposed annexation area. to 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.170 . To. reduce potential conflicts in equitable allocation of ;services • 'plan... =or' the proposal' prepared by the City departments tc assi=st in budgetary, personnel and service decisicns. 1.1 � � ,r IG !!! 1 � �� �� 1fi111� � :11 I? _ P14111 1 �11P , MIN ►� N r �:, =arm► ■N- i� LT ° '►� ��� OK ! OWL NR, IIIE 71 11111141MMII 11 HAMM LA FOSTER 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 moat 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 thence south 31 03'30" west along said southeast margin to the northeast margin of 53rd Avenue South; thence - mouth 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 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 southwesterly margin of 56th Avenue South; thence continuing westerly along the south margin of South 137th Street to the southeast margin of South 138th Street; thence 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 ° 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 easter17 thereof, to its intersection with the west line "..44 Lot. 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts, recorded iaftslnme 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 OW BEGINNING; WAC 197 -11 -970 MODIFIED * DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal PRE - ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ZONING AND ANNEXATION OF "FOSTER":',- * TROWOSAL S MRFACFEW A TF R IMANAWF M FN T I ( TH FROM BEING ADDRESSED IN THE INTERLOCAL PROCESS.) Proponent CI OF TUKWILA Location of Proposal, including street address, if any APPROXIMATELY 139TH STREET PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (99), 144TH STREET, AND TUKWILA CITY LIMITS. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -15 -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. [[ There is no comment period for this DNS Date FM.ONS 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 Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 Address 6200 Southcenter Boul evar Tu ,�f��.G�9818 /8e 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. 1 IMETR0 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 - 1598 Rick. Beeler, Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Blvd. City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA. 98188 Determination of Non - Significance: File No.: EPIC- 15 -88' City of Tukwila Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro:staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M.Bush, Manager Environmental. Planning Division GMB:plg July 14,1988 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 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Pre - Annexation Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Amendment. for "Foster." "Thorndvke." and "Riverton" Dear. Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Declarations of Non- Significance issued by the City of Tukwila for the subject proposed annexations. The Roads Division of the Department of Public Works has reviewed the environmental checklists issued for the three areas and has no comment. Information regarding road maintenance activities in these areas was provided to you in a June 30, 1988 letter from Doug Mattoon, Maintenance Engi- neer addressed to Laurie Bender of the consultant firm CCA Incorporated. Comments from the Surface Water Management Division are enclosed for your consideration. If you have any questions, please call Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordi- nator at 296 -3724. Sincerely, Paul Tanaka Acting Director PT: sr Enclosure cc: Lou Haff, County Road Engineer ATTN: Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section Doug Mattoon, Maintenance Engineer John Logan, Traffic Engineer Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Susan Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator •Ti Washington state Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue. Washington 98007.6568 (206) 562.4000 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: Rick Beeler Dear Mr. Beeler: RE:dp tl.wk2 cc: State Aid July 12, 1988 Duane lerentson Secretary of Transoorat on SR 99 MP 20.12 - 23.0 Vicinity CS 1701 and 17320 Determination of Nonsignificance for Zoning and Annexation Proposals File Nos. EPIC- 15 -88, EPIC -1 -88, and EPIC 14 -88 This letter is in response to the Determination of Nonsignificance reviews for three annexation proposals that we received from the City of Tukwila on July 8, 1988. The three file numbers mentioned above are for amendment zoning and annexation of "Foster ", "Riverton ", and "Thorndyke ". The proposed annexations should have no immediate adverse impacts upon any state highways in the vicinity. However, upon development of any part of the annexations, especially development adjacent to SR 99, another evaluation will be required to determine what impact traffic generated by the developments will have on the area's transportation network, and what mitigation measures will be needed, if any, to state highways. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Donald Hurter (562 -4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562 -4297) of my Developer section. Sincerely, JAMES L. LUTZ, P.E. �nr District Utilities Engineer King County Surface Water Management Division Department of Public Works 701 Dexter- Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-2383 July 12, 1988 TO: Paul Tanaka Acting Director, Department of Public Works ATTN:ndy Adams, Program Analyst VIA: Jim Kramer, Manager FM: Susan Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinat RE: Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke Annexations Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued by the City of Tukwila on the proposed annexations of the Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke areas. Based on a limited review of the DNS, King County Qivision of Surface Water Management has the following obser- vations: .,: 1)1 King County, through its Division of Surface Water Management and 'related policies, procedures and programs, advocates a watershed context for consideration of storm and surface water quantity and quality control measures. We are not aware of any storm and surface water management program providing comprehensive watershed planning and manage - ment services in Tukwila, at this time. The DNS does not address strategies for resolving present or future drainage problems within a watershed management context. 2) Portions of the Duwamish River appear to be within the proposed Riverton annexation. The DNS is not explicit regarding the extent of the pro - posed annexation along the River, including what portion of the river- bank will be annexed and how the riverbank will be stabilized, protected, and maintained. 3) King County has two capital improvement projects scheduled in the pro- posed annexation areas. The first to be built (scheduled for 1989 construction) is a siltation and detention facility to be located in an area bounded by South 133rd and South 137th Streets just east of Pacific Highway South (99). This project is part of the Soil Conservation Service Westside Watershed Plan for the P -25 Outlet Improvements proposed for the Riverton area. � , \ J L } cc: • Paul Tanaka July 12, 1988 Page Two \ ST:ds(C_M276) The second project in the proposed vicinity of South 152nd Street and area. This project, scheduled for Drainage Basin Study undertaken by 1987. annexation areas is located in the 42nd Avenue South in the Thorndyke 1991, was identified in the Fostoria Tukwila and King County completed in 4) The maintenance of any King County retention, detention, or other drainage related facilities is not discussed in the DNS. King County could provide Tukwila with an inventory of existing facilities and maintenance procedures. Since storm and surface water management issues are not limited b 9 by political boundaries,. King County and Tukwila should begin discussions regarding cooperative management of surface water and river resources. Because the DNS format does not lend itself to a complete discussion of the impacts on the surface water and river management aspects of Tukwila's annexation, it is SWM's recommendation that consideration be given to . a mitigated DNS which includes interlocal agreements between King County and Tukwila to address shared drainage concerns. `/. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Tukwila annexations. Ken Guy, Assistant Manager, Surface Water Management Division Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resource Section, Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer A. BACKGROUND 3. Jerk Pare Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 99193 (206) 437-1849 4, June 23, 1 J , en 7. City of Tukwila ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Tukwila EPIC FILE NO: 15 -88 1. Pre- Annexation Comprehensive Flan Amendment, Zoning and annexation of area known as Faster, 6, Comprehensive Plan review and amendment and pre - annexation zoning are scheduled for July through November 1988; Annexation election is scheduled for February 1989. r. There are no future plans for additions or expansions of the subject. proposal and its area; however, future annexations contiguous to the subject area are possible. • Text amendments to the zoning cc.ie are possible in order to reduce land use conflicts and provide ccmpara;l =_ zoning. 8. If text amendments are proposed additional environmental wcrk�.il:. done. There iT•ay be lend use applications and permits that are pendi ^c r' individual parcels with King County that would be affected by this proposal. In addition, King County has scheduled an area -wide • Community Plan update that would include area covered by t h t s proposal. 10. The governmental approvals and permits that are needed are included within the annexation process. City Council adoption of Fre- annexation Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning and annexation. notice of intention will be .submitted to the King County Bou.ndary Review Board where review may be invoked. The County Council ml.,st pass an ordinance placing the election an the ballot. 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 : on i r g to allow for simultaneous adoption of zoning if area is annexed. I 12. The proposed •site is roughly bounded by South 144th Street, SR 99 (Pacific Highway), S. 139th Street, and the Tukwila city limits on the east, and is referred to as "Foster." The size of the area is approximately 196 acres. r. •3. Some 'of the areas within the proposed annexation areas do lie within environmentally sensitive area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. The Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexation areas have a combination of flat, rolling, hilly, and steep slopes. There are no mountains. b. The steepest slope in these sites is 100 percent in some areas. c. The different types of sails are varied and include clay, sand, silt and gravel. d. The general area cf the Duwami River Basin has a history of landslides and areas of instability. e. There is no proposal for any filling or grading to be done. f. There will be no construction clearing during this project. 2. AIR 3. WATER Impervious surfaces will not need to be built after this annegation because there is no construction occurring during this project. h. Currently, there is no proposal to reduce or control erosion to the earth. a. The study of emissions is not applicable to this project. h. 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 required in order for this annexation to take place. 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 the nature of these annexations. e. A portion of the proposed annexation area does lie within a 100 year flootpl ain. f. No Haste materials will be dealt with in this project. 4. PLANTS b. Ground 1. .Ground water will not be withdrawn during this project. c. Water Runoff No waste materials will be dealt with during this project. 1. '1ajor runcff occurs from the highways that traverse the areas - SR 518, SR 99 and Interstate I -S. 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 weans of collection for eventual discharge to the Green /Duwamish River. The discharge and seepage of waste materials is not effected by this annexation project. 7. Currently listed surface water improvements will be reviewed for consideration in the City of Tukwila's CIF'. Engineering personnel will 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. No endangered species are known to be located in the area. d. There is no proposed landscaping for the proposal. 5. ANIMALS b. ?! C. a. The animals which are located on or near the site are as follows: Birds: Hawk, Heron, and Songbirds Ma;imals: Raccoons, Foxes, Coyotes, and Musk Rats �ishs, Steelhead, Bullheads There 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 filled to discourage the large gathering of waterfowl. d. There are no measures proposed to enhance the wildlife. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES There are no changes to be made in the sites energy requirements. h. This proiect will not affect the potential use of solar enerc in adjacent properties. c. not applicable 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. 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. c. There is no need for proposed environmental health precautions due to the fact that there are no hazards involved in thi5 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 a. c, LAND AND SHONEL I NE USE c. There are no changes proposed to control the noise impact on the area. The City of Tukwila will enforce its noise ordinance to control the noise. :n the Riverton annexation area there are heavy an6 light industrial and commercial uses located in the north with residential uses in the southern half of the proposals area. rn the Foster annexation area there are commercial, residential and public f a c i l i t y land uses. n the area of Thorndyke, commercial, r =idential and public facility uses predominate. b. The Riverton area has been used agriculturally for farmland-. Some of the structures in the annexation areas are comprised of fast food restaurants, motels, commercial businesses, heavy and light industries, and various densities and types of residential dwellings, d. No structures will be demolished in this annexation process. e. The existing '•::in,g County coning . Riverton -MR Heavy Manufacturing MP Manufacturing Park 'II_ Light Manufacturing CG General Commercial BN Neighborhood Business M 900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RD 3600 Two Family Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling SR Suburban Residential Foster CS 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 1800 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: Riv are Hig use M:an Fam Red C Li g Den rton - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates this as urban with Southgate park designated as•park. The line Community Plan designates the area with the following in a north to south direction . Industry, Light facturing, Single Family, High/Maximum Density 'lulti- i Neighborhood and Community Business, Fark and - eation, Low /Medium Density Multi - Family. The Tukwila rehensive Plan currently designates the area as follows: - :t Industry, Commercial, Low Density Residential, High .h ity Residential, and Parks and Open Space. Foos er - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as u.r b•n. The Highline Community Plan designates the area L. Hi: ,h4a' on nted Commercial, Low Density Residential, High / Maximum 7.41 Lu.,w!Medium De=nsity Multiple Family, Community Facilities and Far and Open Space. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area wit the following: Low Density Residential, High Density Res dental, Commercial, Public Facilities, and Parks and Open Space. Thorndyke - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as urb n. The Highline Community Plan designates the area with the fol owing; Highway Oriented Commercial, High /Maximum Density F•es dential, Community Facilities, Park and Open Space, Neighborhood and Community Business, Low /Medium Density Residential and Single Fam ?y. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area witn he fol owing; Commercial, High Density Residential, Public F.ciiity, Far : and Open Space, and Low Density Residential g. There is no shoreline ? n the Thorndyke or Foster area however a sin 11 seo ion of the Duwamish River is located along the north bcund ar = o+ Riv •rton. h. The following areas have been classified as environmerly sensitive. Riv rton - The hill east of E. Marginal Way and north of S. 12._.th Str et and south of the Rainier Bank Processing Center is Clas si riF'd as environmentally sensitive as well as the hillside rurni gen -rally northwest to southeast from Pacific Highway around S. 17: Str - et across 42nd Avenue around S. 135th street to Macadam Road and thee hillside running north to south along the west side of Macac a ,,; Roa from approximately 1.35th South into the Foster annexation area, Fos er - The hillsides just northwest of the Foster Park at SCnc and S. 137th and along the west side of Macadam Road for its ar•tire len■ through the annexation area are designated as environmentally sensitive. 6 9. HOUSING Thorndyke - The hillside running north and south along the west side of 51st Avenue S. and the ravine and hillsides running west and east south of 150th and north of S. 154th Avenues between 51st and 40th are designated as environmentally sensitive., No new construction is associated with the project that would cause a change in the number of people who reside of work in the area however, FA few comprehensive plan changes are proposed that w i l l change potential residential densities. In the Riverton area, ? hign density m u l t i p l e family area will be changed to low density and tne overall permitted densities in the low density areas ,i ? 1 be increased to urban max i m_im standards. Foster's residential population is estimated to be 755. j. This project will not displace any people. k:. Since there ie no displacement of individuals, there are no proposed measures to deal pith 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 code are potential mitigation to impacts associated with the land esefzoning changes. a. No new housing will be provided during this project. • .b. • There is no need for any of the housing units to .be eliminated cue to the nature of this project. c. 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. re e tional areas. b. There are no corsstruct i on activities within this annexation nr -•c _-=_= 'char will displace any recreational areas. 11. LIMIT AND BLARE 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 Southgate Park, Tukwila Community Center, the Duw.ami sh/Green riverfrjnt trail, Foster pool and playgrounds and ball fields, the Th:orndyke play f i ei d snc_ the Foster ball fields and tennis coL'rt . There is no need for proposed measures to lessen the impact on 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. The King County Historic Landmarks Office provided the following list or historic properties: Riverton - Harrison Cabin 13017 40th Avenue S. - 1903 Delta Masonic Temple 13034 41st Avenue.S - 1926 Nash House 4106 S. 130th Avenue 1910 -1920 Albert Tutt 13000 E. Marginal Way 1920's Riverton Park United Methodist Church 13001 37th Avenue 1910 Thorndyke - Carey Bungalow 14454 51st Avenue S. - 1517 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 112th Streets. Metro also serves some of the area along E.a'st 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. 3 e. Due to the nature of this project, there is not need for water, r = or air transportation. f. The number of vehicular tips is net necessary to this project. There are no measures impacts. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES CI • 16. UTILITIES t0 reduce There will to an increased demand on TJkwi1a 'municipal and legislative .:,er "ices. The following is a needs projection to prs- ie urban level services to the area. b. There are no proposed measures to reduce impacts on Tukwi I ser : ss. To try _•nd c..ntrol the impact, a fiscal budgetary st_o y ,; : ' hR completed that rs-Fires the revenue projections. Lateral tranmafe. of personnel i n heal th ; life safety departments w i l l the made to ha -, d: e the immediate impact. The budget process will review the needs and adjust personnel levels to accommodate the service demands. a. The utilities available in the area are electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, and septic systems. These services are pro' -'ided by Seattle City Light, WNG, Water District 125, Sea -Tac Disposal, F'NB, Val-Vue Sewer District. b, There are no utilities proposed Tor this project. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS control transportation 1, There are no changes to the existing environment because this ::r1ti an annexation. Land uses in Tukwila will be substantially the same as the current King County uses and districts. Because 1:7, intensification of use is projected the environmental impacts to water, air, and :of toxic and hazardous substances and noise are -1.-,t expected to increase. The City of Tukwila will enforce its codes in the annexed areas nd comply with SEPA to control the environmental impacts. 3. This annexation process does not effect plants, animals, -=ist , or mari ne life nor is it expected to deplete energy or r ;ra l resources. 4. The City of Tukwila has mapped the environmentally sensitive areas r-:f the • annexation areas. The County in contrast with the Cit �•.a.; legislation which protects and regulates development adjacent tc and . .of sensitive sites. Tukwila does not. Therefore development cc- �r- around these areas while covered by SEPA review in Tukwila will be more subjectively treated with perhaps uncertain outcomes. To avoid or reduce impacts, the environmental review process will be• continued and used to protect sensitive sites. No impact is to be expected on the use of the shoreline or the land. Tukwila w i l l designate the one area of shoreline as urban which is compatible with its current designation and with the Tukwila Program, The effect on land use is expected to • be minimal because the objective is to provide compatible zoning, The over_ I 1 density of single family dwellings is expected to increase because Tukwila ices not h•.ive the Suburban Residential density of 35,000. Some res dent i .ai areas will be lowered from their current high and med :L :.m cene ittes et some areas of low will be raised to :iedi um or high. • To avoid cr reduce shoreline and land use impacts, a pro-enr:exeti cr: cnmpr'ehen'o1 � . : : : ? e l a n ard zoning anal ysi i is being cand ted .. T; recessa-y, to ::litigate zoning impacts the zoning code will 'pe ,mended. T u k w i l a shoreline progrem will be amended if the area is annex ed . The shoreline is protected in the interim because shores ire d'zveio,: ment would continue under the county's regulations L:nti l it is z to the Tukwila Program. The annexation wi i l increase the usage of Tukwila police, fire, judicial, administrative, legislative, planning and engineering services. ='s 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 9 : due to the s o c i a l problems existing there in the form of drugs and prostitution, etc. 7, The annexation and Comp Flan and zoning proposals do not conflict with local, state, or federal laws with regards to the protection of the environment. The annexation proposal does not conflict with Tukwi 1 a ' s Comprehensive Plan as it lies within the City's Planning area. The 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 District and 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 incorporation because: a. Policies and economics would support .a lid on the number of governmental agencies. b. Tukwila is small in size and population and should he encouraged to assume a stature comparable with ot'ier 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 #6 p.13) 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 E %IT • Mr :fit . . 111 :1lif':� ail NI . 4 O1I � �.. x 'Aleut . IIIIIINNIIMMA1/41 " GOO i e it 1104,411/o AMP �11�lIA 1. �nll, 51 I II -�\ 3, 1111r11.11 Ill II/ "NNW III \ Tin' n .. mii um 11 a �� : � !__ ,. ERN ©I,' i E� Al a -1,..avg.--uv._ ..‘ gimphirs„ H. a i l tii%71111iitilifirailiatt i spi i ft4L ... 4./ s. aP,11111 MWAICIIII� h 14 id =ft N=1 iiiriiitomma Nog II 1111/111111111 LL. "Mq 4 DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN July, isa Gomm. Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary ( Collection Point "■—•• Stream 000i Tributary Number 01301 Proposed Project 110 v: arras.. ' ' .'1. •� \l \•y GRE:2 1 ,; �I! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !IIIIIIIIIIIIII I!I!IIIIIlIIIIIIIIIII {II{ 1 1111111 I I , . W I!! !IIII11,�IIIIIIIIIIIIII;HIIIIII . u�_ 7 11 MOIR I� I :.� W paanao. Bea-" ANNEXATION AREAS IIIIIIII m FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 SEA -TAC INCORPORATION RIVERTON ANNEXATION FOSTER ANNEXATION THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TUKWILA CITY LIMITS TUKWILA PLANNING AREA a ATTACHMENT E I LI Al %I0 Aiorl.:!! `•� 4— mai VAN mu fit ANII .1,46 = vir II MI Mar IMMI Mir :0 - - _ate _ - 11 ij - ' I I �, illi�l I 1111 11111 ' _ h:r1 ., 111t1111:� I1IIN:I II Ifliiii i,l ••.. �� IIIIIIIIIIII II i iIIu I,ciuiiiiil'iinlli 111111 :;�;iIl,; IIIINI IfiI I III( IIII•II111UIII II�IIII ! :III' 111IIII�I11 �II�III �I1111 u11111III1111111111:11111111 Il 11� III,IIII ::�11111I1 111111111111ii1 II I ■ ■■. ■ :III 1111111111 iii :; i I I IIiIII111I11 i IIIIff1�!ii�. • 11111 I 1il 111 , I 1 11 11 1 1 t ...111111111':! �j�'sif11111 111 ': III .,111 ILIN 111111.'::x11111 . .� • I SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IR LOW /MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING HIGH /MAXIMUM DENSITY MULTI - HOUSING HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY FACILITIES j • Gm't W minim iMMI111111 ATTACHMENT J FOSTER ANNEXATION KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN i • i. EIRM-1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DWELLING RM-2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DWELLING RD-3600 TWO FAMILY DWELLING CLASSIFICATION O RS-7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL E3 SR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL El 8-C COMMUNITY BUSINESS fflfl C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL ••C•L'.;' KING COUNTY ZONING MAP ATTACHMENT K //°/ . • ./ . ,." / c . 1/ 0- I I /I NINO. •T U. 1 16 •••••••••••••• I Kk LEGEND. • HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 0 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE El PUBLIC FACILITIES 0 COMMERCIAL ATTACHMENT L TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7 j • • FOSTER ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING IJJl1 °. r MOM MEM ,:� 1 4'1=1= ® RMH MULTIPLE- RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY • TUKWILA COMMUNITY CENTER JOSEPH FOSTER MEMORIAL PARK CRYSTAL I I% SPRINGS PARK ATTACHMENT N k iNT llnsco meAuteg Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department Facilities Guide FOSTER GOLF LINKS HAZELNUT PARK TUKWILA PARK BICENTENNIAL PARK - CHRISTENSEN GREENBELT PARK LEGEND TRAILS PARKS C:r + S-C CITY rA_: - STAOIL'.t SCilOOL l7 LIBRARY , SWIMMING POOL F•RE STAT C'i ••. • s t 1 ; • • • t F- . t i •: •;' , 31111•: • •d.1• %1•:1 ! t 1 ` Si,. •• 66•45 PaS C • i • - .. - . 1 :: � �•� ('�•• •( '• ▪ ` III • ') 1•I 41•1•I1.1• —' • - t . 1r '�' • ...�r I.1yI.1• a • \. \ \ • ` • • �� 1 • • . , •. • -..� .. f .i, --. •1 1 .r W I H 0 I' • •!• • 1 I 1 p r • i i • '. • TTi • i 4^ . 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FUTURE MEETINGS FURTHER INFORMATION (26 /NT C.4 -26) City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 FOSTER ANNEXATION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING The City of Tukwila received a petition for annexation by election for the Foster 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. DATE: JUNE 2, 1988 THURSDAY TIME: 7:30 PM LOCATION: FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA SO 144TH & 42ND SO 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. 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. 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. 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. I«n Foster Annexation 14$ 160 City of , dkwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433-1849 s t Nt " .40) -- 'gib••; 1 k IP eir ,SEA-TAC INC. ad III I NE7 ST A • r� •!•!•e Legend Fire District #1 Tukwila City Limits Riverton Annexation Sea -Tac Incorporation Foster Annexation BOUNDARY MAP 3RYN HAWR 4, C I, BEVERLY L. ROGERS hereby declare that: El Notice of Public Hearing Ea Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [i Board of Appeals Agenda Packet El Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for [] Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on MAY 23. 1988 , 19 . Interested Parties • Name of Project FOSTER ANNEXATION File Number 88-3 - AFFI(AVIT O F D I S T R I T I O N Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [I Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action Q Official Notice ...+..._..._ . ............r...me.. edicYY x ,, k City o Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 The City of Tukwila received a petition for annexation by election for the Foster 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. FUTURE MEETINGS (26/NTC.4 -26) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FURTHER INFORMATION FOSTER ANNEXATION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA SO 144TH & 42ND SO 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. 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. 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. 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. Cit! If Tukwila PLANK NG DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 BOUNDARY MAP Fire District #1 Tukwila City Limits Riverton Annexation Sea -Tac Incorporation Foster Annexation * TO: Mayor Dusen FROM: Chieift0 sson DATE: SUBJECT: Lower Riverton Annexation DRP:td File: A5617 March 10, 1988 MEMORANDUM 'City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Police Department 433-1808 -.-.-------, L f - , 6 ,.11riii - t-Irowio - 1.11 \ r ------ - 1 1, 25 1988 i ci c Y o t- i 0 , ,t.,.., LA PLANNING DEPT. In reviewing the annexation request, I found the City would end at the east side of Highway 99. It is my request that annexation be to the West side of Highway 99. The reason for this request is that it is difficult to provide enforcement to citizens of Tukwila, when the roadway in front of their residence/business is outside of the city limits. •• .. Mr /50 .• 4 — CO Q.A Vi R...) to a eh ,... UN allm cl 441EC ; . a .:-• i gi I I UV L ii I-i ul ns et 4. lb , 4436 Vs . I • 4 — 4 ' • ca Er. (f . , ilo - aPP-J bra 4 _ •N = c5 CO Q.A Vi R...) to a t. 42. 4E21 ' cl 441EC ; 1 UV L ii I-i ul , 4436 Vs . I • 4 116 4 ' • ca Er. (f . - aPP-J bra 4 _ Vertime sr' 45TH1O rfl ■ 7 /N‘' ■ O: • , , - la 0 •,. •■ s tt .. ///• 4)°. N •• Ca / N, I . o" • ,*. / ■ ,.... / / ';', ' / ■ / .I \,N (,... , 0 .. ,NN c\,.../... : ; ... :: 1!. • . p - a 17 . , .. .., / . . -- . ' 4 ' I ' . ` <$. e ct ,, 0 Or :. :4 g ic . u i`fa • . ,,,% . / / . • c- / * 48TH Pi. 425 Apios. , 4 ...,... . a - rul „,,I, ., i v ' 'r.s1 c■ Nj III I r.) P.,) • $.1)— > v : A l c ' t „■••••:- N., • C A EY AVE) 1 11 LP A hal 41^, 01 I• 1 1 - uli e/ i h 16 sel 1 ieu.e X z L0112 BLK.S MORTIMER PLAT ‘ CITY uF TUKWILA ANNEXATION APPLICATION NOTE TO THE APPLICANT: Please complete all appropriate sections of the applica- tion below. Information contained in this application will be used in preparing all of the necessary documentation for this annexation; therefore, please type or clearly print all of the necessary information. If additional space is required for response to any of these sections, feel free to attach additional sheets to this application. If you have any questions with regard to this application, please feel free to contact the Planning Department at 433 -1849, or you may discuss this matter in person at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Do you wish have the area's zoning adopted simultaneously with the annexa- tion? Yes No If pre- annexation zoning is approved by the City Council, the proposed zoning can be circulated on the 75% Annexation Petition. The Applicant is required to complete an Environmental Checklist for the pro- posed annexation. The Environmental Checklist requires a filing of $100. Please return the completed Checklist with your completed Annexation Application and Notice of Intention. ,PROPONENT Name ...�..•� -� �e=4:7 l� r 1 ; s QA/ Address , ,Bo c 8_2 CONTACT PERSON if other than proponent City , — SE - ATrc E Gila . 9'/38 Telephone 62Oi) 62,2,42%—///? /34..5-4 AN? i3NSei %s S/ sr, Boor' . LOCATIuN 1, = ,Sao so, / Property Address grrAA: 9J/r8 Lot Area Sq. Ft.4Ia 9SKcres Assessed valuation /Qo2 T6t4, Current County zoning Desired Tukwila zoning p 0 R R- `J SM•,cT' Legal Description (77 N. Serer/; TAW a? ,3 O'w : O / 7" . / 57-14- ► 5P P/1s o✓ '°.38 . AR gzr7 oe / 1 JR4c /9#/ o.t.C4. /�mrarc; 't;or/ PURPOSE OF ANNEXATIuN - Briefly describe the reasons you desire to annex. (Revised 11/85) Ste r 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 353 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) 1. ELECPET REGISTERED VOTER 2. Name: (Print) c,tNes .- L(L,it, Signature: 3. Name: (Print) Signature: 4. Name: (Print)He.je lse. l�aszubowski / / v Signature: 3a,L,r.�..,o._ J a4,v4) 1 5. Name: (Print)�AbiF3 caN7Rq .Cf7, u Signature: 6. Name: (Pri Signature: ,/ 7. Name: (Print4 :1 4 / 1 • e0.J nd Signature:] , aS 4. ROtiCrS 8. Name: (Print) . e4W—CL / 5 Signature : 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. PETITION FOR ANNE0110 TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (Election Method) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: a re" S4 -erlki I A t o ,61 t) � : /y IV J /I/vr6K DATE SIGNED 5 -7 - ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # 1251 g,i . e_cx_--B-1., /,0A 9 ��� 4zy7 L��1�'f s. /3-e_vc,/„t4 4 ' rdi‘,? q.5/ L / ,5u. /4/0 Spa ta4 9808 el5' /5" S /51o4 Se at+ /e , Lt 9S I4' S LATTLr LA.5 /C -"I7 _sz2 =-r G - i// C 7 1396/ 53 oc 5674 wit/. 9S / fie This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and con- sidered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice, of Intention. OWNER'S SIGNATURE 'Husband or Wife) 6" 0, # /5 S einv. �o sMio- A4 to Mi_tor 4Icl &'M" 5•.14S( (AINtx.M1.2) (1C.1) PRINTED NAME AOORESS ANO TAX LOT NUMBER SATE SIGNED 1'120 b 'S $o J12�p'S Revised (11/85) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: 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 iii within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legaI desc'ri'ption 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 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) 1. Name: (Pri t) S ignaturte: ---2. Name: (Print) Signature: Name: (Print) REGISTERED VOTER Signature* 4. Name: (Print) , j n/ ,E /G/ c ' Signature: ELECPET rtiiutun rwK AnntAAl1UN TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (Election Method) 5. Name: (Print) .f( ov IW 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print) Signature: DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # W.17/sri otq) -ey,r" Q / 72 3 - Ako► XIS 13 .91,73 /nc //20ci'- /c. n► Z; /97.1.3 Ind 44,6; Al ied U a( /141442_ /541KP 5a 2g1— LZi9J . .� — 4S 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. 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 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 he voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED Name: (Print) Signature: 2. Name: (Print) Signature: 3. Name: (Print) Signature: 1 Signature: Name: (Print) Signature. 7. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print) Signature: ELECPET PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (Election Method) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: 4. Name: (Print AL/5 ,s/�9tM5 X77/ 1? Signature: 0 A 'h /5. Name: (Print) a. 0 ,, / / ` / 6. = , ` / ii O • DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # 6"--7-1 /yq90 al - p /394z0 c.C1 czooS qgl /8' 7 fie,¢ /f)a/. 90 68'6sa 5e- w qg I68 /i9 - 5 7, ve. oSo . A S P,, 60-se 5d' /G f ° y 1392. 8 5 / ave 1 017 adcKI SQaft cJ / 41 / 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. This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and con- sidered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice. of intention. OWNER'S SIGNATURE rHusband or Wife) PRINTED NAME JODI MOAi 6 S. / . ieht ei 1Al. n/Q; s r (Aso X. ( ADDRESS AND TAX LOT NUMBER 4 V5 5 Ave rev So 25Szo- onto - o7 5 / - /'j2 5 egos" S, ?? s . 2yt -64;e6 - SI17Ist /fro? 5 P zvz Goo / /3969 5 S. -<W - 2/ 0 /G t. JMoo et (k) fhAeAe tin 9 53 c24 / -2/33 44V88 l r i, E S .ALL 6 " 3 -gg 3 SQ i / 9/8' e � 1.47.4 ( S 3"� DATE SIGNED cQ or-$4:2 l - % (? A 1'4 Z ' 7/ /'2r sc 4 a S. / S-? "...9* Serowe , 97/61' s• Se r - &) SA /6g v E.S3 Ss4.rr?. � WA 5 :2sf Y Revised (11/85) 1. Name: (Print) 4. Name: (Print), a : „ • Signa . 4t 5. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print)��o ELECPET PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (Election Method) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: 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 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 Signature: 2. Name: (Print),Qn i ai ik V i lph Signature( 2 - c= „Z_j 0/.1— 3. Name: (Print) ( , � �,,�,�,����~ Name: (Print ') / // .. 41 7-88 Signature: . / I Name: (Print) - nr-nt ri2p r., , •�� 5 s � t Signature. - Signature: DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # 4er '/-? 3 - 'is s /39 St y � 3 - '/; S. '% S� 4-A9-6A -$7 Z, /7s / 9 09' - Pc/ \So • 41 -3o -V /39o9 5/a s n_. -9 Jo S'c . / fC 143 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. This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and con- sidered as one Notice of intention and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice. of intention. OWNER'S SIGNATURE rlusband or Wife) TAX LOT NUMBER «t e-t S ogo / " 57/ .s is _ •Er � R64 ' y ,4.w14rycs&,.. y7o y sv /V y 6 4r8 ,- (h4 l .Fibs 644 t2L R•1 oGe 2 > NIA, I- S3 S'-a171ZE y IV 1�3- a o e ice 1 4 p. Srasitc-cz.k o y 4i-Sa. /4tS'rSotit /4 k j /« / Pi 143&i aM ake.I Mee" iii yo4 . Se 1 -a s St 3. was_ S -/7 I /1L 4 &Q i i iii i6E't 4L(6/ n , l 9 — s i . Att,40, : i f3 i,I) rr�l. 4,.cart �� k,13 u_r�, ,:f� 4e)I/—fie+. /3 -i_ /'2 (MilNex.,M1,2) ( 4 C .1 ) PRINTED NAME ADDRESS ANO OATS SIGNED Revised (11/85) Signature: ELECPET TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: 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 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 v'c, S4.etW I,e✓ Signature;,,, , 2. Name: (Print) Oce ( � A e&-Cc.:TQ { Signature: :?.-•` /-/L PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (Election Method) 6. Name: (Print)r, !; ' DATE SIGNED (J.- _ l..l Signature: 3. Name: (Printk l r .10 "` 1 1 - E yjy/ t ft' S ignature' 1 _ 7 � . r 2 4. Name: (Print),. 3 1 :•• f Signature: 5. Name: (Print)&i;,. ,, r T - f L .,f ; 5 • Signature: 7. Name: (Print) r <''C- 'v : , C- Signature:( ( L- 8. Name: (Print) / I ( /'( c' (ct )/C.2 ( y/2'1 * ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # q3/E : )9(‘ - ti 7 ti��"TLi� IL /t /_ /l: q /4 , S /yG,'1 }IBS -sus J/ .? / 39 .T ff C( / 5 P/ / £l . r % �=-- 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. This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and con- sidered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice, of intention. OWNER'S SIGNATURE rHusband or Wife) CA PRINTED NAME (/ 'kI -' rte/ (AiNeX.1M1,2) (4C.2) r k ADDRESS ANO TAX LOT NUMBER 120/1 -y41 -X;r2, r 5 OATE SIGNED Z Mtsty /37Y1-YL" JA 7 e #l1 e r le41 /VP- 4'' S 5/// 87 Revised (11/88) i�� 3. Name: (Print) Signature: 4. Name: (Print) SIgr ature: 5. Name: (Print Signature: PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (Election Method) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: 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 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) Jy?L. �/. �' l7 /d /f II , � t � � f / Signature: , ( 2. Name: (Print) , / 4//;d ea t Signature: ;1 /4 v 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print) r- A14);to Signature: —7 f , < � 8. Name: (Print) ;)- ep Signature:_ 4. r4 DATE SIGNED /36/6- S/ 4vE 5 ?`88 - fie 9P /' / 14o S `1-`6. � ,�1, ��� ; c�A- 986 $' Az a q l db' aos- tfl ' l 1 'lQ <%Awis T #1- ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # 3cs 3`I 5 I wc‘r ctkLc, ■k; C\ ` i%1( - )5,sectitk wd Cf 7 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. ELECPET This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and con- sidered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice, of intention. OWNER'S SIGNATURE !Husband or Mif ) (AmNEL M1.2 ) (4C.t) PRINTED NAME AOORESS AND TAX LOT NUMBER OATE SIGNED L ge,u2.1 - Lr;,A.LitS (?ci442 s £ /SA - f / #g"2; .5 (505 .7z55-20-0m• —07 -D am& Jn.,co A9MR ) Raw 6 ALL .SS 53 Av • s • r4/sy Revised (11/85)