Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-04-A - CITY OF TUKWILA - THORNDYKE ANNEXATION88-04-a 88-4-A THORNDYKE ANNEXATION THORNDYKE 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 This is to certify that on March 14, 1989, there was held a Special Election in the area known as Thorndyke, 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: Form E•47 PROPOSITION NO.1 PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF AREA KNOWN AS THORNDYKE TO THE CITY OF TUKWILq FOR ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS 315 CARRIED AGAINST ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS 2 3 8 PROPOSITION NO. 2 ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS FOR ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS 181 AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS Dated at Seattle, Washington, this 24th day of March 1989. 1 APR -- 31989 3 5 6 DEFEATED /JANE HAGUE, Manager --- Division of Records and Elections FEB-07—'69 14:23 i U : I•: i 115 CTY RECE'ELECTS TEL 140:20S-24S-010R VS93 P11 NORM MALENG PROSECUTING AMINE V February 3, 1989 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION 1989 FEB -3 PM 3: 27 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 -- Proposed Annexation of the City of Tukwila (Thorndyke) The text of the ballot title shall be as follows: E 550 KING COUNTY COOP.TIIOUSE 516 TMIw Avews SEAMY, WASHINCTON 9$104 (:06) 295.9015 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. "Shall the area of unincorporated King County contiguous to the City of Tukwila and known as Thorndyke, and legally described in Resolution No. 1081 of the City of Tukwila and King County Ordinance No. 8819, 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 Thorndyke and located in unincorporated King County adjacent to the City of Tukwila would become a part of the City of Tukwila. ,ithee, 0/0?„,4-ri kUdc(ii, /tail l-11 NORM MALENO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY February 3, 1989 OFFICE or THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KINo COUNTY, WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION 1999 FEB -3 PM 3' 27 E 5Si' 1.1N1'+ Cpl'I:TY COLI.T HOUSE 51'. TVIAt` AVENUE SEATTLE, \LASHINOTVIN 98104 am 296.9 15 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 (Thorndyke) Dear Ms. Hague: Consistent with RCW 29.27.060, RCW 29.81A.040(3), RCW 35A.29.].20 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 Thorndyke 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. TLr 7 E Ct �_:T5" TEC NCi c�lb- c5E- C�1C�c 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: KMR:cr 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." KEVIN M. RAYMOND Deputy Prosecuting Attorney t#693 P13 VOTE YE$ ON ANNEXATION FOR: REDUCED TAM - With the Southcenter retail tax revenue, Tukwila Is financially stable and a well- managed municipality. You will receive Increased public safety protection, better representation and some locally sponsored Improvements along with lower taxes. INCREASED POLICE PROTECTION - Tukwila Is committed to 24 -hour local police patrols to prevent and quickly respond to crime, drug, prostitution and other problems. NO CHANGE IN FIRE PROT ECTION.. U. 1LITIES DR LIBRARY SERVICES - Although responsibilities for some of these services may change as a result of annexation, the Impact on the citizens will not be • noticeable. • PRESERVATION OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR- HOOD$ - Citizens petitioned for annexation into Tukwila and developed pre - annexation zoning through numerous public hearings. Arsu IBL V RNMEN - Land use, planning information, zoning requirements and variances, permits, parks and recreation, and other city services are available locally. BETTER ELECTED REPRESENTATION • Seven city council members will represent approximately 15.000 Tukwila citizens. One King County Council member currently represents 198,000 King County citizens. LAB TIQIPATION IN GOVERNMENT AFFAIR$ - City council meetings are held locally and in the evenings so more citizens can participate. STRONG LOCAL SCHOOL SUPPORT - Tukwila • currently supports various South Central School District programs. Our small and unique district needs this support. SUPPORTED BY: SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL BOARD; SOUTH CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL: CASCADE VIEW PSO; THORNDYKE PSO; FOSTER BOOSTER CLUB; RIVERTON ANNEXATION PROPOSAL GROUP; FOSTER ANNEXATION COMMITTEE; RIVERTON COMMUNITY GROUP; FRIENDS OF FOSTER LIBRARY. Thorndyke Annexation Committee Vern Meryhew, Chair Steve Lawrence, Treasurer Cheryl Brown I S R O FEB-07-'69 14:25 I Ii : I: I NG CTY RECS./ELECTS TEL NO:206 - 256 -0:106 #693 P15 THE CHOICE: Remain in unincorporated King County or be annexed by Tukwila. WHO _BENEFITS? Citizens will gain multiple new restrictions, small town politics and taxes for capital improvements, services end another layer of government. Tukwila will gain political clout. The president of the City Council stated she favored annexation to gain more clout, (Tukwila City Council meeting, November, 1988). We've been bombarded with misleading statements that annexation is a bargain. TAXES: Tax increases appear inevitable. Potential revenue resources will not allow for additional administration and buildings. Tukwila Mayor Vanbusen stated, "The City would probably start asking residents to share costs of capitol improvement projects." (Seattle Times, February 1, 19(39). King County cannot impose utility or business and occupation taxes. Tukwila City Council can impose taxes on electricity, gas, water, sewer, garbage and cable TV. CRIME: Tukwila has the highest serious crime rate per capita in Washington state. An enlarged police force will not provide the manpower and resources to duplicate specialized crime fighting techniques used by highly trained King County police, plainclothes officers and detectives. Tukwila brochures cite e 3 to 4 minute difference in response time to serious crime. Actually, the two departments are only seconds apart. Further, county residents pay $59 per 1000 residents for police services. Tukwila residents pay $427 per 1000. (Seater Area Annexation Study, City of Tukwila dated November, 1988). Annexation is NOT the "mandate of the people" but was initiated by a handful of less than 4% of voters. Vote NO. Commitee: Thorndyke Voters Against Annexation to Tukwila ZZ zit WV 9. 1331 6861 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Director DATE: December 2,1988 SUBJECT: BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION ON SEA -TAC AND RIVERTON, FOSTER AND THORNDYKE In brief, the BRB subtracted from Sea -Tac the following: 1. The Cascade View annexation area 2. The Riverton and Foster annexation areas 3. The Thorndyke annexation area possibly less the Lewis and Clark theater 4. The Segale- Gunther area north of S. 204th St. (See attached map). The BRB will decide on December 8, 1988 whether or not to delete the Lewis and Clark theater from the Thorndyke annexation area and add the theater to Sea -Tac. Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke were modified only by the potential subtraction of the Lewis and Clark theater. The Boundary Review Board (BRB) on November 29, 1988 directed their staff to prepare resolutions for approving a modified Sea -Tac incorporation and the Riverton, Foster and modified Thorndyke annexations. Those resolutions are scheduled for adoption on December 8, 1988. Because the BRB decision occurs on December 8, 1988 the decision will be filed with King County on December 9, 1988 at the soonest. Under the normal King County Council rules this filing is too late for placing the incorporation and annexations on the February 7, 1989 ballot. Therefore, the next available special election dates for the annexations are March 14, April 4 or May 16, 1989. We need to specify for the County Council, which sets the election date by ordinance, which date we prefer. The annexation task forces seem to favor the March 14 ballot. We will update you again after the December 8, 1988 BRB meeting on the issues and process. At this time at least two issues are unresolved. First is the status of the Lewis and Clark theater. Second is the irregular boundary along I -5. The attached map speaks for itself. attachment OCING ICI.G•� KING COUNTY NATIONA 11IIIron 1101 St INDEX TUKWILA CITY LIMITS COMBINED RIVERTO , FOSTER,THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS. BOUNDARY OF SEA -TA INCORPORATION J Rainier Bench SEA -TAC INCORPORATION BOUNDARY AS SET BY BRB i 4 . 0 �, tir 3�2•�'.:�:: �;:�: +..u:� a:^'. �. �. s:•: 6N:�"- <'r� Theatres November 29, 1988 ® STERLING RECREATION ORGAMIZATIOM 777 188th M.E., Bellevue, WA, Rainier Bans: Plaza. Suite 1600 Mail To: P0. Box 91725, Bellevue, WA 98009.1725 (206) 455 -8100 King County Boundary Review Board Eastpointe Plaza 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Honorable Members of The Boundary Review Board: On behalf of SRO, property owners of the Lewis & Clark Recreation Center situated on a twenty -six acre holding at 15860 Highway 99, I am writing to oppose the boundary modification as proposed by the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee on November 22, 1988. If accepted, this boundary modification would split us from the Thorndyke area annexation. This we strongly oppose. SRO was first contacted by the City of Tukwila approximately five months prior to being contacted by the Committee for the Incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac. As a result of that first contact, I became a member of the Thorndyke Annexation Task Force. I attended all of the Task Force meetings, the Planning Commission meetings and the City Council meetings regarding the Thorndyke Annexation. As you can see, we have much time and effort invested in the Annexation proposal. In my public testimony on November 17, 1988, I stated that SRO is willing to work with either the City of Sea -Tac or the City of Tukwila in the event of the denial of one and approval of the other. I stated that we prefer the estab- lished, known quantity that the City of Tukwila represents. During the course of the hearings, our preference for Tukwila has become more clear. We wish to be annexed to the City of Tukwila. The formation of a new city has significant impacts. Among those are a lack of set policies and representatives who can provide accurate information regarding taxes, ordinances, policies, zoning, etc. We feel that the proposed City of Sea -Tac is no exception. Sport; Broadcasting Video Page 2. Boundary Review Board November 29, 1988 We also find discrepancies in their projected revenue as reported in the Georgette Study. We feel that a very good point was brought forward when the Sea -Tac area was compared . to the City of Renton in size and population, yet its pro- jected revenue is one -half of what the City of Renton needs to operate. This is a grave concern to us. The Lewis & Clark Recreation Center is a community enter- tainment center, which has operated at its present location for some thirty -one years. We consider ourselves part of the community and neighborhood services. The neighborhood is comprised of our patrons and friends. Patron identification and neighborhood continuity are essential to a business such as ours. We are distinctly different from the typical busi- ness uses along the Highway 99 strip. Other businesses along the Highway 99 strip almost exclusively serve people who are from outside of the area. Our patrons live in our neighborhood and, together, we have a strong sense of community. For these reasons, we wish to remain intact with the Thorndyke Annex- ation area, the South Central School District and a part of the annexation process to the City of Tukwila. Through my Task Force participation effort, SRO has come to identify strongly with the City of Tukwila, its staff and its services. We are in agreement with the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, its proposed land use and zoning. The City of Tukwila has an established infrastructure with its services already in place. Therefore, although I am certain we would feel some transition pains, being annexed to Tukwila would in no way compare to the potential impact to our business caused by the formation of a new city. It appears to us that 160th, the southern border of our prop- erty (see attached map), is a natural boundary as proposed by the Thorndyke Annexation. Water District #125 serves our immediate area as well as the largest part of the South Central School District. The southernmost boundary for Water District #125 is 160th. We were formerly part of Fire District #18 which served all of the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke Annex -ation areas. Again, 160th was the southernmost boundary for Fire District #18. It is also the southernmost boundary for the South Central School District. Page 3. Boundary Review Board November 29, 1988 In closing, I point out that the Committee for the Incorporation of the City of Sea -Tac maintains it is their desire to allow people and businesses to be in the muni- cipality of their choice. Again, I emphasize that it is our choice to remain an intact portion of the Thorndyke Annexation area and to be annexed to the City of Tukwila. We welcome your questions. Very ruly yours, Cher Brown Pro.erty Manager Real Estate Division CB:tc Enclosures c: G. Brice Martin Rick Beeler Moira Bradshaw David Schooler S outh, eent ra l K I N G L OC O T Y 4640 SOUTH 144th STREET • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 -4196 • Phone: 244 -2100 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Board Members: November'29,;1988 The purpose of this letter is to summarize the main reasons why the South Central School District endorses the annexation proposals pending before the King County Boundary Review Board. The School District is in favor of the annexation proposals with the City of Tukwila, effecting Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke, and supports the proposed Cascade annexation petition for the area West of Pacific Highway to Military Road. South Central School District is a unique, small school district with an area of approximately 7.5 square miles and has schools located in both the City of Tukwila and unincorporated King County. With only one high school, Foster High School, the district has been able to provide an identity for both the City of Tukwila and the unincorporated King County communities located within the school district boundaries. It would be highly desirable to preserve these natural neighborhoods and communities so they are part of one city government unit and one school district. Another main reason for the school district's endorsement for the annexation petitions is because it would be desirable for the boundaries of the school district, as a unit, to be aligned with that of the City of Tukwila, as a local government unit. This alignment between the school district and the City of Tukwila would be preferable compared to continued fragmentation of the school district between the City of Tukwila and unincorporated King County. The areas to be annexed would create and preserve a logical service area for the City of Tukwila, aligning the South Central School District with the boundaries of the city. The current arrangement of having South Central School District split between Tukwila and unincorporated King County makes it difficult and impractical to conduct business with two local governments. Annexation provides the opportunity to combine abnormally irregular boundaries and adjust impractical boundaries by aligning the school district and the City of Tukwila. The third main reason for endorsing the annexation petitions is that annexation would allow a cooperative arrangement of school programs between the City of Tukwila and South Central Schools to be expanded to all five schools in South Central School District. Rather than splitting programs, annexation would allow Tukwila programs in the areas of drug prevention, fire prevention, parks and recreation programs and career education programs to be part of each school in the South Central School District. If the school WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY November 29, 1988 Page two district were contained in the City of Tukwila a beneficial, cooperative relationship would continue and be further expanded. On behalf of the South Central School District, I urge the King County Boundary Review Board to approve the election methods annexations requested in the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke and Cascade annexation petitions. These proposed annexations will enhance the school district and the City of Tukwila as communities. Thank you for your consideration. MS:mm Copy- King County Council .. Tukwila City Council Michael Silver, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools and Secretary to the Board City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 November 29, 1988 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Board Members: Introduction Sea -Tac is an urban area needing urban service levels provided by a fiscally capable mid -sized city. This final submittal focuses on the viability of the City of Sea -Tac in comparison with Tukwila and the validity of the proposed annexation boundaries. Fiscal Viability of the City of Sea -Tac All data regarding incorporation revenues and costs has been drawn from the Georgette study and every effort has been made to ensure comparability of numbers when contrasted with other cities. Annexation costs have been drawn from the Tukwila annexation study. Incorporation and Tukwila annexation costs are approximately comparable; but with much lower service levels being provided with incorporation. Lower incorporation service levels are especially serious in: 1. its provision of only two professional planners compared to Tukwila's six to deal with all airport, land use, and traffic issues; 2. no provision for hazardous materials, fire code or fire event investigations; 3. assuming that the $1 million of County road maintenance now done in the area can be contracted for an equivalent sum. 4. estimated incorporation staff (150 + 31 volunteers) being 62 to 200 persons low when contrasted to Georgette study Comparable Cities; BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 2 City Total Staff Equivalent Staff Sea -Tac 150 +31 vol. 150 +31 vol. Renton 457 300 - -350 Kent 459 320 - -350 Auburn 285 212 5. staffing assumptions rely upon volunteers for over 70 percent of fire fighters; a situation found nowhere else in Washington State. All other cities of 33,000 have full - time fire protection. 6. the maximum basic budget reserve of $600,000 is possible only under the following optimistic assumptions: the maximum $3.60/$1,000 tax is levied (higher than any other comparable cities in Attachment C), fees collected exceed Tukwila estimates by over 20 percent, and no additional staff will be needed. The City of Tukwila concludes that Sea -Tac could be a marginally viable city under the above assumptions. However, such assumptions reflect very optimistic circumstances with little reserves for unanticipated costs and capital demands. No flexibility exists to absorb changes in these assumptions. The Tukwila and Kirkland budget experiences have shown planning cost estimates to be uniformly low. Reserves of $600,000 are unlikely to be sufficient for probable incorporation costs. The City of Tukwila recommends Board denial of the proposed incorporation as being fiscally unsound, and misleading to area residents whose expectations of quality urban services will be unsatisfied. REBUTTAL TO SEA -TAC AMENDED BOUNDARY At the November 22, 1988 Boundary Review Board meeting, representatives from Sea -Tac recommended two modifications to the Sea -Tac boundary. The following is the City's response to these modifications: BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 3 Orillia Road The proposal is to move the eastern boundary from the Green River to Orillia Road. Both the cities of Kent and Tukwila have stated a more logical boundary would be I -5. The proposal should NOT be considered for the following reasons: 1. It would create abnormally irregular boundaries between Kent, Tukwila and Sea -Tac. 2. It would not provide logical service areas for the area between I -5 and Orillia Road. For development to occur west of Orillia Road, sewer, water, storm drainage and road improvements would be provided by Tukwila or Kent. 3. It would not provide as good a physical boundary as I -5 currently does. East Side of Commercial Properties Along Highway 99 The proposal is to reduce the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke annexation boundaries from Highway 99 to behind commercial properties along Highway 99. The proposal would also deny the opportunity for the residence in Cascade View to annex to Tukwila. The proposal should not be considered for the following reasons: 1. It would break up natural neighborhoods. 2. It would create abnormal irregular boundaries. Many of the commercial zoned properties also have portions of their property which are zoned residential. Under the current proposal, properties under one ownership could be split between two cities. 3. It would create illogical service boundaries, particularly for Fire and Police. As stated by the public comments, criminal activities do not stop at Highway 99. They occur in the residential neighborhoods. 4. It would prevent the Cascade View Annexation petition with 210 signatures from the opportunity to be part of Tukwila. 5. It would prevent the consideration of the community identity with the South Central School District and Tukwila. BRB for King County November 29, 1988 Page 4 Tukwila continues to support a boundary which preserves the Cascade View annexation and a logical boundary west of I -5 in the McMicken neighborhood south of SR -518. Conclusion Based upon this information and our knowledge of the SeaTac rea and municipal government, we do not find the city of SeaTac to be in reality a fiscally viable alternative to annexation. Sufficient money won't be available after the incorporation. We also do not find that Orillia Road and the east side of Highway 99 to be a logical or reasonable compromise boundary. A more logical boundary is Military Road in the north area and west of I -5 in the south area of SeaTac. Sly� j L. Rick Beeler Planning Director LRB /jj fashin?.ton State jourd ary Review :Joard for Kin Countv 3hOO 136th place 5.E., -iuite 122 •ta. CC: City of iukwila. A200 Soiitt :r •Aa. %;:•' Gentlemen: .e---i-ublic rier.)rinTs 1523, 1537, 1538 and 1544 I wis at. t on Tuesday, 11/167‘'F. nt the hed Lion Inn, • ut c nnot r.tterr ten!-t. 1 livo in the Thorndylce area and a-.,17 that , te f tc 11 rithc:r tv n zigrx incorporate City of Federll _yrien have t.,r!ir :i. to r over ty.renty ye.ars, ut to cinte net ein uccor:J:1o). 1 dc not believe ;ye hive the 11yry of ti:Le sirn. le need tie city services nor'! Also the cf land ptrrehasc erectin:.: city buridinrrs, m7.. E..... est?.....slishin;.: no.; departments would entn.il. :-reater e and ti erio. tho.n annexAtion to Tulrila, .\t rrent coundary i -.0ros.st'•!e :;tre my rnsidenco. S. 7 •1116 vo:Le incorcorotl_oll. Howe annexin to an e::1.3tift ':ell este::,121..shec: entity S to ' est loTicrtl solution for our 4.- I would to see it extend to il.i.litary 1 wish tc testify th:it, I mould definitely vote or annetton tc r.lt the ieL:rvf-iry election. Yours 15625 42nd :ive. Sc'. ii:25 Seattle, 4.9 • 9818 November 17, 19- NOV 17 1988 1, 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 16, 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. .ri' iikv!. %J:}t: r...i:+i vi.^..:, W: SUMMARY 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 $ 100,000 home, the property tax in Tukwila is $47 -$ 127 less annually, depending on whether existing City bonded Indebtedness is assumed and on your current tax rate for school and fire districts. 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 1 RAQ1E ' S'SED ,RCS bpi ALE TO FORWARD 8B6 TURN TO WRi r _ ( fi AON MUTH, OLIVER 5012 8 144TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 14th Ave. Exit Sea -Tac Incorporation Boundary - Includes Thorndyke, Foster and Riverton Annexation Areas 509 S. 128th St. FIRE DISTRICT 1 ANNEXATION RIVERTON ANNEXATION FOSTER ANNEXATION THORNDYKE ANNEXATION MIER 0 0) Seattle City Limits P . RENTON 'TUKWILA 405 1 Annexation logical service areas • Fire District No. 1 • Irregular boundary Fire /school district • Cascade View Annexation Annexation removes irregular boundaries • Identifiable boundaries • Puzzles • Interim boundaries Discourage multiple small cities City's capacity Surface Water Management Plan Fiscal Impact Study POPULATION LAND AREA (SQ. MILES) W/O SEA -TAC AIRPORT POPULATION DENSITY (PERSONS /SQ. MILE) NUMBER OF CITY EMPLOYEES W/O UTILITIES & (RENTONS) REVENUE SUPPORTED RECREATION STAFF GENERAL PUBLIC WORKS ROADS FIRE TOTAL TAX RATE • TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION ASSESSED VALUATION PER CAPITA GENERAL COMPARISONS EXISTING TUKWILA SEA -TAC TUKWILA W /SEA -TAC INCORPORATION 4,760 4.5 1,058 105 INCL IN GENERAL 39 144 2.996 0.882 BILL $ 185,294 O GENERALLY EQUIVALENT TO KING COUNTY BUDGET, BUT WILL BUY LESS SERVICE DUE TO OVERHEAD AND PROFIT OF CONTRACTORS (1.7 TO 2.5). 37,700 13.4 2,813 175 INCL IN GENERAL 106 22 +31 vol.@ 281 150 +31 vol. 2.996 2.996 -3.60 2.489 BILL S66,021 33,000 8.9 3,700 128 O 1 MILL. CONTRACT BUD 1.607 BILL S48,700 ® FROM TABLE 9, PAGE 15, CCA. • INCLUDES COST OF PENSION FUNDS. RENTON 36,260 16.3 2,225 300 -350 INCL ABOVE INCL ABOVE 300 -350 3.48 2.030 BILL S55,000 Lookingto the future - 1. Benefits to Residents lower taxes • Better services Immediate services. V SUMMARY Benefits to Tukwila Balance between residential /commercial Residential involvement impact /area planning/ service tL'.' tlLKa ¢�..w t.m.+.:..i•• I, JOANNE JOHNSON O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting [( Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [� Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for XID Other ANNFXATTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY NOVEMBER 4. ig88 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project File Number 88 -4-A AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION THORNDYKE TASK FORCE hereby declare that: 0 Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance. and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Q Official Notice FOSTER & THORNDYKE 0 Other 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 4. 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 Tight 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. r if_=1111=1:11.1 _. —%1 -=a ji . 0 f -- Vi i • ' i •S• 101 1 • s a • 1 -.: 1 0 !AO i T 0) A 1 G • ,✓ • R K :E R.3 P4 ,/) • s • lO 4 • • :.,• 1:•OCL 1 ,• • .- •a r•' .:• D • • • 'J ;•.,. : ..;., .'2, • .• ,r 1 •. #' .` s /, • '\` s ,, O, i -, i./ ' ` C,,,, , 2. . . N • 1 i i • r • • • o I o p•— rr lS. Ys C,Sf W{ • K • • • SC00011 a. — . : 7 - f W its :.^ :': :• t'. • rr - 1. • .. 0 I 0 at 0 /S4 • - ' • .fir. a i%•1 •■111•• • :3.3 a• 1 21 4 : s •. - . •. 1 • f - •1 1 1 -- 0 `1908 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard p Tukwila Washington 98188 Date: November 4, 1988 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor -_ - •- -- -. -J • • • .t • J - J • • 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&edt 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 Courthouse 311; Third Avenue Seattle. kVashington 98104 !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, V � 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 shalt be the responsibility of local (city) government and which shall remain the responsibility of regional (County) government? S:SEATAC 1 11/3/88 o How will Countywide, Comprehensive Plan goals for regional needs such as environ- mental protection, a diversity of housing opportunities, and an adequate transportation network be assured through the proposed actions? o What are the revenue and expenditure impacts to the citizens of each jurisdiction? o How will budgeted and planned capital improvement and maintenance projects be carried out under the proposed actions? The purpose of this report is to lay the groundwork for answering the above questions by defining the issues and preliminary County staff proposals. A number of County departments have identified local and regional services provided to the subject areas, revenues, capital improvements, and regional policy issues that should be addressed in negotiations with Tukwila or a new City of Sea -Tac. Cost and revenue estimates are rough, as service districts do not conform to the annexation /incorporation boundaries. Some Departments' data is incomplete at this time and the Sea -Tac Incorporation Study prepared for the BRB by the Georgette Group was not available while this information was being compiled. The Office of Financial Management is reviewing all Department estimates for consistency and will supplement this report. SERVICE DELIVERY Departments reporting on October 27, 1988 estimate the annual cost of delivery services to the entire area is nearly $5 million. Local urban services such as police, park and recreation, building permits and inspections, land use planning, and road maintenance are provided by King County. In addition, King County provides surface water management, public health, emergency medical services, district court and public defense, housing rehabilitation services, and transportation planning, all services which could be considered regional. There has been no formal discussion with either the City of Tukwila or Sea -Tac cityhood . proponents regarding the transfer or continuation of services. It is assumed that services transferred to another jurisdiction would need to continue during a transition period and a number of services could be contracted by a city on a longer term basis. Those services that could be provided under contract include: 1. District Court: cities generally contract with King County for criminal cases. 2. Public Defense: Seattle and other cities currently contract with King County for ser- vices. 3. Police: DPS reports that Sea -Tac intends to have a 49- member force in one year and could contract with the County in the interim, but feels that it would take longer to establish full services than Sea -Tac proponents estimate. DPS currently provides crime lab and SWAT team services to cities at no charge. 4. BALD: permit services, inspections, and arson investigation could continue by contract on an interim or long -term basis. Access to the BALD data system could also be contracted. S:SEATAC 2 11/3/88 5. Roads: road maintenance, transportation planning, and electrical charges. 6. Health: The County has a fee for service contract with Tukwila for public health ser- vices and would recommend contracting with a new city. SERVICES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED TO CONTINUE Departments recommended the following regional services that King County should nego- tiate and continue to provide: 1. Regional parks, pool facilities, trail systems- • 2. Surface Water Management for cities without their own utilities 3. Housing rehabilitation services 4. Land Development Information System data services 5. Historic Preservation 6. Regional Transportation Planning COUNTYWIDE SERVICES UNAFFECTED BY ANNEXATIONS /INCORPORATION THAT WOULD CONTINUE 1. Flood Control Planning and Management (SWM) 2. Public Health Services, Emergency Medical Services 3. Community Development Block Grant Administration (legal responsibility) 4. Public Defense for cases filed under state law (legal responsibility) 5. Police (legal requirement until implementation) 6. Road maintenance (legal requirement until implementation) IMPACT ON SERVICE NEEDS: DPS reported that Sea -Tac incorporation would reduce the calls to the SW Precinct by about 1/3, and that the nature of criminal activity in the Sea -Tac area requires staff from vice and narcotics units. Unincorporated islands reduce response effectiveness, empha- sizing the importance of boundaries which do not compromise service delivery. District court cases in the Airport District Court would decline if a new Sea -Tac city established its own municipal court. BALD reported that annexation or incorporation would have little effect on its workload because of building activity in other parts of the County. REVENUES Funding for the services identified in Department reports comes from Current Expense, property tax revenues, gas tax revenues, fees, sales tax, service charge revenue. and levy revenue. The proposals before the BRB would result in revenue reductions (presumably partially offset by service cost reductions) in a number of those sources. S:SEATAC 3 11/3/88 The approximate total revenues Toss 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 (CtPs) that have local and regional benefit. Departments provided information on projects for which funds have already been appropriated and those planned in the next six years with no appropriation, According to the Department reports received October 27, the County has appropriated $600,600 for CIPs in the Tukwila annexation areas and over $5 million for the Sea -Tac area. Capital projects are planned in the next six years costing $105,000 in the Tukwila annexations and over $6.77 million in the Sea -Tac area. In addition to projects listed, Natural Resources and Parks reports that development of North Sea -Tac Park, located in the Sea -Tac incorporation area. is a major capital project. Negotiations with the Port of Seattle which are near conclusion will determine the extent of County commitment to developing this regional park. SWM projects in the subject areas for which funds have been appropriated total over $1.25 million. Tukwila is currently involved in the Green River Management Agreement S:SEATAC 4 11/3/88 and would be expected to increase its level of participation in financing flood control improvements if areas are annexed. A new city could also be party to the agreement. Road Improvements costing over $8.3 million are planned for the Sea -Tac incorporation area in the next six years. Not included in the Roads Division report is the Road Improvement District arterial south of Sea -Tac Airport which would connect the airport with the state's extension of SR -509, a project of regional significance. OTHER ISSUES FOR NEGOTIATIONS King County should ensure that regional and Comprehensive Plan policy goals are main- tained in areas that incorporate or are annexed to another jurisdiction. Issues identified by departments in addition to service delivery, revenues. and capital projects include: o LAND USE: Housing and employment densities to encourage transit use. key goals of the Comprehensive Plan, should be encouraged by the other jurisdiction. Land use policies in the Sea -Tac Area Update which will be adopted by the County Council in early 1989 should be supported. o HOUSING: Affordable housing policies and programs and fair housing protection should continue if areas are annexed or incorporated. Housing issues and services should remain responsibility of King County until Tukwila and Sea -Tac adopt similar policies and ordinances or King County could permanently retain them as regional responsibilities. o ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: Surface water management could be required unless a city had its own utility. Protection of open space, wetlands, and streams should also be ensured. o HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Tukwila does not have policies or an ordinance to pre - serve historic landmarks. King County should provide the service as a regional government unless Tukwila and Sea -Tac adopt similar preservation ordinances. o COMMITMENT TO SOLVE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS: Land use and design standards that promote transit use and other measures such as Transportation System Management ordinances should be discussed. o LEGAL ISSUES: The allocation of long -term legal responsibility for areas annexed or incorporated and other legal issues need resolution. S:SEATAC ANNEXATION /INCORPORATION BOUNDARIES The annexation and incorporation proposals of Tukwila and Sea -Tac are characterized by boundary disputes. Efforts to annex Foster and Thorndyke to Tukwila commenced after those areas were shown within the Sea -Tac incorporation boundary. The City of Des Moines has also reacted to the incorporation and annexation proposals by initiating its own increased annexation activity. The 1985 Comprehensive Plan discusses the impor- tance of public and agency participation in identifying potential annexation areas. Logical boundaries that eliminate islands of unincorporated territory are necessary for efficient and cost - effective service delivery. Reactive annexation activity does not provide jurisdictions with ample opportunity for careful planning and analysis of how they want to grow. The apparent race to the BRB and ballot risks leaving voters without sufficient information on service delivery and reve- nue requirements. A vital and necessary prerequisite to annexation or incorporation is the mutual agreement on boundaries of proposed incorporations and annexations by all affected jurisdictions. In this case, boundary discussions should involve Sea -Tac proponents, Tukwila, Des Moines, King County, Kent, and other affected jurisdictions. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The questions identified regarding boundaries, service delivery, capital projects, financial impact, and regional policy issues in the proposed annexations and incor- poration must be resolved by agreement before King County supports the proposed incorporation of Sea -Tac or the Tukwila annexation of Riverton, Thorndyke, or Foster. Agreements that clearly define responsibility for local and regional services and how regional goals will be supported are necessary for residents of the affected areas to make informed decisions at the voting booth. Boundary disputes do not serve the goal of efficient service delivery or the develop- ment of coherent long -term annexation plans. It is recommended that King County recommend the Boundary Review Board continue Tukwila's proposed annexations of Riverton, Thorndyke, and Foster and the proposed Sea -Tac incorporation until: (1) King County, Tukwila, the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and other affected government agencies agree upon the boundaries of Tukwila's proposed annexa- tion areas and the proposed new city of Sea -Tac, and (2) King County and Tukwila adopt an interlocal agreement defining: (a) the city's proposed annexation boundaries; (b) which public services each juris- diction will provide; (c) how the Comprehensive Plan's regional public policy goals will be achieved; and (d) each jurisdiction's responsibility for capital improvement projects in the annexation areas. (3) Agreement is reached on a specific negotiation period following an incor- poration election and before the incorporation becomes effective so that a negotiating team for the new city can be formed, and an agreement may be adopted defining (1) how public services will be provided, (b) how regional public policy goals will be achieved, and (c) responsibility for capital improvement projects. King County will attempt to gain the concurrence of the Sea -Tac Incorporation Committee and Tukwila on recommending that the BRB continue the public hearing until the above conditions are met as an alternative to denial. S:SEATAC 11/3/88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 October 31, 198; 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 to ether to identify future annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should play an active role in m nicipal annexations, SUPPORTING THEM WHEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIV PLAN AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, AND OPPOSING THEM WHEN INCONSISTENT,' and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states "King County should support incorporations hen formation of cities is appropriate to assure adequate facilities and services for gro h 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 -u•on annexation areas," and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan states the processes of identifying future annexati • n areas and adopting interlocal agreements "should provide extensive opportunities fo 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 Comprehen -ive Plan states, King County should play an active role to resolve before e 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, whicn have not been addressed by Tukwila's annexation proposals or the Sea -Tac incorporation proposal, and WHEREA an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila which addresses the ssues 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 tor 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 Tok:4vkMO.t �.v.iG' :: ^t:ieT: in.' JS: .tit.:4:.:i1J>t.x..a�nrre:;naflt .w �nv..r• O FILE NO. 1537: TUKWILA /Riverton FILE NO. 1538: TUKWILA / Thorndyke Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600136th 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: 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. That area generally bounded by: 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. FILE NO. 1544: TUKWILA /Foster That area generally bounded by: Pacific Highway (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 I -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 r4Na+ E S IYSt::J�le!xCVA.� »:e . wu+a I, JOANNE JOHNSON (a Notice of Public Hearing [( Notice of. Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [( Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested parties) Name of Project THORNDYKE ANNEXATION File Number TASK FORCE MEMBERS hereby declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [[ Notice of Action O Official Notice O Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit ▪ Shoreline Management Permit [[ Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13. 1988 Subject: PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING Dear Foster /Thorndyke Task Force Members: LRB /sjn City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 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. Sincerel L. Rick Beeler Planning Director 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;ng Riverton;. Foster & 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 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPEC` MEETING MINUTES October 10, 1988 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS - Contd. Res. #1090, approving a modified F. D. #1 annexation area elec- tion method annexation -- contd. ADJOURNMENT 7:54 P.M. 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 rma Booher, Recording Secretary JOANNE JOHNSON [X( Notice of Public Hearing [I Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet (i Planning Commission Agenda Packet [[ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for [I Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit [j Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) Name of Project THORNDYKE ANNEXATION File Number 88 -4-A AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance El Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [I Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [❑ Notice of Action C1 Official Notice Signa , 19 . City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 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 Thorndyke 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. GLV/sJn ;, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard TukWila. Washington 98188 (206) 433-1649 • THORNDYKE ANNEXATION CITY COUNCIL HEARING Monday - October 17, 1988 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Sincerely, Gary L. Van Dusen Mayor —* • ■iiiiithisimue 4sminium ainium am nummum inimmiliimiiin mil • • • • it * IMMOIMMUMMIIMMWOMMMMME MOMMIIMMEMMIUMEMMUSII M1 11111111111M 1 IMMEMMUOMMUMMIMMOOMMMOIMMMUMUMMMEMMUMMISMANIMI WIMEMENMI Amammommiammummummulmmummumwmummoommum MEOW MIMI HIEMEILII ME L'ILIMPIE MEM WHIM ZOM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: [X ( Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet Ei Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for El Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1988 , 19 (7) PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS MOIRA BRADSHAW JACK PACE RICK BEELER MAYOR, JOANNE JOHNSON INTERESTED PARTIES Name of Project THORNDYKF ANNFXATTf1N File Number 88 -4-A O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non- significance C1 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action [� Official Notice 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, Hagger- 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 P1. 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 Ldnd 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 3Q, 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: - 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 and Quld 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. DHW /jj Attachment cc: Gary Van Duzer, Mayor of Tukwila Rick SEW, Chief Planner E T- E. _t w /attachment 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, 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. - 2 - Mr. Jack P. Pace Senior Planner, Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: 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 maelstrom 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 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 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 I -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. 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 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- 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- 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. Sincerely, P.S. ceck,A,vit, David H. Whitlow 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. oL w, TO: Tukwila Planning Commission SUBJECT: Foster annexation rroposal hank you for your consideration liq %fr. a4-+W)147 L1fa?8' S • /3g' a c ki009 &ttkWn We at the properties shown on the enclosed map (in pink) 4628 S. 1380 13806 Macadam Rd. 4822 S. 1380 are concerned about the zoning of the area from 144th S. to 1380 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 1440 S. north to 1360 S. (colored E s't') considered as a whole. We live on Macadam Rd. and feel that we would be adversely im- pacted by the multi - family zoning between 1440 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 1360 S. considered and not just the 1440 S. to 1380 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 Plan. We request the Planning commission and the City Council to re- consider our zoning. & e„, 4. arc- ' / 3104 %,y r .��..C/� p 0 tea - o�3ar�9oe - LeZ.. 2 %tat . 8 ( ._........ . • H • • — 1 sq .1 • • k J2411 • • • 3 , 1 ‘‘ • • .•• (r.r• ./ • "•• • •• • V /•• Z A Ve• " t. j li 444 tr. c •/' " •••$' - „., • k . • ;2 • ',.. • • 1 ._.— I • 46‘. ;• Sr. •••• rt. .. • ••••++ :vs , • r /1. • ,•-••••••••• • , — 4 1' ..! a • • 1 22 •2ti t° Gm' et etc /:1.11,1•011 0' • eel* ‘• :• • •• 1 •• • e• • • , OMIP•II-4811 • • S-1. S1 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 1442 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. .••••• \•. PesTEE /Qivoik.. 4 n o ....\ -- • f ' I • 4c t74 .aroz Eazei A. 7/ 41/41 •• " . • 440 " • ...::-. -.% :'' .1 .r. •..05 ur .. 5,,... - c i gm k 555..% • : 1 (a P. ...... 4 .0 • I, '; ...-....- . ...... ..i . 4 ••••••• i:. . 44 1 \ . . r• 1 .... .. t.i., . 7. . •••••• . 7 0 i 07,...7•••. ••T . -- .. t:....... 6: •• ,I t • I t ••••••• 1 * -• ‘ 1 , In *5 I -• • 7. i ' ** .\\\ .sir oft. "•;;;. •-"" "- •• .•. •,.. 1 t. , .•. \ 0 ...)., - ,00 %:;.;': ,, • 4- . . ..,• ••••st• , LI t 0 ••••.55471 t tr'\: - .. d'' I: ' ".:.'' 0 ,-''...4" , . , .._.. • ..: - , :, VI . 0: . ct ■ 1 ' •.; • •. 44* , • •• • „., ..... • • .,1,/ .\:\ • , ‘. it„....- r ..-- , 1 .. ' s...* el' e '-' '''' , N .-- 1- Vi - ' ' /W dii i '!'. ' 1 --, . \. $ .: - , - -... .... \ .. 04, 7,...,,,f.-: ., -:, , , ,,,.. w.. .. t.t _ t F .– T - 1. 1 , 4 ... i _. ?l• - 1 I.'' ii,.:: ,.... ••••;„; ., i \...__-_ . "."--ky 'F — . • V .,.. N ' ' .1417 15 X Al ;%•.---w----,.. -. ; ).„ ,. v l, - s .., , ..., e ilie.,1, , ,,,. ..i......, „ • 7 ----- 7 - •• •r•,-, 7 A . ..t... . r. ••■•„ A . ' ' ' :;t• '‘ V . , ,...." Vja 4 , 4.. ---- 1 •-• --,... .' / 0 .. ■ * ; IS r iffitnii .*. '•••• 4. I Y •., .• - ,.. . r . ' ri / .... • • 114 • • .c....? . PI- - ,:t 1.1 • • ," 4 • • , , • ' — • •- rrI' - •; i t•\ .. .7....••; •:: .-; ;• 4 .• is..., ot ,,,••• -., .-e7,--7,71 •• '' v : . ••• . 41 .... , ..... .4, . a pt . ., -,...,,...: 4 s• ... ..,,,,, 4, L..... ,...• .1 .. ".. .r "i' :•.I• t . • s ,,,,, .,,,,. ',5,,... s..." ,41,. s. 1 •■•• ,, 0 4 \ 0 t c . - 1.• i l• 1 , 11 •11400,•11•61 cc. •-■ <- • •••• _1l0 ,•• flyt -• I •• • F ls. • • • Ue .• elm le r: ) . - • ,,• , • a. . vvt . . •• •• 1 ft • sa £ y SW T TO 44Trw MAP / up4 BEL .z nvea lc. • •• ••t .4•• - • . 8 • • 4. .J '5-- - a • ; - 55,./.'4•50 .. ".: • 5 cie NN. ";t,?•••• • • ' I .1; • '••'•• •., ...a...1 • s• ■1 Ft t/2 • :•r.afr• •= • M1 .1 ft ;7 4.44r71-1'-'. o• I. �✓4r -!L .4',4 A- ADP 2€ r �.S ,D .e. h/U4 ,41 f;' / - Icexivi LA 04/D ,2 /- o ,ems L,4nciay 714udr Ja v ov sic M t� 6 ,qLv04 £ - 7 - 14E L1r94 A4V /S 7 #CAYE' PAT ✓o. ---)s_/i G! 8 6r c, c D/4NE DE4W 7 ,= Lo vD 2' Db gi'N i4 w I T 10 /1Z s i 7j QO1dla.rS N // CL,=_»Tc , .ZNG. /2 Atec.'d'1nes eCAlez.AiC Coate �3 FC.DziC�F • /4 PAM 1_A L / .si Z r 45',e1 37— / ci x M / 0 3. 4 s zyy -Sd7s! X zs� -544 X Z48 - /L4C /38040 MACADAM ZD 48 2 2. i 3 Ste- _. X 242 - G09r 24 - 3 - 7854 24-4 - 4 ,9 /r4ST faZ. 74 3-419 1 X, 4 . . / /3 6. UA/e fl,, L No Loci 3-Z A4*9 X 1 t Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98168 SEP 21988 14809 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 September 2, 1988 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express concern over the proposed zoning requirements in our area if we are annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the impact it will have on us as property owners. The current RM2400 zoning has been designated for our property for at least 20 years. The zoning was designated as part of a long -range comprehensive plan influenced in part because the 51st Avenue South corridor is bounded on the east by the 1 -5 freeway and on the west by a topographical barrier, Bremer Hill. These factors, combined with the feeder arterial, Klickitat Drive, would indicate good planning. The purchase of our property in 1975 as based on this zoning, as an investment for our retirement years. We have invested a great deal of time and money to improve the property for resale. It is our plan to retire in two or three years. If we are, in effect, "down- zoned" because of larger space requirements per unit, we stand to $35,000 to $45,000, based on recent sales on our street. This will have a substantial impact on our relocation. It is also a fact that ernest money agreements have been signed for all properties on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 151st, north to Bonsai Northwest, with the exception of two parcels, ours and the Ketchersids, who border us on the north. Even though it is a major upheaval for us to sell at this time, we feel we are being forced to do so prior to the annexation in order to protect our retirement investment. The prospect to choosing to move or lose a substantial amount of our investment is adding a great deal of stress to an already stressful time in our lives. Mr. Swanberg is recuperating from a heart attack and having other health problems of a more serious nature. Mrs. Swanberg has recently been hospital- ized as well. We strongly feel the input of local residents in annexation planning is largely biased to single family because most are single family residents. Some have been very vocal about apartments on 51st Avenue South. It is our opinion they are unaware this zoning was arrived at by good planning guidelines and has been in place for many years. Tukwila Planning Commission The discussion at one of the earlier planning meetings indicated that current zoning requirements would remain unchanged along 51st Avenue South. Your proposed space requirements represent a substantial change. We therefore request zoning that will retain the present space requirements on the property under discussion. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Sincerely, Phillip H. Swanberg 04„. Donna Swanberg s) 21988 ) 2_,)(4/Le p i -88 on-vi• 7; < A39/9 .27i /dfr- Ze)$2. C/- ();t 60/?)Z&744) 4 i ♦s� - 6C2) CC/1X X 'YL-- 4?' / i �� 012126 o• o'n.a( Lz. Ar ,/a0c ( _QA/rt),0 cV?_Q..) 622 Cezal -6 • i, _� - /z.e, 6 o/e72.J} o/n. 60-(//bd Ou;6 �'v a�'c p/y � rZQin � � cam , X20 �Ptill� 02 /P- A/600 � cZ.Qo aic,092}0 Go 6L/2/LQcLJcZy cL-e)&t_Yei0 ue (_)z) e2Levuey /f z6-64e,,gr' / / v c,CXJ Zey2q,C2 1e/(1%) 6.0 6cc/rne/n/q arc, 6y(Q_Cz& Ca/lC(< lCL -� .(�, /' c � 66/0 Q /1� J oqo-c e;Az ./t22 a O 9;(2702-(7. g2 27 ii/vw.oP2 ?,(iv 24(z0 72' ),K // - uo 5,-- i' ' rn72 ,Yer/72 07/' o 2A) ; r ( Dt 02 7-0 --Lte/v70, /zed, 7 � 9 ' -. • axx-Leo( .Qyru -/ ":/‘6) ,1470eeclp97Wr G2/ f11_0e;glytOe<A0(301. 7)70 60 Ozit0 " l o�e.�,¢,.3 ale- ceie aTe ,e4zz:O4 ta-9L Y -ec-01-4 eA)efeoL 0--Ata) P-i-eizi_, &4.L0' /s ao y/Z.Qi Cd .,s C6C�41 / ,c)-e yru,t.c). i 0/ - -A-,e) i AP 6y C77 # " -- (X.e) .,6,(Le_20-a ) , 4. /- ,,e-c,. 0c,u ,re.,2,i/RAZAItze./%0t Ouz- - o-eo 770 wc2. `6 a . �(Ckirw� 4.� Ge)o"c� 0-Zd< a • t ic • /IP 6Cee_a. t z/L o Vo( -td - cic& • PY ' / , 4 )/ o L6( X ayer_c tlot74 ( LP 7)t cM_La o��� �rca�v o 0rielL, c.0-A ,odc-o(_ct/za-oot ?,c6) a / .C' ‘e-0-/zi-d 4c2/c.e ‘e)a, � � � 7 � 072. O' • ZO if ./z,o- ae-0) `/""\-J_,w _J2JZ 7.=e7te&c,4' e.&.‘26tZ 7_ :ctirt , J2)-. Oci.LL 71 (A c_i_e,c,(9)6( (2e/Z., 1 omia ce)GLD �r�.- / 79 34t, V4 -- GU?, Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Gentlemen: August 31, 1988 Re: Thorndyke Annexation to Tukwila 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, 77?...w.. riAzia.crn) Mae E. Nelson 4206 S. 148th St. P. 0. Box 68235 Seattle, WA 98168 AFFIDAVIT I, JOANNE JOHNSON 0 Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) r I e Name of Project THORNDYKF ANNFXATTON File Number 88-4 -CPA 88 -4 -R 88 -5 -CA 88 - 4 - A OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: [I Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action 0 Official Notice E1 Other E] Other on FRIDAY. AUGUST 26. 1988 , 19 . D HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: INITIATED BY: REQUEST: LOCATION: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared August 26, 1988 August 30, 1988 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA •Thorndyke Annexation petitioners 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments 2. Pre - Annexation Zoning 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments The annexation area is generally bounded by South 144th Street, Pacific Highway South, South 160.th Street, and the City limits (Attachment H) 469.15 acres ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments A and B ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment C SEPA • DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: Determination of Non - Significance issued July 1, 1988 (A) King County Highline Community Plan Map (B) Existing Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (C) Existing King County Zoning Map (0) Issue Areas Map (E) Proposed Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments (F) Proposed Tukwila Zoning Map (G) Height Exception Map (H) Thorndyke Annexation Area Map STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission BACKGROUND In May 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition requesting an election for annexation to Tukwila of the area shown on Attachment H. The petition contained 67 valid signatures. Of the 1,106 registered voters residing in the area, 346 voted in the last general election, therefore the signatures exceed the required 10 %. PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING PROCESS The petition requesting an annexation election also requested the simultaneous adoption of pre- annexation zoning. The procedure for designating pre- annexation zoning has been varied. In annex- ation areas where there has been little development change and the current King County zoning is compatible with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, then the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan is used to create the appropriate Tukwila zoning. However, in areas where there is substantial development or County zoning inconsistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, then a Tukwila Comprehensive Plan update is undertaken. Substantial change in land use and development has occurred in. the Thorndyke area in the blocks which form its boundary and in the blocks which abut the freeways. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT REPORT ORGANIZATION FINDINGS Since June a group of residents, property owners and business people have been working as a Task Force on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for the area and pro- posed Tukwila Zoning. The Task Force was formed by volunteers who signed up at the first public information meeting on June 8, 1988, and from volunteers res- ponding to a letter requesting participation; sent to all residents who signed the petition. The proposal was then presented to the community on August 18, 1988 for comment and discussion. The majority of the comments received were concerns by property owners about the decrease in the number of units allowed on their parcels, particularly in Issue Areas 5 and 8. For the Planning Commission public hearing, notices with the proposed zoning were mailed to all property owners and public notice appeared in the local papers. As part of the public notice, hearing dates for the City Council hearings were also mentioned. This report is divided into three sections. The first section discusses general annexation information. The second section discusses the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Tukwila pre- annexation zoning. The third section addresses the proposed text amendments to the Tukwila Zoning Code. STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission ANNEXATION As shown on Attachment B, the Thorndyke Annexation request is within the Tukwila Planning Area. This annexation ties in with the Foster annexation to the north and the 1985 McMicken annexation to the east. The annexation area population is estimated at 4,604 people. Existing land use in the area is mixed between commercial /multi - family along Pacific Highway South, South 154th and South 158th Streets; public schools along South 144th Street; and single- family in the central 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. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING Existing land uses and King County zoning (Attachment C) were compared with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, which was adopted in 1978 and revised in 1982 (Attachment B). Zoning categories from Tukwila and King County were also compared. See Table 1 below. This comparison found substantial variation between what exists and is allowed by the County and what is planned for the area by the City. The major change has been an increase in housing density along collector arterials. The areas of difference are referred to as sub -areas and grouped into issue areas identified on a vicinity map (Attachment D). Each sub -area is discussed in detail on the following pages. In the remaining blocks in the annexation area, where there are no conflicts in the zoning and no pro- posed changes in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the current zoning is RS -7200 and the proposed zoning is R- 1 -7.2. King County C -G General Commercial B -N Neighborhood Business COMPARABLE ZONING 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) RM -1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling (24 dwelling units per acre) CATEGORIES Tukwila 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 -2 Regional Retail Business STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission There have recently been several new apartment or townhouse developments in the Thorndyke area. The task force's goals were to maintain a quality, stable single- family neighborhood, and control direct traffic impacts. To carry out these goals, they used medium - density residential to provide transition between high and low density residential. The desire to control the housing density of the area has resulted in some inconsistent designations of medium density in the overall plan. Transition is not provided, however, in all blocks between Pacific Highway and 42nd Avenue South. The City may wish to consider transition areas for the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment E) but retain the proposed zoning on Attachment F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 1 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High Density Residential B High Density Residential C Low Density Residential DISCUSSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan change from high- density residential to Commer- cial and a C -1 zone for Sub -Area A is to accommodate the existing water district office. Sub -Area B is surrounded by high- density uses, therefore it is appro- priate to include it in the proposed RMH district. The proposal for Sub -Area C is a compromise between its current zoning, existing land use and Tukwila Comp Plan designation. The Comp Plan policy (p. 47) which states, "Provide medium - density 'transition areas' between high- and low- density residential areas" supports the proposed medium - density Comp Plan designation and rezone. The zoning to the north of South 144th Street is medium density as well. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial B High - Density Residential C Medium - Density Residential The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26/TA.AREA1) - COUNTY ZONING LAND USE C -2 and C -1 RMH R -2 RM -1800 Commercial parking, public utility office and storage RS -7200 Single- family dwellings RM -1800 Single - family dwelling THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 2 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High- Density Residential BC /RM -1800 Commercial parking B Low - Density Residential RM -1800 Portion of mobile home park C Commercial BC /RM -1800 Multi- family development D High- Density Residential RS -7200 Single- family dwellings DISCUSSION elk The proposed designations for Sub -areas A, B and C would reflect the existing uses of the sites. Sub -area D is proposed as a medium - density transition area rather than its current high- density designation. The City and County have failed to create gradual change or transition between residential uses. Sub -Area D is an opportunity for creating a transition between high- and low - density areas. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -2 B High- Density Residential RMH C High- Density Residential RMH D Medium- Density Residential R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA2) -6- COUNTY THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 3 EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High- Density Residential B High- Density Residential C High- Density Residential D Public Facility DISCUSSION . 150TH ST. ZONING LAND USE RM -1800 Single - family. dwelling RM -1800 Vacant RS -7200 Single - family dwellings RS -7200 Single - family dwelling Land in Sub -Areas A and B is not yet developed at high densities, as currently planned by their Comp Plan designations and zoning. A less dense transition between the existing commercial businesses west of the lots and the low- density residential immediately east of the lots in Sub -Area C would be medium density. A Public Facility designation is no longer needed or planned for Sub -Area D and is therefore recommended for low- density residential. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 C Low - Density Residential R -1 -7.2 D Low- Density Residential R -1 -7.2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA3) -7- j THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 3 EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High- Density Residential B High- Density Residential C High- Density Residential D Public Facility DISCUSSION . 150TH ST. ZONING LAND USE RM -1800 Single - family. dwelling RM -1800 Vacant RS -7200 Single - family dwellings RS -7200 Single - family dwelling Land in Sub -Areas A and B is not yet developed at high densities, as currently planned by their Comp Plan designations and zoning. A less dense transition between the existing commercial businesses west of the lots and the low- density residential immediately east of the lots in Sub -Area C would be medium density. A Public Facility designation is no longer needed or planned for Sub -Area D and is therefore recommended for low- density residential. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 C Low - Density Residential R -1 -7.2 D Low- Density Residential R -1 -7.2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA3) -7- EXISTING DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION (26 /TA.AREA4) THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 4 Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 -8- SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High- Density Residential RM -1800 2 fourplexes on separate lots B High- Density Residential RM -1800 Single- family dwellings Based on policies of the Tukwila Comp Plan, it is appropriate to designate the sub -area for medium - density to provide transition between the existing low - density land use to the east and the high- density residential to the west. The Task Force reviewed and recommended R -2 for Sub -Area B and high- density RMH for Sub -Area A. After further review of the sub - areas, staff recommends a medium density /R -3 for both sub -areas since Sub -Area A needs R -3 to be a conforming use. B Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 5 EXISTING SUB- AREA A Low - Density Residential B Low- Density Residential C Low - Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E Low- Density Residential F Low - Density Residential DISCUSSION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High- Density Residential RMH B Commercial C High- Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E High - Density Residential F Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining Attachments E and F. COUNTY ZONING RM -1800, RM -2400, RS -7200 BC RM -1800 RM -900 RM -1800 RM -1800, The recommendations for Sub -Areas A, B, C, E and F reflect the predominant use in each of the sub -areas and require a change to Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from low- to high- or medium - density residential or commercial. Sub -Area D, however, is a spot of RM -900 zoning in a block of RS -7200; therefore R -1 -7.2 is proposed. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Zoning' area in the block is shown on C -2 RMH R -1 -7.2 RMH LAND USE Single- and multiple- family dwellings 2 single - family dwellings surrounded by a commercial parking lot Multiple - family complex Single - family dwelling Multiple - family dwellings 2 single - family dwellings, 7 fourplexes, and vacant NM W iiu :�uc r THORND KE ISSUE AREA 6 EXISTING SUB- DISCUSSION (26 /TA.AREA6) rC 160TH ST. COUNTY AREA TUKWILA OMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low- Dens 'ty Residential RM -1800 Multiple - family dwellings with RS -7200 2 single - family homes in the southeast corner Low- Dens 'ty Residential RM -1800 Vacant C Low- Dens 'ty Residential RM -1800 4 single- family dwellings The proposal for and C reflects the predominant land use in the sub - areas. Commercial in Sub Area B mirrors the designation north of 158th Street and along its west property line. The Task Force re iewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila omprehensive Plan Zoning A High- Den .ity Residential RMH B Commercia1 C -2 C High- Den .ity Residential RMH The recommendatio for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. -10- THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 7 EXISTING DISCUSSION (26 /TA.AREA7) SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low - Density Residential RM -1800, Duplexes, low apartments, RS -7200 single - family dwelling with non - conforming manufacturing use, sensitive vacant lot B Low - Density Residential RM -1800 Multiple - family dwellings C Low- Density Residential RS -7200 3 single - family dwellings Sub -Area A was the most difficult in this issue area to treat because of the wide mix of uses. A medium density designation, although low for the existing apartment's actual density at approximately 4200 - 154th Street, is more appropriate for the entire area due to the small size of the parcels and the sensitive area - a deep wide ravine - in the easternmost portion of the sub -area. For Sub -Area B, the proposed high density merely reflects the existing land uses. Sub -Area C is a small pocket of single- family homes. The lots to the north and east of C have access from 51st Avenue South and are proposed for medium - density residential; therefore, medium is also proposed for Sub -Area C. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation; however, staff is proposing R -3 zoning of Sub -Area C to reflect the surrounding zoning, instead of R -2. (Either are appropriate zones for a medium - density designation.) RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -2 and R -3 B High- Density Residential RMH C Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. -12- THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 8 DISCUSSION Issue Area 8 was the most difficult area for the task force to review for appropriate land use. The following factors were discussed: 1. The road, 51st Avenue South, is a collector arterial and has direct access to SR -518 and 1 -5. It is substandard for a majority of its length. If a higher intensity of use were to occur, right -of -way dedication and improvement would be needed. Traffic counts for 51st equaled other busy collectors like Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd and 65th Avenue South. 2. The area is visible from I -5.and vice versa. There is no substan- tial grade change between the freeway for Sub -Area C. 3. The noise level negatively impacts the properties and more so for Area B than C because it is upslope from the freeway. 4. There are environmentally sig- nificant grades and streams in a majority of Sub -Area B. 5. The parcels are relatively large and have not been subdivided. 6. Sewer lines are non - existent and would have to be extended down from South 144th Street or up from 52nd Avenue. The water line is substandard and would also have to be improved if the area were to be developed for denser uses. The Task Force reviewed 11 alterna- tives from low density to commercial. A quality single- family neighborhood did not seem viable due to the prox- imity, views and noise of and from the freeway. Office, which is aesthetically more acceptable to residents than commercial due to building design and site development, is a good transition from the freeway. The medium density on the east could be more sensitive to site limitations of steepness and surface water and more marketable than single - family because of accessibility and location near jobs and shopping. Bonsai Northwest and a cellular tele- phone business are located in Sub -Area A. C -1 zone would be comparable with the existing BN zone and would accom- modate the existing uses. Although no consensus was achieved, the majority opinion in the Task Force felt the recommendation was the most appropriate. EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low- Density Residential BN Retail businesses, single - family B Low - Density Residential RS -7200, Single- family dwellings RM -2400, RM -1800 C Low - Density Residential RS -7200, Single- family dwellings RM -2400 RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -1 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 C Office P -0 (restricted, no cascade) (26 /TA.AREA8) STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS This section will review the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code in conjunction with pre- annexation zoning discussed in the preceding section. There are two proposed amendments: Height Exception and the Professional Office Zone. The proposed amendments would become effective upon annexation of this area to Tukwila. The single - family setback standards were also a concern for the task force. At this time there are no proposed amendments to the setback standards. HEIGHT EXCEPTION Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code, page 290, maps areas of the City where buildings may exceed the height limits of the underlying zones. Proposed Amend map 2 "Building Height Exception Area" (p. 290) to show area adjacent to SR -99 and SR -518 interchange as 'Up to and including 115 feet ". See Attachment G. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.50.040 - Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet: Section 18.50.040 Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet Authorization of building height greater than the heights contained in Section 18.50.020 (Table 1) up to and including 115 feet in the areas of the City as designated on Map 2 shall be made by the Plan- ning Commission acting as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the guidelines and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60. Discussion The height limits in King County for regional retail districts allow unlim- ited heights subject to one -foot setbacks for one foot increases in height over 45 feet. In Tukwila, 35 feet is the height limit in regional retail districts. The C -2 district at the SR -99 and SR -518 intersection is sur- rounded by high- density residential and commercial uses. (The height limit in RMH - Maximum Density Multiple Family districts is 45 feet.) Therefore, a maximum height of 115 feet subject to design review would be appropriate and consistent with the location other height exception areas in the City. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE 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. - 14 - STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.26.020 Principally Permitted Uses - (1) Any principally permitted use in the R -3 district; Discussion The task force felt that the distinction between a professional office and apartment /high- density residential zone was important in the land use deci- sion, and recommend no residential uses. 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. 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 developed. 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 legislative 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 respectively 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. SINGLE FAMILY SETBACK STANDARDS A concern was raised during task force meetings regarding placement of buildings on a single - family lot. KING COUNTY TUKWILA Maximum lot width 60' 50' Front yard 20'* 30' Side yard 5'* 4' -8' (10% 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 oppor- tunity 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. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the text amendments for Height Exception Area and Professional Office be approved. Based on public testimony regarding single- family setbacks, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend to the City Council direction for further review and /or change. - 15 - Ia�iiilc%1= ■1Ua11OL W AMIMP EMeg tier: p brPYl f` a7RT171l rf lPilll l 73 lti aaallaarommrdrtisti- : Ia •UI1G�1. . :P::.•.. Ngfi�1! H n 1 0o � � ' flA I I; i? rgilli d i 1 / ' i t I rri L I I3 a, -r.Fe. v..ic� Ra+ '4 ii I IIIIII ,� 1' 7 ..: 6 �� 4 "f IIIIINP1111111111161: I IA, / // 1 gi ,' l ` . p � inn` ` z. j e ° °; l Vi / /// ' Ililligr 0,3,,lb- , i1 I r,=, , �w�eri5 -- - -- -- -- - - - �I: a h ill 11 ! , 1 f . P Y „1!Y9r le• ! ■rr� � l�aan ®Mi aia11aa9a ■1..!Ii;= Mw11aaw11I AG AI E UPI 7 ne ls :F u n • � �91� ii A sash wes2 lM.rlela4•^aa:s�ildSii.' gsui lmflit)rti� F ?aI�'Ji., � l j � �� �� .� !iC ■Cafl1M �11rrr�ii�' - "mallIUMMEMMMWO'aaaaPIIMM \Lil supEnN I ( i ,. • i 11111. €m9rrL,rnrrrrn 'VAaIl9laaai']Ellaaa0cEl1aaa31 t ] arlaa9 i r i p . ! ' 2lh r - zasu craving! a •JrdM Irra IaaallSa - -- -- ann, !1 but i ,1 • -- �__r_ -- !%7YaaC 'r'� -ii• -1 �,t.�ii,r71'rr - mMUMEa - - 'Iriga'Ilri40 :1039llaarLlM . sesiir �� ���� -� sr ��aIIIlllaaaQlla�I'E�11 Julie liaRas row' 'NUMMIXEMI 1iMillIaL ILMIIIr L II•13I 5 7 mar gtia9Laa•fa3rf/ IR�!91A ■ ifUC I FII ...a Y! :iii: +aacafyr�sU!+af laadM@ielIMMICIMIrIF3 1 I•IUUV hra11fh & ■�i 1UIIIIII)-9J3.)?IMIIIdIp.i,7 - -•• •-- IMIIIIIIIiellkri•VA.krnkflE.2 NII�III :dI *JF Y:IiMRSF • IfIIali =gala SIZE .��, �'1 U•JalMU • Irl{dRI M •�Ilaa :ga __.._ s � - gCy:17:14Calia --gFrn` z_i JE!5it1i 2 itl9aaal ES a a,0 i rc.glataYa? S'l te411 P111'• \N /M °•F=REE! Gr,IlaaaAERAMG? DAM UffaMML.PANC.VOja..E)1 :final vs 4. KING CO. HIGHLINE COMMUNITY PLAN MAP NORTH iQV!+c.E.n.U! . 1 • .I• Yirp SOUTHCEMTER -LEGEND NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY © rIIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL HOUSING HIGH ?MAXIMUM ® SINGLE FAMILY El El COMMUNITY FACILITIES . 9. PARK AND RECREATION ® LOW /MEDIUM DENSITY DENSITY HOUSING BUSINESS rainiillaallal ) , , IFI NEHIMMEMI. , b ai>!a•fr7 •a, ° 1■ ■is c -a■■ ° lallf �•I ■ Y 1 ■1 °. Ii id I _dt:au,waa i iO E' 'i• ' p I ' . i II i-t1i ti aansrell ■ 't • I1111t L: _ �, aM11a∎31 ik i Zvi j ” IL ��+ 1 t 1 1 b idi1 II i ii I j iw : ! r ` ■ . • a Iiii. 4 i II 'J i 1 ` • r1. . �l 011111 . Rr� I 1::„ I ) ! � I i � ' i��! d ll i ■ iI i� � I Ji ' � ' Ill III ; I III III , :: 11111Frill E,i� . ^ - I.•I,•I ,Ire Ij • 1. = �'_ti1 • - ti. — -= _. __.= r iYMl �►�`. t_ - crrs • t •,G" "rr_ws g • 4 mi r,ii I U 1 i ll II I 11 41 111 1 IP 2t_222;4 A 111111111111 E9422-23 Ty w ATTACHMENT B LA . • Z PIT %Rig THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "EXISTING" 1=3 COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PUBLIC FACILITIES virp • • • • a 5 1 hggli vFil • _- -- a11IM- Am' ATTACHMENT C �_ THORNDYKE ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONING "EXISTING' LEGEND - B -C COMMUNITY BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION B -N NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION C -G GENERAL COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION RS -7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM -2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI - DWELLING RM -1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI - DWELLING RM -900 MAX DENSITY MULTI - DWELLING i. e IMO .i aeovuorti% s- a1PN.wrrw AREA 5 aMEW ; ATTACHMENT D THORNDYKE ANNEXATION NORTH • sourHcFNTZ •i :i f IONIMI —. — .'. —.IIIr •fit. ■W_ J :� - ` - .l wOii j r - to .�..� - rr 1YM;ISY.1:., J Y•.JYYf�.1•.a.�iJ:tMAt ■��f :f•ff1T ■/. �T- - �n�r— rat• /■••1.••Y.• . -f• f'J t•••1•••• �-� I ��M ��= = ��•Itf�••■f t .•JB /i "AMENDED" ATTACHMENT E THORNDYKE ANNEXATION PROPOSED TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN ELI w■•• t u■• COMMERCIAL OFFICE (RESTRICTED -NO CASCADE) PUBLIC FACILITIES PARKS AND OPEN SPACE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 , tl •-_ m CM MEC 1111111:W13-zrA OH masil tallitt [ air r Alin a u 3T i.. _TKll O � 4 ' • •S 3Y ON •• LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE - , ' \ • s• •• • • '• • 447W- 1 Z; I Gra • toEi • 1 :1 ;.?". • • • •••••••Milla solal SNO CPw••■• ft/M •■• •••••• '* ATTACHMENT G THORNDYKE ANNEXATION HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA .7.- . LIMIND .• •■••. •••••■ • la . ...A ATCA I OIS . 171.11 ••■rrli • •r...• o. e Tgeg440YKE- IL:1=47A AINswv.nopi SOUTi-/C ENTER: • I . • : So. 150th St. 144th St. ATTACHMENT H THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA (469.15 ACRES) CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' August 22, 1988 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 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 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. 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. Gay . VanDusen Mayor, City of Tukwila Enclosure cc: King County Councilmembers in this letter. Honorable Councilman Greg Nickels King County Council 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 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 . •incumbent,and at that time your opponent, as it seemed to me, was one with whom one could not communicate. You assured me that you would talk to me if I called about a matter of importance to me. Up to now I have not had a reason to call you. Now that I have a concern I believe it is better to put it into writing, Therefore my request is that you please read all of my letter and the attached report to which I will, from time to time, make reference rather than rewriting the report Page 1 of 3 August 20,1988 Yesterday I had the opportunity to read Chief Adsley's letter to you August 18, 1988. In it he made a number of allegations which simply are not true. Some of those concern the contents of a report by an ad hoc committee of which I was the chairman. It is apparent that he has not read the report or chooses to interpret it in a manner that fit. his perceived needs. Some background on the above mentioned committee and its report: On February 5,1985, an area containing portions of Fire Districts 18 and 24 was annexed to the City of Tukwila as the result of an affirmative vote of the people within that area. Shortly thereafter Mayor Van Dusen appointed an ad hoc committee to study and make recommendations of emergency service levels of this annexation. See page one (1) of the attached report. At this point it is important to state that after the above charge and appoint— Page 2 Of 3 ments were made neither the mayor nor any member of the City Council of Tukwila was in any way involved in the study or in making the recommendations. The com- mittee was on its own, and we had no further contact with the administration or Council until I personally laid the completed report on Mayor Van Dusen's desk on August 15,1985. The entire responsibility for the report in its entirety rests with the four committee members. As chairman I wrote the report with the concurrence of the other three members. That same report is being submitted to you unchanged. I was appointed chairman due to my many years of experience with fire services (over forty years). More than seventy -five (75) percent of it was in a manage- rial capacity. Dennis Robertson had previously had considerable experience as a firefighter for the City of Renton. R.W. Johnston with his many years of heavy equipment work was relied on for advice on moving fire trucks and traffic. Jim McKenna, a banker, provided financial advice and good judgment. Mr. Johnston and I were, at the time, residents of the area protected by Fire District 18; Dennis Robertson and Jim IcKenna were residents of the area protected by Fire District 24. Now back to Chief Adsley's letters Paragraph three (3). He presumes a great deal, and the only severely impacted citizen would be Mr. Adsley as he perceives his area of authority eroding. The truth is that all services including fire are superior in the City of Tukwila in respect to the area of the proposed annexations. Page two (2). paragraph four (4). His first statement is false as response time was only one issue. Read page three (3) and item h at the top of page four (4) of the attached report. Also, he states that Tukwila told the citizens,if they came into the city, a con- tract would be made with Fire District 24 for emergency services. If anyone from Page 3 of 3 Tukwila made such a 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 need. 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 him as we mat 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. Re • ctfu it Curtis Nesheim 15828 43rd South Seattle, Washington 98188 Phone: 243 -4701 I, JOANNE JOHNSON. AFFIDAVIT Elx Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet C1 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [] Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1988 (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Name of Project PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL Signatur File Number PUBLIC HEARINGS 88 -4—A OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: [� Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice J Notice of Action E] Official Notice El Other E] Other , 19 . 1906' 1908 • August 18, 1988 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98188 (206) 413.1649 City Of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard PUBLIC NOTICE Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor THORNDYKE ANNEXATION 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. i PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING August 30, 1988 8:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 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 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 fora 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 77 • pm wisinungi arsolnow ,.. NM mull iii.@plangillipum I:: :MIEN MIMI niliniiMMIS I is. inniu • INIINEN imam !mums Imp as 11111§1111171111111111t : IIIIII MINIM p 1111111•111111• 111•111••11111111 rinpilaspirm %Iummrsimmunim I •mmalms .UIllamaasillE1111111 0111•1111111.111P111w • JUR! ummumulmoi mummemmansam awaimmummum mommommumm gpmmorm- -az= mini Memo rim mum or,. IRMO 3AV 'IS am...ow • millftabomoomni••••■ • J. •■ • . - — _ . •„-1- • ! : L ) , I TTT nil -I I ; • 1 I Iv' - r4.4 1 • N. •••• • - •••—• -• LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment. Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet (i Planning Commission Agenda Packet El Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on AUGUST 19, 1988 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project THORNDYKETASK FORCE File Number 88 -4 AFFIDAVIT VIEW OF DISTRIBUTION O Determination of Nonsignificance Ei Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice xEll Other TH(1RNDYKF TASK FOR('F MEMBERS ABSENT FROM AUG 18, 1988 MTG 0 Other WITH DRAFT STAFF REPORT. Signature .. v}+ T;' i1 f3i.`M1L'�1RG.ttL1i.L3SL7X4.�ti k�;NlSeCf.'s.^. isil. a'+'! �M7r� '.su.num _.__�.._.... City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: August 19, 1988 TO: Thorndyke Task Force Members FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Planning Department SUBJECT: Enclosed Draft Staff Report Enclosed please find the Staff Report which was reviewed at the informational meeting on the Thorndyke Annexation last evening. We missed you. Since you were not able to attend, we are mailing this copy which includes the various maps of the annexation area. We already noted that the Tukwila proposed Comprehensive Plan has several errors which will be corrected in the final report. There are several changes to these maps which were suggested and will be revised for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, August 30, 1988. We hope you will review this Staff Report and indicate to me any concerns you may have prior to the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: INITIATED BY: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments A and B ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment C SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: August 30, 1988 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Thorndyke Annexation petitioners 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments 2. Pre - Annexation Zoning. 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments The annexation area is generally bounded by South 144th Street, Pacific Highway South, South 160th Street, and the City limits (Attachment H) 469.15 acres Determination of Non - Significance issued July 1, 1988 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) King County Highline Community Plan Map Existing Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Existing King County Zoning Map Issue Areas Map Proposed Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments Proposed Tukwila Zoning Map Height Exception Map Thorndyke Annexation Area Map STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared July 29, 1988 1 STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission BACKGROUND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING PROCESS FINDINGS In May 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition requesting an election for annexation to Tukwila of the area shown on Attachment H. The petition contained 67 valid signatures. Of the 1,106 registered voters residing in the area, 346 voted in the last general election, therefore the signatures exceed the required 10 %. The petition requesting an annexation election also requested the simultaneous adoption of pre- annexation zoning. The procedure for designating pre- annexation zoning has been varied. In annex- ation areas where there has been little development change and the current King County zoning is compatible with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, then the Comprehensive Plan is used to create the appropriate Tukwila zoning. However, in areas where there is substantial development or County zoning inconsistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, then a Tukwila Comprehensive Plan update is undertaken. Substantial change in land use and development has occurred in the Thorndyke area in the blocks which form its boundary and in the blocks which abut the freeways. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Since June a group of residents, property owners and business people have been working as a Task Force on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for the area and pro- posed Tukwila Zoning. The Task Force was formed by volunteers who signed up at the first public information meeting on June 8, 1988, and from volunteers res- ponding to a letter requesting participation; sent to all residents who signed the petition. The proposal was then presented to the community on August 18, 1988 for comment and discussion. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is divided into two sections. The first section (blue) discusses the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Tukwila pre- annexation zoning. The second section (green) addresses the proposed text amendments to the Tukwila Zoning Code. ..._...._.......+ ..................+.. r�u.... ��.... wr«.. �w. .�....r.w......rwrvrn.�+w.��.ry vnarnc. �w. wrrrurx�nNMeat. �K�[ YKFWIIY�f. �Fi. Hx' 3SMrHn .J�M�KY!)MnK+.Y'w.»vr.rrvwnr�t w.Y.N.rar�•�n City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor August 19, 1988 King County Council RE: PROPOSED MOTION 88 -611 Dear King County Council: The City of Tukwila has submitted to the Boundary Review Board the Notices of Intent to annex by election the petitions that are the subject of this motion. While it is clearly within the purview of the County Council to request the Boundary Review Board to hold a hearing on these petitions, the strong support of residents for annexation to Tukwila indicates that another route is more appropriate to request a Boundary Review Board hearing. These petitions are not petitions of the City, but petitions of the residents of the annexation areas. These people submitted two, four and five times the required signatures needed to place the annexation question on the ballot. Many of the signers were responding to the Sea -Tac incorporation petition, that was filed a short time before the annexation petitions. Tukwila has been working with task forces from each of the annexation areas on pre- annexation comprehensive plans and zoning. The Tukwila City Council passed resolutions approving and supporting the annexations. The task forces consist of 60 citizens and property owners, a significant number in view of the size of the annexations, that have worked favorably to determine the annexation issues that affect them. If residents in the annexations, or the surrounding area, wish the Boundary Review Board to hear the petitions, options are available other than the County Council's intervention. A petition of 5% of the registered voters in the annexation or adjacent areas, may be filed with the Boundary Review Board. This option provides an opportunity for a very small number of affected residents to exercise their choice. It is most appropriate that the City and County defer to such self - determination by the residents of the area. August 19, 1988 Page 2 Res.e fu G: y . VanDusen Mayor cc: Tukwila City Council King County Executive Tim Hill These annexations are within Tukwila's planning area, which has been legally defined since 1975. Tukwila should and will logically grow in this direction, the only direction we can grow other than to the north where we now have another annexation petition under consideration by the Boundary Review Board. Any . annexation to the west of Tukwila meets the state annexation criteria and your own adopted King County Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the above,. the City of Tukwila respectfully requests that the County Council withdraw the proposed motion. Let the people themselves decide their preference by the petition method available to them. The people, by any petition method, should be allowed to determine their destiny. rn�rt�v,r. ADMINISTRATION Chief James E. Adsley Ass't. Chief Wm. R. LaBore Fire Marshal Jeffrey R. Lowe Battalion Chief Ronald A. Wieland Office Manager Judy R. Evans August 18, 1988 Greg Nickels King County Council 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Councilman Nickels: ANGLE L. XE/McMICKEN FIRE DE.,.:ARTMENT Re: Review of Proposed Riverton Annexations to the the City of Tukwila For several reasons, the King County Council should request that the Boundary Review Board exercise jurisdiction of the above mentioned annexation proposals. FIRE STATIONS HEADQUARTERS STATION 2929 So. 200th Seattle, WA 98198 Business Phone: 824 -2726 STATION 2 3521 So. 170th Seattle, WA 98188 First and foremost, the county council has appropriated $55,000 for a study to analyze the benefits of the incorporation of the Sea Tac communities. The three most current annexation proposals would substantially change the configuration of the Sea Tac incorporation boundaries. Tukwila would like to annex particular areas and leave some problems for remaining communities. In the opposite hand, the proponents of controlled taxation and better quality of life in the Sea Tac area have specifically established boundaries which would include all of the major problem areas of our community. The difference in our motives are to solve some glaring problems in the community rather than simply grab land to make a bigger dot on the map or provide for some imagined need for future growth at the expense of some severely impacted citizens. The history of this effort started nearly two years ago in February of 1987 when a public meeting was advertised and held at Chinook Middle School to discuss significant problems in the community and incorporation or annexation as a solution. During the next several months, meetings were held on this subject. A consultant, who is recognized as knowledgeable in the Federal Way, Woodinville and Mill Creek efforts, was hired to provide a preliminary feasibility study of available assets and cost for improved services. The study reflected a significant existing .tax base including the largest block of hotels in the state. An earlier study performed by the Tukwila /Sea Tac Chamber disclosed in 1986 that there were $761,759 in taxable sales in Tukwila. At the same time there was $2,460,885,331 in the unincorporated area of Sea Tac. "Fire Prevention is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression" Greg Nickles August 18, 1988 Page Two Armed with sufficient data to forge ahead, the citizens for Sea Tac sent sub - committees of different individuals to meet with officials from the City of Des Moines, Kent and Tukwila to see if any of the cities were willing to annex the total Sea Tac area. One of the Des Moines city council persons had also attended many of the Sea Tac meetings. None of the cities were willing to take the entire area of over 30,000 people primarily since it would greatly upset the political balance in their existing city. The Sea Tac group was told by the King County Council that they would have to distribute a petition for incorporation to acquire county funds for a formal study of this issue. In December of 1987, the citizens for Sea Tac Group acquired nearly 1000 signatures for incorporation of Sea Tac during a scant three weeks of very rainy weather. While Des Moines and Tukwila were not willing to take the entire area, they did join forces to attempt to diffuse the Sea Tac effort by creating several annexations (divide and conquer). Des Moines generated six on December 17. Three of these would impact the Sea Tac boundaries. Tukwila officials indicated that they would study taking over the entire Sea Tac area if the incorporation failed. Instead, three annexations have been encouraged by threats such as Sea Tac city will mean instant apartments or big business will take over. This is rather interesting since over 70% of the dwelling units in the City of Tukwila are - multi - family. Des Moines finally agreed to consider discussions on modified boundaries. Tukwila refuses to do so. � '>' In 1985 a portion of our fire district annexed into Tukwila. The only significant issue was_.fire_department response time. Tukwila told the citizens if they came into the"city - EF Eli city would contract with Fire District #24 to maintain the very close fire and emergency medical response. After 150 people approved the annexation, Tukwila declined to contract with our much closer emergency response. 1500 people are now being served by a fire station far away, southeast of Southcenter on the valley floor. If the City of Tukwila is as rich as they would like everyone to believe, their decision not to maintain the closest, and in fact the only emergency services during snowfall, must have been made for some other reason. One of our primary goals over the years has been to initiate systems and practices to ensure the fastest possible response time to our community. Tukwila's officials' disregard for lives is of significant concern. Emergency services' response time into the southern half of the Thorndyke annexation is an important issue which should be discussed. Citizens and business in that area should have the opportunity to hear of the benefits of Sea Tac or the other side of the coin before they are asked to formally vote on this matter. They should have the opportunity for an informed choice. v. "Fire Prevention is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression" Greg Nickles August 18, 1988 Page Three Best personal regards, James E. Adsley, Chief King County Fire District #24 JEA/ls cc: King County Council Crime is an ongoing problem along the 99- airport corridor and neighboring communities. It cannot be solved if the Sea Tac community is sliced up merely for the benefit of the surrounding communities. Changes which will be coming out of the 1989 legislative session as a result of the local governance study will allow cities to readily take areas over. This will be the Sea Tac area's last chance to establish planning and services to improve the quality of life for future generations of Sea Tac residents and business. This community deserves an opportunity to save itself. "Fire Prevention is More Cost Effective than Fire Suppression (26 /NTC.8 -18T) City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98188 (206)433.1849 City of Tuk ila PLANNING DEPARTMEN 6200 Southcenter Boul w yard Tukwila, Washington 98 88 (206) 433 -1849 PUBLIC INFOR ATION MEETING THORNDYK ANNEXATION You are invited to a public information meeting on the pre - annexation zoning for the Thorndyke area. The City of Tukwila has received a p vote on annexing to the City wit property owners and businesses have Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan draft proposal is shown on the back WHEN: Thurs.ay, August 18, 1988 8:00 •.m. WHERE: City ouncil Chambers Tukwi a City Hall 6200 • outhcen_ter_ku].evard_- ,, I , a]i IHtt Ol muni3L� l '� i`; U3S;, SC 1i3A1 i30 ION tit --to -mellow T- hoi'nti'ke area residents to pre- established zoning. Area residents, been working as a task force to review"the Map and potential zoning for the area. The f this notice. The staff and task force want to h : your comments and concerns regarding the zoning for this area. Please plan on attending. If you have questions, please fee free -to call Moira Carr Bradshaw of the Tukwila Planning Department at 433 -1 :48. r 1908 FARRE 3810 SEAT L, ROBERT 8 158TH ST 4C-2 LE, WA 98188 s ' 7.f-=- .7,1t....:•:1. -; --;, 7_471' --_,Lv.=..., — 0441 --a \ . , . : 1 .. : 1 - - - .. : I I I I 3 c 1 . ,...... 1 . I • .; .1 • e . .. C 1 .) 1 • THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING OR-1 DR2 " RIM MC•1 C-2 M P-0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL T110-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS* R NORTH g L AR. EAll t • ricoUNI5ARY • n `I e • c erv .AVAlk.AOLE FOR •.7. s Sr= • 111 IP .L N IN G\DrFl T rylE NT ent o3Al 331 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 August 16, 1988 TO: BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS FM: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary RE: FILE NO. 1537 - CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Riverton) FILE NO. 1538 - CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Thorndyke) - CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Foster) The Riverton and Thorndyke notices were received on July 19th and of this writing the Foster notice is expected by August 18th. The Foster action was delayed due to a flaw in the petition detected by the Prosecutor's Office and since corrected. These annexations were initiated by petitions of resident electors calling for elections. Each annexation overlaps the Sea -Tac Incorporation area. Prior to 1982 these actions therefore could not have been filed. However, Ch. 220, Laws of 1982, introduced the following amendment, codified in .RCW 35.02.150 and RCW 36.93.115: "A boundary review board, county auditor, county legislative authority, or any other public official or body may act upon a petition for annexation before considering or acting upon a petition for incorporation which embraces some or all of the same territory, without regard to priority of filing." There was a legal question as to whether the Board had the option of accepting the proposals for filing or, in the alternative, could only decide to act or not if jurisdiction were invoked after the filing of a notice. It was concluded that the second interpretation was most reflective of legislative intent. The concern which naturally followed was that no request for review would be received, resulting in a default decision in favor of annexation versus incorporation. Because of the magnitude of the annexations it is possible that, if approved, the result might be to render the incorporation impracticable. The population of the three areas, (6,600) is 20 of the estimated Sea -Tac population, and the assessed value ($151 million) is about 10% of Sea - Tac's. However, Councilman Nickels (District 8) has introduced Motion 88 -611 which would invoke jurisdiction. It is on the agenda for the Committee- of -the- MEMORANDUM, Cont. August 16, 1988 Page Two Whole meeting on Friday, August 19th. The Executive Secretary will attend. The timing or the request, it adopted, will permit the Board to conduct simultaneous hearings on the incorporation and annexations in mid - November. The incorporation study is scheduled for publication by November lst. 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 CC: The Honorable Gary Van Dusen, Mayor, City of Tukwila Ms. Barbara Blake, Chair Sea -Tac Committee 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 INTRODUCED BY: 1214C:SM:mis PROPOSED NO.8 8 - 611 MOTION NIS" 7285 A MOTION requesting the Boundary Review Board to review proposed specific pending annexations pursuant to RCW 36.93.100. WHEREAS, the Boundary Review Board (BRB) was created to provide a neutral forum for the public hearing and the review and determination of proposed annexations and incorporations to avoid competition to extend municipal boundaries, to prevent the haphazard boundary extensions, and to create and preserve logical service areas as set forth as purposes and objectives of the BRB in RCW 36.93.010 and RCW 36.93.180, and WHEREAS, conflicts between proponents of competing jurisdictions to claim territory for municipal growth should be resolved on their merits, and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has filed notice of intention to annex several areas which were also included in the SeaTac incorporation proposal, and WHEREAS, RCW 36.93.100 provides for the BRB to review proposed annexations, and King County ordinance No. 8389 provides for a means of requesting such review, and WHEREAS, the public is best served by open public hearing and review of these issues; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County is requested to review the following specific actions: A. The City of Tukwila proposed annexation (Riverton) BRB File No. 1537; 1 2 5 6 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. AL - day of , 1981 KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: �1. C c o t e Counci 1214C:SM:mls 7285 O TO: FROM: IN RE: PAR Ref.9.30 H JG 111988 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 August 10, 1988 Jack Pace, Sr. Planner, City of Tukwila L CO U f 11�� PAULA ANNE RUSSELL, Adm. Asst. c--.. +^ �e 1��. `1ti✓ NOTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FILING /i&(f FILE NO. 1538 - CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Thorndyke) The Notice of Intention transmitted to this office is now acceptable for filing and has been filed effective July 19. 1988 and assigned File No. 1538You will be kept advised of all transactions affecting this action. As you are aware, a copy of your Notice was transmitted to the King County Council by this office. This was under date of July 20, 1988 Any revisions to the legal description subsequent to that date must be incorporated in your final ordinance /resolution filed with the King County Council. 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, Deputy Director.' 1 , .1f1ANNF .1f]HNSOH sRrt RNpinRrixatra+KYfaYNMiOT (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) File Number 88 -4-A AFFIDAVIT C1 Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project THORNDYKE ANNEXATION OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: [I Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [ j Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action C1 Official Notice O Other X121 Other PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING ASSESSOR INFORMATION Signat FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1988 , 19 • - _ • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433-1849 -.You are.invited to a public information meeting on the pre-annexation zoning the:Thorndykearea. The City of Tukwila has received a petition to allow Thorndyke area residents to vote on annexing to the City with pre-established zoning. Area residents, property owners and businesses have been working as a task force to review the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and potential zoning for the area The 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 questions, please feel free to call Moira Carr Bradshaw of the Tukwila Planning Department at 433-1848. (26/NTC.8-18T) *ILAN -4 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tukwila. Washington 98188 (206) 433-849 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING THORNDYKE ANNEXATION WHEN: Thursday, August 18, 1988 8:00 p.m. WHERE: City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard EMIEMIE. EsosTown Inman ow= mom =mg mum wompoismal , =NM MIME . lamen Ell nommemmumnimal rolmain nommummernmem.amomormminsismosso 11•111•1•11•11111•1 mom == =r1OMMIUMIO=ria= 81001•11111•111MT".._ I 11•11111•11UNIMIlIMORPPNOINIIIIMIIMMEIMIONNIIIIMINIMMIIIIIIMIN• MOM IIMIN•111 I =Mill= MUM IIMPI MIMI= ONIIININIMMINMEN1•1•111•1 AMIN= MUM 11111B I N•11111•IMINMIIIIIMINIVIIIIIIIIIMINIM IIIIIMMINEMINMENIN•a= ••••■■ I YaIMIIMI ■MMe7 = =_— t • • , ..... .. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department 1108 Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -71103 August 4, 1988 TO: G. Brice Marti , Executive Secretary, Boundary Review Board FM: James C. TraI , Deputy Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department RE: City of Tukwila Proposed Annexation: Thorndyke, File No. 1538 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Boundary Review Board Proposal and supporting materials for the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation by petition of approximately 470 acres in an area known as Thorndyke. The proposed annexation is within Tukwila's Planning Area, is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and joins Tukwila at its western city limits. Municipal services are available to the area. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as urban. The Highline Community Plan land use designations in the proposed annexation area are Highway Oriented Commercial, High /Maximum Density Multi- Family, Community Facilities, Park and Recreation, Neighborhood and Community Business, Low /Medium Density Multi- Family and Single Family. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Commercial, High Density Residential, Public Facility, Park and Open Space, and Low Density Residential. A pre - annexation zoning ordinance will be used to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses. The proposed annexation is consistent with King County Comprehensive Plan Policy PI -303, which states: "King County should play an active role in municipal annexations, supporting them when consistent with land use plans, and opposing them when inconsistent. King County and the City of Tukwila should work together on the proposed annexation, as directed by King County Comprehensive Plan Policy PI -304, which states: "King County and its cities should work together to identify future annexation areas. Interlocal agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within agreed -upon annexation areas. This process should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, landowners and affected governmental agencies." In accordance with this policy, King County and the City of Tukwila will adopt an interlocal agreement to resolve issues of regional significance. JT:AK:mg CPO48 /Inter ME@EONED A UG 9 198x3 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING CO cc: Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Cevelopment Division Craig Larsen, Chief, Community Planning Section Anne Knapp, Community Planner SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 406 RESOLUTION NO. 417 WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has received requests from residents of unin- corporated King County to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has adopted policies that are receptive to annexation; and WHEREAS, the South Central School District has benefited from mutually beneficial partnerships and community resources with the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS, it is desirable for the boundaries of South Central School District to be aligned with the City of Tukwila as a local governmental system; and WHEREAS, the annexation proposals of King County Fire District No. 1, Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke, would favorably increase the amount of South Central School District area into the City of Tukwila; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the South Central School District endorses the annexation proposals of King County Fire District No. 1, Foster, Riverton, and Thorndyke and supports efforts to align the school district'a boundaries with the City of Tukwila. PASSED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors on July 26, 1988. SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 406 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Chairman' :4 C1 Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting AFFIDAVIT JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet {7 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on (SEE ATTACHED) (Interested Parties) BUSINESSES: Name of Project THORNDYKE. RIVERTON & FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA File Number 88 - OF DISTRIBUTION Q 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 Ez Other MEETING NOTICE - WED AUGUST 3, 1988 MONDAY, JULY 25, 1988 , 19 . *%L4 1909 City of Tukwila Dear Businessmember: 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 - 1 ry L. Van Dusen Mayor LRB /sjn attachment City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Rick Beeler, Planning Director DATE: July 22, 1988 SUBJECT: SEA -TAC INCORPORATION AND THE ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY On July 14, 1988, without prior notice to the City, the Boundary Review Board modified its procedures so that the Sea -Tac incorporation can proceed ahead of the current petitions to annex to Tukwila. Now we must persuade the BRB to deny the incorporation so that these annexations can occur or that the annexations should precede the incorporation. The Riverton, Thorndyke and Strander annexations that we processed and filed are no longer in first place ahead of the Sea -Tac incorporation. This would similarly affect the Foster and Schneider annexations. The BRB is considering the Federal Way incorporation which filed a Notice of Intent containing incomplete, preliminary and /or vague data. Proponents prevailed on July 14 in convincing the BRB that more detailed information should be allowed to be submitted after filing the Notice and that the incorporation petition should be vested at the time the Notice was filed. This means that incorporation Notices of Intent can be supplemented with more information, while annexation Notices must be complete at filing. Per advise of and close contact with BRB staff, we were told that Sea -Tac had not filed their Notice and that the forthcoming study would become the notice. The week we were informed that Sea -Tac filed their Notice in April. The Sea -Tac incorporation study will only add to the Notice. We were not informed of these changes until after the BRB made its decisions. Instead, we have been relying on BRB staff to guide us through the annexation process. Tukwila's annexations are very likely now in a weaker procedural position, being filed later than Sea -Tac. The City Attorney is reviewing the BRB action and Tukwila's recourse. Our first action was to request the BRB to officially confirm Sea -Tac's position relative to our annexations (attached letter). To date, we have received no official notice. July 22, 1988 G. Brice Martin Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Suite 122 3600 136th S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Riverton and Thorndyke Annexations to Tukwila Dear Brice: On July 19 and 20, 1988 we filed notices of intent for these annexations to Tukwila. Please officially confirm their status relative to the Sea -Tac incorporation petition. Sincerely L. Rick Beeler Planning Director cc: Mayor City Council City Attorney City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 ADDITIONAL ENTITIES /AGENCIES NOTIPIED 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: #18 (Now in #11) School District: SEPA DECLARATION: NON - SIGNIFICANCE 7 -1 -88 COMMENTS OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Location Land Area 469 Acres Population 4,604 Assessed Valuation $80,339,726 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: So. Central 8 -24-88 S U M M A R Y BACKGROUND INFORMATION Thomas Brothers File No. 1538 P I ate No. 33, 34, 40, Received: 7 -19 -88 41 Entity: CITY OF TUKWILA Date Filed: 7 -19 -88 Expires: 9 -2 -88 Action: Annexation Jur. Taken: Title: Thorndyke Hearing: RESPONSE LETTERS Department of Public Works 8 -19 -88 Util. Coord. /Planning Division Counsel to Board 8 -15 -88 Entity Notified of Filing On 8 -10 -88 Sewer Districts: Val Vue; Rainier Vista Water Districts: #75; #125 Along the east side of Pacific Highway So. (SR 99), between So. 144th Street and So. 160th Street. ON SECOND REVIEW: 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: FILE NO. 1537 - CITY OF TUKWILA ation (Riverton) FILENO. 1538 - CITY OF TUKWILA - 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 550.00 filing fee. If you have any questions or require additional information at this time, please call me at 433 -1847. JP /sjn enclosure ation (Thorndyke) July 19, 1988 Sincerely, - Proposed Annex - Proposed Annex- ck Pace Senior Planner. jut 1 �''ASHiN AFB GT o , Q leIN 80 A0 FO R 104,6 lfllvG' RY City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 NOTICE OF INTENTION THORNDYKE ANNEXATION 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.: l 1. The City Council of the City of Tukwila received a •ietition in June 1988, signed by residents of the Thorndyke area, requesting an annexation through the election method for the area descri in Attachment C and shown on Attachment D. In addition, the peti loners requested simul- taneous adoption of zoning. The City is i the process of working with a task force of residents and property owners on the zoning and Comprehensive Plan Map amendments for the aria. Public hearings before the Planning Com�mnission and City Council are scheduled for August, September and 0ctober. The subject area is n Tukwila's Planning Area. 2. Attachment A is a certified copy of the T kwila City Council resolution accepting the annexation proposal. 3. Attachment B is a cop of the SEPA ch= klist and Determination of Non - significance issued Jul 1, 1988. 4. The proposed action is an xation to he City of Tukwila by the petition - initiated election method o land area contiguous to the present incorporat- ed City limits. This actin is proposed under the applicable provisions of RCW 35A.14.020, 050 and 10 an 36.93.100 and 160. 5. Attachment C is a legal descrip '•n of the area involved in the proposed action. 6. Attachment D is the Assessor's/ ap o the area and the contiguous Tukwila corporate limits. The size/ of the annexation area is approximately 469.15 acres. / / 7. Attachments E through I indicate the bou daries of all units of govern- ment in the area, as well : as the community acilities in the area. 8. Attachment J delineates / Tukwila's corporate limits with the outline of the proposed annexation/area. 9.A. The population of the Thorndyke area is estimat-' to be 4,604 (96.4% of Tukwila's current population). Its size is esti ated at 469.15 acres, which means a population density of 9.8 people per acre. The assessed val at ion of the area is $80,339,726, which means there is a per capita assessed valuation of $17,449. 9.B. The lands uses along SR -99 (Pacific Highway) are regional and neighbor- hood businesses. There is then a transition to the east, from high - density to low- density housing. The exception would be that high- density housing exists along South 154th Street, 42nd Avenue south of 154th, and South 158th Street. The existing zoning and King County Hiqhline Community Plan designate the area along 51st Avenue South as a high- density residential area. The existing land uses are single - family, although the potential land uses in this area could range from. low-density residential to commercial uses, depending on the eventual Tukwila zoning of the area. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 NOTICE OF INTENTION THORNDYKE ANNEXATION 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. The City Council of the City of Tukwila received a petition in June 1988, signed by residents of the Thorndyke area, requesting an annexation through the election method for the area described in Attachment C and shown on Attachment D. In addition, the petitioners requested simul- taneous adoption of zoning. The City is in the process of working with a task force of residents and property owners on the zoning and Comprehensive Plan Map amendments for the area. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council are scheduled for August, September and October. The subject area is in Tukwila's Planning Area. 2. Attachment A is a certified copy of the Tukwila City Council resolution accepting the annexation proposal. 3. Attachment B is a copy of the SEPA checklist and Determination of Non - significance issued July 1, 1988. 4. The proposed action is annexation to the City of Tukwila by the petition- _ initiated election method of land area contiguous to the present incorporat- ed City limits. This action is proposed under the applicable provisions of RCW 35A.14.020, 050 and 100, and 36.93.100 and 160. 5. Attachment C is a legal description of the area involved in the proposed action. 6. Attachment D is the Assessor's Map of the area and the contiguous Tukwila corporate limits. The size of the annexation area is approximately 469.15 acres. 7. Attachments E through I indicate the boundaries of all units of govern- ment in the area, as well as the community facilities in the area. 8. Attachment J delineates Tukwila's corporate limits with the outline of the proposed annexation area. 9.A. The population of the Thorndyke area is estimated to be 4,604 (96.4% of Tukwila's current population). Its size is estimated at 469.15 acres, which means a population density of 9.8 people per acre. The assessed valuation of the area is $80,339,726, which means there is a per capita assessed valuation of $17,449. 9.B. The lands uses along SR -99 (Pacific Highway) are regional and neighbor- hood businesses. There is then a transition to the east, from high - density to low - density housing. The exception would be that high- density housing exists along South 154th Street, 42nd Avenue south of 154th, and South 158th Street. The existing zoning and King County Highline Community Plan designate the area along 51st Avenue South as a high- density residential area. The existing land uses are single - family, although the potential land uses in this area could range from low- density residential to commercial uses, depending on the eventual Tukwila zoning of the area. NOTICE OF INTENTION Thorndyke Annexation Page 2 9.C.1 The Thorndyke area is within the Tukwila Planning Area and is therefore part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan was adopted by ordinance on September 19, 1977 and was revised on March 16, 1982. 9.C.2 The City of Tukwila does not have franchises in this area, although the existing utility franchises with City Light would include the area if annexed. 9.C.3 The Thorndyke 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. 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 Attachment K shows the current King County zoning. 9.C.6 The Thorndyke Annexation area is located in the Lower Green River Basin. Although there is no comprehensive sewer or water plan encompassing the entire basin, there are several plans affecting the area. Water District No. 125 and a small portion of Water District No. 75 and Val -Vue Sewer District have plans for this area. 9.D. The annexation area is located within the Lower Green River drainage basin, and is for the majority a plateau above the river valley floor. Parts of the area are steep hillsides or portions of ravines. 9.E. The boundaries of Census Tract 282 are South 144th Street, Pacific High- way, South 160th Street and I -5. The Thorndyke area is entirely encom- passed in Census Tract 282 which is one of ten census tracts in the Puget Sound Council of Government's Riverton Forecast Area Zone 3820. PSCOG has forecast a slight decline in population for the annexation area and its adjacent area to the north, west and south. For the City of Tukwila, which lies to the east of FAZ 3820, the PSCOG forecast a slight increase in population. Therefore, the population growth for the area is not expected to be significant. 9.F.1 Fire - Tukwila currently has Fire Station #52 at 5900 South 147th Avenue, which is a direct route of less than 1/4 mile to the annexation area. There is also a fire station facility of former Fire District #18, within the area that is a potential future site for Tukwila fire personnel and equipment. 9.F.2 Police - Currently stationed at City Hall at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, less than 1/4 mile from the annexation area in close proximity to the area. A new patrol:district will be configured to provide maximum effi- ciency and appropriate coverage to the area. 9.F.3 Parks and Recreation - The Tukwila Community Center and various neighbor- hood parks are currently used and available to the residents in the annexation area. 9.F.4 Administrative, Court, Planning, Permitting and Engineering Services are provided at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, also located within a quarter mile of the area. 9.F.5 Maintenance service for the road and storm sewer system would be provided from the City Shops at 600 Minkler Boulevard. NOTICE OF INTENTION Thorndyke Annexation Page 3 9.G. Attachment I shows the location of the above community facilities affect- ing the area. 9.H.1 Municipal services presently available to the area: a. Sewer - The entire annexation area is within the service area of the Val -Vue Sewer District; however, properties fronting along 51st Avenue South and South 160th Street are not currently within the District's boundary. b. Water - Water. District #125 is the water provider for the majority of the area. Water District #75 is the provider for the lots fronting South 160th Street along the southern boundary of the annexation area. c. Police and General Services - King County provides police protection and general governmental services. d. Fire - The area is entirely within the former fire protection District #18, which is now merged with Fire District #11. 9.H.2 The existing County regulation of land uses in the area has supported increasing the residential density in the area to urban levels. 9.H.3 Below is a comparison of costs to residents and property owners between the City of Tukwila and King County. Only the property tax is forecast to change immediately with annexation. a. PROPERTY TAX 1988 TAXING DISTRICT b. WATER AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Assessed Value - $65,000 Before Annexation After Annexation - - -- County - - -- Tukwila - -- TAX RATE TAX TAX RATE TAX State 3.84221 $250 3.84221 $250 County 1.89387 123 1.8987 123 Port .43275 28 .43275 28 E.M.S. .25000 16 .25000 16 Road /Tukwila 1.88106 109 3.14578* 204 South Central School District 2.85968 186 2.85968 186 Fire District #18 ** 1.00000 65 Rural Library .50000 33 TOTALS 12.45957 $810 12.42429 $807 * Includes Golf Course Special Levy ** 1989 Fire levy will increase to $1.50 due to the merger with Fire District #11. CITY OF TUKWILA RATES 1988 Commercial /Industrial: METER SIZE MINIMUM CHARGE " $ 8.50 1 " 13.50 1 }" 19.00 2 24.50 3 " 47.00 4 " 63.00 6 " 115.00 8 " 176.00 Single- family /Multi- family: Each meter has a charge of $4.00. Consumption Charges: Commercial /industrial - each 100 cubic feet @ $1.12. Single - family and multi - family - each 100 cubic feet @ $0.85. NOTICE OF INTENTION Thorndyke Annexation Page 4 WATER DISTRICT #125 RATES (1) Single- family residential and duplex: Base charge: $10.00/2 months Consumption charge: $0.45/100 cubic feet water consumption (2) Commercial (includes triplex or more, business, public facilities) Meter Charge: Consumption charge: $0.40/100 cubic feet Water District #125 will continue to serve the annexation area. c. SEWER Commercial /Industrial: Multiple Dwelling Unit Permanent Type Residential d. ELECTRICITY 1 " - $14.00/2 months 1i" - 21.00/2 months 2 " 35.00/2 months CITY OF TUKWILA RATES 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. Each condo or apartment unit will be charged a flat rate of $4.00 with no additional charges for volume. Each dwelling unit will be charged a flat rate of $4.00 with no additional charges for volume. METRO RATES The City METRO charges as required by the Agreement for Sewage Disposal between METRO and the City of Tukwila is set at the sum of $9.90 per residential customer and $9.90 per residential customer equivalents (9 00 cubic feet equals one residential customer equivalent) for multiple dwelling and commercial /industrial accounts. This is the 1988 rate. Qualifying seniors are eligible for reduced rates on one -half the water, sewer and METRO regular rates. VAL -VUE SEWER 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 No change in rates would result from annexation since electrical energy is supplied to the annexation area and the City by City Light at the same rate. e. UTILITY TAX Tukwila and King County have no utility taxes. 9.H.4 No other currently.constituted municipal entity is capable of providing subject service to -the area. 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 and an urban level and standards of services for the area. NOTICE OF INTENTION Thorndyke Annexation Page 5 9.H.6 Costs of service provision may decrease slightly due to Tukwila's strong sales tax base. Level of service may increase slightly due to the proximity of service facilities. Police and fire service is likely to increase due to increased patrolling and proximity of stations. 9.H.7 This annexation will have little, if any, impact on other governmental units. However, there is the potential cumulative effect of this annexation combined with the other pending annexations and possible future annexations. All or a majority of the sewer and water districts may eventually be within the City limits at which time the City Council and Boards for the Districts would discuss merging the independent service providers with Tukwila's utility. 9.J. The Thorndyke annexation proposal would merely include an area in Tukwila that shares the same economic and social interests of the City. The residents of the area use the same community facilities such as schools and recreational programs. Urban County areas will remain south of 160th. Street and west of 99. The size and needs of the annexation will probably not have a measurable impact on County government services other than perhaps a redistricting for police patrols. 10. The proposal supports the stated objectives of the Boundary Review Board in the following ways: RCW 36.93.180(3): The proposal extends logical service areas based on proximity to basic municipal services. The proposal extends logical service areas based on prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. The proposal helps adjust an impractical boundary. RCW 36.93.180(4): RCW 36.93.180(7): Attachments: A. Tukwila Resolution B. SEPA Checklist and Determination C. Thorndyke Legal Description D. Thorndyke Assessor's Map E. Sewer Districts Map F. Water Districts Map G. School Districts Map H. Fire District Map I. Community Facilities Map J. Tukwila and Thorndyke Annexation Area Map K. Existing King County Zoning (26 /TA.NTCINT) THORNDYKE REV. MAY 17. 1988 A parcel of land situated in. Section 22. and in a portion of the west 1/2 of Section 23. all in T23N. R4E. W.M. described as follows : Commencing at•the northwest corner•of Section 23. T23N. R4E; thence. north 1'14'41.5" east. 30 feet to: the easterly extension of the north margin of.South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT Or BEGINNING= thence continuing. easterly along said easterly extension to the • east. , line. of • Primary State Highway No. 1 as• condemned under • Superior Court Cause No. 598539. records •of King County. WA; • thence southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with' the .easterly extension of the north. margin of South 151st Street. said centerline. also being the.Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila is • filed in the office of the Secretary.of State. in Washington • State per King County Commissioner's Resolution 6233091 dated 10 11 -61; • thence westerly. along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof.to•the centerline. of 51st Avenue South; • thence •southerly'along.the centerline. of 51st Avenue South to the southerly margin of State Highway •518 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No.' 656772. records of • King County. WA; 'thence westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection .with the east,margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly. along said east margin.to it intersection with the north margin of South •160th .Street; • thence westerly along 'said north•margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th.Street; thenCe'.easterly along said north margin to the .TRUE. POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT A CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. /481 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE PROPOSED THORNDYKE 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 Thorndyke 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 3$*3C2 Page 1 ATTACHMENT A 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 required 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 THEIR REGULAR MEETING ON /fro DAY OF , 1988. / /) 1 L j() COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MABEL J. HARRIS ATTEST /AUTHEITICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 7• /p "fP PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: I- /P' t v L'U LIBE®Hs EIPPEOPPRII-BNIS: AFB• NO.: . De/ fiss.lw*len A. BACKGROUND 1. Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoniro and annexation of area known as Thcrndyke. • P City of Tukwila ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Moira Carr Bradshaw or Jack Face Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433-1849 A . June 23, 1928 City of Tukwila EPIC FILE NO: 14 -88 6. Comprehensive Flan 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 subject proposal and its area; however, future annexations contiguous to the subject area are possible. Text amendments to the zoning ,ode are possible it order to reduce land use conflicts and provide comparable zoning. If text amendments are proposed additional environmental work will be done. There may he land 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 -:Hide Community Plan update that would include area covered by this proposal. 10. The governmental approvals and permits that are reeded are inc1laced within the annexation process. City Council adoption of pre- annexation Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning and annexation. A notice of intention will be submitted to the King County Boundary Review Board where review may be invoked. The County Council must pass an ordinance placing the election on the 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 -arnex at i on zoning to allow for simultaneous adoption of zoning if area is annexed. 1 tom, The proposed site is roughly hounded by South t44th Street, SR 99 (Pacific Highway), S. 169th Street, the Tukwila city limits and is referred to as "Thorndyke." The size of the area is approximately 469 acres. :. acme of the areas within the proposed annexation areas do lie wi th i n environmentally sensitive area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. The Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexat_isn areas have a combination o= flat, rolling, hilly,, and steep slopes, There are no mountains. :a. The steepest slope in these sites is 100 percent in some ari=as. c. The different types of soils are varied and include clay, sand, silt and gravel. d, The general area of the Duwami sh River Basin has a history of landslides and areas of instability. a. There is no proposal for any f i l l i n g or grading to be done. T. There•will be no construction clearing during this project. Impervious surfaces will not need to be built after thiF annexation because there is no construction occurring during this project. 2. AIR Currently, there is no proposal to reduce or control erosion 4 -a 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. 4. PLANTS a. The types of vegetation found on the site are decicuous and evergreen trees, shrubs, grass, and wet soil plants. b. No vegetation will have to be removed from the sit=. Na e. endangered species are known to be located in the area.. .d. There is no proposed landscaping for the proposal. S. ANIMALS a. The animals whi:_:i are lccated on or near the site are as Toflows: Birds: Hawk, Heron, and Songbirds Mammals: R.a.ccoons, Foxes, Coyotes, and Musk Rats =ish: Steelhead, Bullheads and wetlands have been filled to discourage the large gathering of waterfowl. • i. There are no measures proposed to enhance the wildlife. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. There are no chances to be made in the sites energy requirements. b. This project will not affect the potential use of solar energy in adjacent properties. c. not applicable 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. There are no environmental health hazards as a result of this proposal. 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. 4 b. Noise a. Vehicular traffic .ci1d be the major noise effecting the site area. b. There would be nc construction noise occurring in the area as a result of this project. There are no changes proposed to: control the ncis•= :;npact on the area. The City Hof Tukwila w i l l enforce its nose ordinance to control the noise. B. LAND AND SHORELINE USE :a • Tr the Riverton anneyati on area there are heavy and light i ndi;e•:: a. _and c cmli er c i al uses located in the north with residential uses in the southern half of '_hie proposals area. I n the Foster annexation ar . -, , : t 'ere are commercial, residential and public facility land uses. : n t'le area of Thcrnd;:ke, commercial, residential and public facility uses predominate. b. The R iertcn area has been used agriculturally fcr farmlands. :Acme 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. No structures will be demolished in this annexation process. e. The existing King County zoning : Riverton -MH Heavy Manufacturing MP Manufacturing Park ML Light Manufacturing CG General Commercial BN Neighborhood Business RM 900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RD 3600 Two Family Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling SR Suburban Residential Faster CG General Commercial BC Community Business RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling RM 1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Swelling SR Suburban Residential Thorndyke CG General Commercial BC Community Business BN Neighborhood Business RM 900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling •J The current plan for the areas is as follows: g. RM 1800 High Density Multiple D w e l l i n g RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling Riverton - The King County Comprehensive Flan designates tn, s area _.s urban with Southgate park designated•, as par's:. Tne Highi ine Community Flan designates the area with the following ;_tees in a north to south direction : Industry, Light Manufacturing, Single Family, -4i gh /r1a.: i muin Der si i y Multi-Family, Nei ghhor` cod and Cemnuni ty Business, Park and Recreation, Lew /Medium Density Multi- Fa.riiy. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan currently designates the area as follows: Light In 2L try, Commercial, Low Density Residential, High :_e r Residential, and Parks and Open Space. :Roster - The Virg County Comprehensive Plan dnsien.ates the area as urban, The Hi•3hline Community Plan designates t:,e area with Highway oriented Commercial, Low Density Residential, High /Maximum and Lew /Medium Density Multiple Family, Community Facilities and Parks and Open Space. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area with the following: Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Commercial, P u b l i c F a c i l i t i e s , and Parks and Open Space. Thc} ndy'::e - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as urban. The Hi ghl. i Cie Community Plan designates the area with the following: Highway Oriented Commercial, High /Maximum Density Residential, Community F a c i l i t i e s , Park and Open Space, Neighborhood and Community F Low /Medium Density Residential and Single Family. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area wi _h the -following: Cem:nercial, High Density Residential, Public Facility, Park ard Open ^pace, and Low Density Residential, There is no shoreline in the Tharndyke ar Foster area however .a small section of the Duwamish River is l :ocated along the north bot_,rdary of Riverton. h. 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. 133rd Street across 42nd Averue .around S. 135th street to Macadam Road and the hillside running north to south along the west side of Macadam Road from approximately 135th South into the Foster annexation area. Foster - The hillsides just northwest of the Foster Park at 52nd and *S. 137th and along the west side of Macadam Road for its entire length through the annexation area are designated as environmentally sensitive. 6 Thorndyke - The hillside running north and south along the ;rest aid :a of 51st Avenue S. and the ravine and hillsides running west and e :s':: acuth of 150th and north cf S. 154th Avenues between 51st and 40th are designated as environmentally sensitive. No new construction is .a• a'_:=d with the project :hat would rayuse .a change in the number of people who reside of work in the areal however -, .a sew comprehensive plan chances are ; that wi .1 c i��r rje potential residential densities. I•n the Riverton .area ; a high dsnsity 'multiple family area will be changed to low density and the overall permitted densities in the low density areas w'. 11 be ircrea zed to urban maximum standards. T' c.r:.dyke's rssidsn±.ial population is estimated to be 4500, T h i s ,_rcJject w i l l not displace any people, .Si n _e .`_here is no displacement cf individuals, there are ro pr posed Treasures ta deal with this issue. 1.. •A pre - annexation zoning ordinance will be used to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses. Existing land uses would be protected through the zoning code's non- conforming section. P'or.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 use/zoning changes. 9. 3SI? a. rew housing will be provided during this project, t. There is no need for any of the housing '..nits to be eliminated due to the r:ature or 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 tha Tukwila Zoning Code is 45'. However, height exception =seas 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 cr obstructed. c. There are no proposed measured to reduce or control aesth impacts, 7. 1111.. ILIPlaffir AIPMID MARE a. Light or glare is not applicable to this propcs•a1. b.• Light or glare is not a safety hazard in thi••a proposal. r. ThEre are no off-site sources of light or glare considerations d. Tt are are no proposed measures to control light and ool are. 12. RECREATION The = ecr ea.tional opportunities in the annexed =areas are Sot`:cate Park, Tukwila Community Center, the Duwamish /Green River r ver front 'trail, Foster pool and playgrounds and ball fields, the Thorrdy e play-Field and the Foster ball fields and tennis court. b. There are no ccnstfuct :_on activities within this annexation process that will displace any recreational areas. r_, There is no need for proposed measures to lessen the impact on recreational areas. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION .a. The King County Historic Landmarks Office provided the following l i s t of 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. - 1917 There are currently no measures to reduce or control impact_ to these landmarks. 14. TRANSPORTATION The Metro bus route serves Pacific Highway South between 150th and 112th Streets. Metro also serves some of the area along East Marginal Way South. b. The area is currently served by Metro bus service. c. There would be no parking spaces eliminated from the sites. d. The proposal will not require any new roads. 8 P. Due to the nature of this project, there is not need for water rail or air transportation. �. The number of vehicular trips is not necessary to this project. There are no measures to reduce or controt transportation impacts. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a, Thera w i l l be an increased demand on Tukwila municipal z:nd legislative services. The following is a needs projection to pr urban level ser ces to the area. b. There are r.o proposed measures to reduce impacts on Tukwila services, To try .and control the impact, a fiscal budgetary study wi:1 be completed that refines the revenge projections. Lateral transfers of personnel in health, life safety departments will be made to handle the immediate impact. The budget process will review the needs and ad s ust. personnel levels to accommodate the service demands. 16. UTILITIES a. The utilities available in the area are electricity, natural gas, :eater, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, and septic systems, Thee services are provided by Seattle City Light, WNG, Water District 125, Sea-Tac Disposal, P'NB, Val -V+ue Sewer District. • There are ro utilities proposed for this project. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NOIFROJECT ACTIONS There are no changes to the existing environment because this is only an annexation. Land uses in Tukwila will be substantially the same as the current King County uses and districts. Because no intensification of use is projected the environmental impacts to rater, 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. This annexation process does not effect plants, animals, fish, cr marine life nor is it expected to deplete energy or natural resources. 4. The City of Tukwila has mapped the environmentally sensitive areas :o+ the annexation areas. The County in contrast with'the City has , legislation which protects and regulates development adjacent to and 9 of sensitive sites. Tukwila does not. Therefore devel oprr.snt 7)4 r around these areas while covered by SESA review in Tukwila will :,g more subjectively treated with psrh:aps uncertain outcomes. To void or reduce impacts, th environmental rev . ew process w i l l be continued and used to prrrtect sensitive sites. No i mp=trt is to be expected on the use of the shore:. ine or the Tukwila t - 1 2 71esi gn•ate the one area of :shoreline as urban which .::)rnpE1 :ib1? with :ts current desi.gnatior. and with the Tuiew is F The effect on land use is expeci to be minimal hecail€e :nb jec*'vF is !'.o pro'..i compatible zoning. The over-al . rear s - t' single fami.ly d- 4el1.ir•gs is expected to increase because Tu iii1a at thm SuburL n Residential density cf 75 Some . ares w i l l he .' covered -rorn their current high and medium d;:1 ir_s vet sc3me are , Bs r::f Low will be raised to medium or high. To avoid c:r rer3 ce shoreline and land use impacts, a pr aneexat i vin comprehensive plan and zoning analysis is being conducter. If necessary, to m' tigate zoning impacts the zoning code will be amended. The Tukwila ahorel i ne program w i l l be amended if the area is annexed. The shoreline is protected in the interim because shovel i ns : o;_ meet would continue under the county's regulations until it is -srdded to the Tukwila Program. The annexation will increase the usage of Tukwila police, fire, judicial, administrative, legislative, planning and engineer•.ng eerv As alas mentioned in 15. above, a fiscal /budget projection is i_e:.r'g done to plan for the increased needs . The increase i .n police security on Pacific Highway South t of d : 3 " !ue t:a the social problems existing there in the form of drugs and prostitution, etc. 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. S. The annexation proposal does not conflict with Tukwi1a's Comprehensive Plan as it lies within the City's Planning Area. he :amendments proposed for the Comp Plan primarily reflect existing _.ses in the areas or are being made to be more comparable with surrounding land uses. E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS 1. The objectives of the proposal are to respond to the requests pi: .residents in Tukwila Planning area, In addition, the proposal would 10 , expand city boundaries to include adjacent se-vice, inpect and planning area and co—locate with South Central School District .^ro provide urban level services th an urran area.. An alternative means of achizving some of the above objectives would ▪ through the formation of an alternate nunic|pal government As ✓ . dkwi2a is the only city agency whose boundary is contingent to the area or close proximity. Of the two alternati'es anne`:ation is preferable to i:corporatirn tecause: a. Policies and economics would support a lid on the number of governmental agencies. b. Tukwila is small in size and population and should be encouraged to assume a stature comparable with othe- suburban municipal governments. c. Tukwila is logical urban service provide-. 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 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 c�n be �airtai:ed 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 WAC 197 -11 -970 Description of Proposal PRE- ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ZONING AND ANNEXATION OF "THORNDYKE ". Proponent CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Location of Proposal, including street address, if any APPROXIMATELY BOUNDED BY SOUTH 144TH STREET. PACIFIC HIGHWAY. SOUTH 160TH STREET. AND TUKWILA CITY LIMITS. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -14 -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. El There is no comment period for this DNS El 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 Address _ 6200 Southcenter Boulevar. Tukw,„0+ ,/: • , 4 4 4111111111111111. Date ♦ Signature Phone 433 -1846 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 ATTACHMENT B THORNDYKE REV. MAY 17. 1988 A parcel of land situated in Section 22, and in a portion of the west 1/2 of Section 23. all in T23N. R4E, W.M. described as follows: Commencing atAhe northwest corner of Section 23. T23N. R4E; thence north 1n4 east. 30 feet to the easterly extension of the north margin of South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing easterly along said easterly extension to the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 598539, records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly extension of the north margin of South 151st Street, said centerline also being the Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as filed in the office of the Secretary of State, in Washington State per. King County Commissioner's Resolution #23309. dated 10- 11 -61; thence westerly along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof to the centerline of 51st Avenue South; thence southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the southerly margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under. Superior Court Cause No. 656772. records of King County, WA; thence westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection with the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said east margin to it intersection with the north margin of South 160th Street; thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th Street; thence easterly along said north margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ATTACHMENT. C j • 17— Al 1 t:. . • -* .1 rri • ■ • e I , q • . ../.-•••••■•■-•••-1 t•••• 1 --.4 , i D A--1-0 - r .-: :: .144.. (:). I tli 'd ..,..1 '1 ■ i t 1.-., • ::,...:' • " 1 " 4 ... " L.: 1-,-. • • ..So. 146t St '! - e --;-•- • •• I-T T - 7 A.I.0 j 7 5 • 57.. ! -•:. ' . I ' -; / ' : - 1-..--;■._... ..1....,• , - f-_!1 '..-.-!"....; , •;- - ..•;.... -; - - - -." ' .• 4 __..4 elo:',4ty.....11 4. -.4 71 '-'• i : . . • .1... 1 - ‘.'4 • • sa — , 1 :ii .1■.--10. So 118th St.- • • •-1" - .4- - .--- . ' ,.40.. 1, • I• • . r -.. 4 . f .-- 41-, 4 - • 40- .._.r.!,f, -.-2,-.!( , • 1.,:i.l.:•. -So 150th St. •,' • . • So. 160th St. 1 I D I N .; .•" • . I • „4 - "1.f, '1 • J --T •• - --- , - r , •— -.,-. -Ir- -4- : , .." ' "' ... 1 . :71 ...!. • 7 r i -7 - r ,1 So. 114th St.'I THORNDYKE mo ANNEXATION AREA( 469 ACRES) CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' NORTH ATTACHMENT D a il II k / r e t � 'r ____•_.- _..... N. a* • am , : : Tic MAO • C �i • � �� r0 111 0 # ikilian o MEW mil nun 111111111 _ _ � _.� , IIIf 111. Iii X111 IIIIIdIII it • � = C •••••I . • : = -- � € - - *101111 1 II I NMI - /� .1-4•••••'7. A O NEWMAN. =MAMA,. -- L. I r = ice .;. 111 t 1111 11(1111 , 111� 1�1� . o ,---''" 111111141i ... � � T ,. , ::�'� • � .� lll�l" l .�� !�� IIf,,• ng di � r IIIIIIIiii 1 > ;' +� � � luu ilii u���� niIi lillli::l;��l��l o ;+I nu nau�unn iln � � � II 1111 JIIIIfl �111 I���IIlililiIIII IIIII�! 111 Q , !11Ur }I.... (11 11111 II!!1!1!lll�i� I 1 , � W � +��i' I I i " . 11111 ; . � ,� i lll ���m i illll111l1., ,,��I11 � i !llM l . 1 J , f . : tilt Y ilk )A • -.I ,..,• F.," 1 ,,' ■ e 141. p } 111 . E - , —1 1 I. i- i _ , 1 • So 146th it 0 -...., . : ...: : .•I i- T A-CiT 5 . .7. .... ....1 , .. ..„, i -r• s :,*.t 4 *'/ •-• 7.10. I . . ■ I , , ..r : i • e. , e• r:latys .11 T . - .... It i ' ' 0 i : i - -•-•' , .._ _ _ ... A s ■ . . .; • , • ', .:.: :- - '. 1 , . .... ' I , 5. L. ::-1'...Li •r ,r_'_ - _ L ..' 1, : - ,", : i i , _...., — so:. a qi t . Z17,717 ' 1 11 .. .7 r : - .1 • , 1 1 ' A ' D :-. 1 r i- 1-•' ..... , • ."-- . • • - I " -1-7 - 1" ! 1 ' -.::, - _„,,i ...(. ..._.• ..„ z:. :CI _./...rb:: e „,....1,- „. . .... ;1.. '. . i a A, ?. „ i 1 .. '...4 •• So. 150th St. :A "111- ....: - •-• •,-- _.,...,......: 4,_ .._..............A ..,...2,... ,i; , I ; . i-. ht I b So. 152nd St. . • :1 s I I 61 *C. • 1 -- 11 1. ---; .,' 0 - • ,.... j....:_j ,.......r. i ........ - .. ... , 7.: ...:, ... i..„.............. 11 : T .. ,,_..r . „. 11. : 71 „T _... . 7 ...... ri.... - .:/..........,,, ,.. _.',. '..-. '''... : — - "t__ SR•518 --.: •■••••• .... ..." So. 160th St. ATTACHMENT H : -• NORTH .4 . • _- _ ri • • $ • _ .._ :,: _ • 7: ,--■.■ 7 A Is, AM •.$ . - --. f • 7 ,' ‘'.\ \ ' , ' — -.'-. • 1- '- • , ■ ..., • :,1.: ,1-...,;:” . .+4-4... ....„...... -- IL..., • •• .,...,..; . _lir. --/ • 1...:.;,..:-.1 \„:„ •...i.:0, ....,...,-.......... . . ''•‘\ '.--.••41 - 7 - ., . v , .. . . ..—', t• ....,. :. .... , :,... - . .--1. 7.--4r — ---- --; - i ' A.... : • t . .'. s ' . 1 / • I , ' • Z. : ',....; - • - • . .-.. :. .1 . . . • ; 7 ,4 1 c".r 71,?...-1 I . • .' , • . .i'..:.1.: A:' T ''' ;:.,:-.. i .. -,;. • ' 1 .... .." b '; '. ' . - ..1. •:. • • '. • •• ' . ••• ' - ': i , l', • ' •••,—.---:::••!.......--,- .— • '+ \--'-'• 1 II 1 I I •- • . Y.... ... V V t. r i4., ..... 1 .. ' ,:. . • • te I 1 1.-• . F . ...' LL — A DA rz '.. ..:- . . - :"1 :, i 6...... " i • 4 •g, .1 !".* .-,- -, '1 . •A-. _Ai '-!-I -- i • 7 ' _-__-_4 •1011..... • I * •.• 1 — I I ) So. 144th St.. THORNDYKE "" ANNEXATION AREA( --- CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' I / i - s:_,... • 4 I • i•••••• • P.': . ' e. . 4 ` .44. , • 5 • a 4 bt 7 • • - , . • • --__ 1 .....--. 5, ,i. slc %, \ \ i,..„ \ • PEA PATCH 0 ' • • \.. ts ._,,e" . 7 - , - .•, _. ■... ia : • 4.1 e, ..i30....L ,__.-‘1 / .4 - ,, .. \.; i ti _ 4 • 1, , .!:// \ . •` -- .. , • 1. • 6 . 5 o t A : 1.. / •e , e ' TUKWILA t \ 4 c 'MAN\ COMMUNITY b.,,__,, ,. ,,t _____, , .___BE ‘ ‘....../ .../v •-■ ' ..."'.... N ' K C ME 2 1 ,.. 4.4,y ., SOUTH,G • ATE , r— - I ( \ PARK e--2 1 I t . \ I JOSEPH FOSTER-- j " S' .. %,. \ 5 I t51e. • - , / -" . ( . MEMORIAL PARK__-___ — 5 1:10444 54 • - •-■ .,. 0 ;. ' - . Li f_ A C43 lf ____,,,,,,.. LEGEND wifte TRAILS III PARKS CITY SHOPS CITY HALL y4STADIUM SCHOOL 111 LIBRARY SWIMMING POOL FIRE STATION 11111 So ' CORI. 0, UPLAND 0. 141174.A1401:4 . 1 - Ktii..A1421A1 S leo t• DAHER I \ z " < — ' 1 , __ 4 ..... .. 4 ? ....■51, .4....1 4 LA t ; - Sr --., • -,_---.----___+, -- ..z.,7 ........ „,;/......... ....c tr_ifirkma i. .1 r CRYSTAL ..4.__ _Y • th ••___. SPRINGS PARK ._ ' 1-, i K.C. i t.r' s %• 1 STVIEWi 7 i PARK L,.-. . .1 0 , 14 1 ✓ S . ;1<.6. MCMICKEN 9 PARK , • v , ,...-....-. 3. y V • • Pi il dr i \ 2114.-2•5 ; J 4 < ▪ 4 . 7.4 --'-'—‘. 1 : 17: n. I —4-4- 2.-4....t-e—; • i / , t (.. < • Alf; 1-4 4 4, .; 1 th ' ••-■ tOo . ...•— - • O *i A A. • K C. VALLEY s A RIDGE PARK , . - 'dor I . 7 CV i / ...44. .4 / e g - ... 0,„ ...., v ini KENT BRISCO 1 MEANDER PARY1 5 CAV.Cit.14. bt I , 1 , '1 1 1 KENT RIVER TRAIL HAZELNUT PARK Facilities . • . • FOSTER GOLF LINKS KC FORT \ DENT PARK SW '5 ,.< 0 KC INTERURBAN TRAIL - ATTACHMENT 1 Guide TUKWILA PAI BICENTENNIA PARK • CHRISTENSEN GREENBELT PARK i lt i rmanfa, sineltaxik vou �i�,i_ ili - ��g S. 144 TH ST. I 1 1 t„ Y�L71 Q IIIIIIIIIIIII!!Illlllllllllli ��'� • I it llllllmiti 11111111 f) ; 1 S1 III - uIIIIIII;I'lllllll , , % , t 4111 I I I I I E11I' • SEA•TAC INCORPORATION lin FILED JANUARY 1888 RIVERTON ANNEXATION PILED FEBRUARY 1988 POSTER ANNEXATION ® FILED MAY 1888 TNORNDYKE ANNEXATION Num FILED JUNE 188 l TUKWILA CITY LIMITS [] TUKWILA PLANNING AREA ATTACHMENT J ....=1LOMMULAM IMEEEETSM IFFOO•MIedll uumommium :=311 •=.11111111••••••N 2== ---=--- ESEA========asammoss --, ========rECIMMMUM .1—.7.-=•••.-17=•aummon - m==!UMMOMMIN : = •=1421EMMIIMM OFOIMM•IrM eggammoom 7 =IOUROMMOIM :4911:12:11 101011■114A1 ===IPMMIIMM•M INAMM•MME OMUNIIIMMS SUMMIOYAMII ---===.:•=trzs THORNDYKE ANNEXATION \- KING COUNTY ZONING LEGEND COMMUNITY BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION B-N NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION M RS-7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM-2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING F1RM-1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING 11111 RM-900 MAX DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING A 21 • ‘,.1!.\', n r c h hmaa AFFIDAVIT O 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 C1 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit Name of Project File Number 88 -4-A OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance • Mitigated Determination of Non- significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice was mailed to each of the following addresses on O Notice of Action O Official Notice [j Other O Other /3 ! , 19 . (Interested Parties) i:� ;j:��1'.:'.l':�7 «z'74LU,]S17 Y:io4 tY ::y::1.1tLa.._.i.�.. •.�wFrro� v: ��r.... w.._...»...__._....»...._..».-...... �.... � ..............-....» �._.._............__.... �.... �..._........... w•,.... ....,...�........w,..........«. MEMORANDUM City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 12061433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Thorndyke Task Force FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE: July 14, 1988 SUBJECT: TUESDAY JULY 26, 1988 TASK FORCE MEETING AT 7:00 P.M., POLICE TRAINING ROOM, TUKWILA CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING OF THE THORNDYKE AREA From the discussion of Tuesday night, nine scenarios for the development of 51st Avenue South evolved. The area is currently only equipped to handle single- family uses due to the lack of sewer and water lines and in sufficient right -of- way for road improvements. The major concerns expressed at the meeting regarding the eventual uses along 51st are: 1. Potential traffic increases along 51st, 144th and other collector arterials in the area. 2. Property owners who purchased and own the subject properties, primarily on the west side of the street, have had RM -2400 zoning for approximately 10 years. 3. The area's proximity to I -5 and associated noise impacts and the existing relatively high volume and type of traffic makes the area less desirable for residential uses. COMPARISON OF CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON OTHER AREA STREETS Attached are maps of the City of Tukwila with locations and traffic counts at points along roadways. The numbers indicated are for a weekday 24 -hour period and represents one car passing the counting point either north /south or east /west bound. MEMORANDUM to: Thorndyke Task Force The count for .51st Avenue South, 6,280, shows that it is similar to the traffic on Southcenter Boulevard between the bridge over I -405 leading into the Mall and Interurban Avenue. King County had some 1987 traffic counts the following stre:ts: South 144th Street west of 42nd Avenue - 6,282 and east of 42nd - 5,181; 'outh 154th Street west of 42nd Avenue - 4,737 and east of 42nd - 6,949. Single - family detached 10.00 Apartments, general 6.1 Condominiums 5.2 Medical clinic 23.8 Office 17.7 137.0 Shopping center 117.9 less than 50,000 gsf Service station w/o repair 748.0 Supermarket 125.5 Convenience market 322.6 Bank - walk -in 169.0 - drive -in 192.0 Savings and loan 61.0 Drive -in restaurant 553.0 New car sales 47.5 Hotels 10.5 Motels 10.14 gsf = gross square feet ALTERNATIVES The east side of 51st Avenue South, generally between So 144th Street and I -5, has approximately 14.65 acres (there feet in an acre). The west side of 51st, generally below the crest of the slope (+ 378 feet from edge; of right -of -way) south of 144th and north of the 154th Street overpass,'has approximately 20 acres. The handout from the first meeting describes the type o both of the following zones. 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN wry TYPICAL TRAFFIC GENERATION BY USE Average Weekday average per unit average per unit average per unit per 1,000 gsf per 1,000 gsf per acre per 1,000 gsf per station per 1,000 gsf per 1,000 gsf per 1,000 gsf per 1,000 gsf per 1,000 gsf per 1,000 gsf per 1,000 gsf average per room average per occup ed room ZONING Commercial - both sides C -1 - Neighborhood Busi C -2 - Regional Retail • ess July 14, 1988 Page 2 th 151st, Street, are 43,560 square uses allowed in MEMORANDUM to: July 14, 1988 Thorndyke Task Force Page 3 C -2 uses would probably not consider 51st a desirable location. Think of 51st like you would 144th and 42nd. Although the site may be visible from I -5, it is not directly accessible from I -5 nor does 51st lead from one large area to another instead it is more of a feeder road. Density of the market area would be relatively high due to the apartments in the area though the size of the area is somewhat limited due to the industrial neigh- borhoods just north of Riverton and the eastern edge of the residential neighborhood at Interurban Avenue. Therefore, the entire 39 acres would not seem to be needed. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING Commercial - east side C -1 - Neighborhood Business Office - west side P -0 - Professional Office The same analysis regarding C -2 on both sides applies to locating it on just one side. C -1, Neighborhood Business, however, provides personal service and shopping needs for the neighborhood and is a more likely candidate. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3. Office - both sides 4. Office - east side High Density Residential - west side 5. Office - east P -0 - Medium Density Residential - west R -2 - R-3 - 6. Office - east Low Density Residential - west 7. High Density Residential - both sides 8. High Density Residential - east RMH or R -4 Medium Density Residential - west R -3 or R -2 9. Medium Density Residential R -2 - both sides R -3 10. Medium Density Residential - east R -3 or R -2 Low Density Residential - west R -1 11. Low Density - both sides ZONING P -0 - Professional Office P -0 - Professional Office R -4 - Low Apartments (2,000 sq ft /unit) Professional Office 2- family Dwelling 4,000 sq ft /unit) 3- and 4- family Dwellings (3,000 sq ft /unit) P -0 - Professional Office R -1 - Single - family Dwelling (7,200 sq ft /unit) R -4 - Low Apartments RMH - Multiple Residence High Density R -1 - Single Family Dwelling MEMORANDUM to: Thorndyke Task Force July 14, 1988 Page 4 Using the acreage figures for each side of the street and the required square footage requirements per unit of each zone, you can calculate an approximate total of units. The number of units can be translated into trip traffic using the Traffic by Use chart. To facilitate discussion on a recommendation, a motion should be made on a preferred alternative similar to Tuesday night. If you need a copy of the zone uses and comparisons, please give me a call at 433 -1848. (20/MB.7 -14M) Carr radshaw 1+7 2 28,76 24 -hr VOLUME IN THOUSANDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 24-hr VOLUME IN THOUSANDS 1 9 i36 j ,itr c W A A 5 5VO Hnp c4. pIt. 1u b"LK .61er DISTRICT SSYMBOL DISTRICT NAME 1 IAL +� MINIMUM LOT SIZE (SQ. FT.) MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED PER UNIT (SQ. FT.) MAXIMIO BUILDING HEIQfT (IN FEET) . FRONT YARD (IN FEET) SIDE YARD (IN FEET) r " it MINIMI4 MEAN LOT WIDTH (IN FEET) R -A AGRICULTURAL Agricultural uses and residential uses. 3 acres — 30 40 6 50 120 R -1 -7.2 R -1 -9.6 R-1 -12.0 R-1 -20.0 E ONE FAMILY M I LITUS S' le famil residares with related us , such as and agriculture. 7,200 9,600 12,000 20,000 --- - — 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 1U% of lot width; ro t less than 4', need rot be more than 8'. 10 10 10 10 50 50 50 50 R-2 TWO FAMILY MELLITUS Two family dwellings; allows R-1 uses. 8,000 4,000 30 30 8 15 60 R-3 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS Three and four family dwellings; allows 2 R- uses. 9,600 3,000 30 30 8 25 60 R-4 LOW APARITFMS Apartment type dwellings; allows R-3 uses. 9,600 2,000 35 30 8 25 60 RIf MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH Dl21SITY High density apartment dwellings; allows R-4 uses. 9,600 1,500 45 30 10 25 60 p-0� If' AND Offices and clinics; allows RMH uses. — — 3 stories or 35 feet 25 10 10 — C -1 NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL BUSINESS Neighborhood and community camlercial and retail uses; allows P-O uses. — --- 3 stories or 35 feet 20 10 10 C -2 LOCAL RETAIL BUSINESS Community and urban retail uses; allows — --_ 3 stories o r 35 feet 20 • 10 10 C -1 uses. C -P PLANNED BUSINESS CENTERS Regional shopping center development; allows C -2 uses. — —_ 75 20', or when height is over 20', front yard shall be 20' plus 1 for each foot of bldg. height over 20', not to exceed 75' . 10 20 — 0.41 IPIDUSTRIAL PARK Light industrial and commercial mono- facturing uses; allows C -2 uses. — --- a stories 50 5 5 — N4 1 LIGHT INDUSTRY Light manufacturing and distributive uses; allows C -2 uses. — —_ 4 stcries and 45 feet 25 — 5 —_ M1 II1/1V1 1 "Ul 'll <] Heavy manufacturing uses, salvage operatiat; allows M4-1 uses. — _ —_ 4 stories and 45 feet 2S -- 5 -- CITY OF TUKWILA: ZONING CODE SYNOPSIS BASIC USE, HEIGHT, SETBACK AND AREA REGULATIONS SEISAC!(S •I:xt:vptn to the height limits in designated areas of the City may 1...iuth rizud pursuant to proetxhu specified in Sections 18.50.030, 18.50.0411 ,url 18.50.0 of this cock. Q Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [] Planning Commission Agenda Packet C1 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [I Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit [[ Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project File Number 88-4—A AFFIDAVIT l' (Interested LitAik z- OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: 0 Determination of Nonsignificance �] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance C1 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action (J Official Notice C1 Other Q Other parties) F /SY , 19 . ilagiraatar tmg.0.76, uen�r •vaiau�r.wm,a:ru. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 IZ06) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: FROM: Thorndyke Annexation Task Force Moira Carr Bradshaw, Tukwila Planning Department DATE: July 6, 1988 SUBJECT: MEETING - TUESDAY, JULY 12TH AT 7:00 P.M., POLICE TRAINING ROOM Just a reminder of next week's meeting. To be reviewed: 1. Proposed changes to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map based on the Task Force's June 26th recommendation. 2. Continued discussion of land use designations along 51st Avenue South. 3. Height exception areas greater than 35 feet along Pacific Highway. 4. Any other issues of concern. MCB /sjn MEMORANDUM O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting [j Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [l Planning Commission Agenda Packet (] .Short Subdivision Agenda Packet hereby declare that: AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION [] Determination of Nonsignificance (l Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action [I Official Notice Notice of Application for (] Other Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit [i Other (Interested Parties) was mailed to each of the following addresses on Til ! / ?C-), 19 . • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Petitioners for Annexation FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner Tukwila Planning Department DATE: July 8, 1988 SUBJECT: THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TASK FORCE 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 residents and business owners of your annexation area. We are discussing and brainstorming the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and pre - annexation zoning for your neighborhood. Your input is needed and desired NOW before we take a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Counci in August and September. You will be notified of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, at which time you will again have an opportunity to comment. If you would like to participate, provide information, listen to the dis- cussion and /or raise concerns, please join us on: MCB /sjn Tuesday - July 12, 1988 7:00 p.m., Police Training Room at Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard NORM MALENG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY �. ..3.,. r.. ��__;�`:..'x'�',�,. s :... .,.: a3 :'lr:Yr1..:a:r7.Cr..:gx's� "!rP iatn:.w .i...c,.<:�+..�na+a .2'_Y �1!nn� "�.• ^:- 3r�9E_'L'.itt June 27, 1988 The City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: "Thorndyke" Petition for Annexation t� the City of Tukwila Dear Councilmembers: OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNET!' 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 particular petition has been referred to as the proposed " Thorndyke" 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. Second, RCW 35.13.025 requires that it be the prosecuting attorney's opinion that the City is legally authorized to take the actions specifically requested . in the petition. Based on the results of our examination of these two criteria, we have determined to certify the petition for annexation. The petition itself meets the procedural and substantive requirements of RCW 35A.14.020. Among other things, the annexation petition must contain "an accurate legal description of the area proposed for" annexation. RCW 35A.01.040(1)(c). Although we are satisfied the petition's legal description meets the statutory requirements for accuracy, our review has disclosed an insubstantial error in the description. Specifically, the line on the 'legal description beginning with the words "southerly . margin of State Highway 518" should have referred to the existing city boundary on the north margin of South 158th Street. We believe that this insubstantial error is not fatal to the petition because the area of overlap is already within the existing city limits of Tukwila. iS? 4X7.?. LL `.;( d�L: rvt�ac*: ��tmras+ v.:., rv, ax•: x:+ xucwmwwrnrawnv.+ w„ w. ruwnw..... e.,......_.... w..+..+...... w...... yr.,.... w. a. M. wsn. w.. ce.. Y. a. rwron.... r.. e�w d.. ....u....... .�...w. The City Council June 27, 1988 Page -2- c. The petitioners appear to represent at least 10 percent of the votes cast at the last state general election in the area which is proposed to be annexed. Actual compliance with this element, as well as verification of the number of registered voters in the unincorporated territory proposed to be annexed, should be undertaken by the Tukwila City Clerk. The second element of our inquiry is whether the City of Tukwila is legally authorized to take the actions specifically requested in the petition. As you know, the City of Tukwila is an optional municipal code form of city government. As a consequence, legal authority for annexation is provided in RCW 35A.14.010. A code city like Tukwila has the power to annex unincorporated territory which lies contiguous to it if such territory is not owned by the county for agricultural fair purposes. None of the territory involved in this proposed annexation is owned by the county and used for agricultural fair purposes. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the City of Tukwila has statutory authority to annex the territory described in the petition. Based on the foregoing analysis pursuant to RCW 35A.14.020, we certify the enclosed petition for annexation and we hereby return the petition for action by the Tukwila City Clerk and Council. Very truly yours, For NORM MAL G, King Co my Prosecuting Attorney KEVIN M. RAYMOND Deputy Prosecuting Attorney KMR /sj Enclosures cc: King County Boundary Review Board 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 mm 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. ■ CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FUTURE MEETINGS FURTHER INFORMATION (26/NTC.6 -8) City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING The City of Tukwila received a petition for annexation by election for the Thorndyke 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 8, 1988 TIME: 7:30 p.m. LOCATION: Thorndyke Elementary School Gymnasium 4415 South 150th Street 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 residents 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. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Annexation Boundary Map 9 110 11 t I N 111 Soul Centra Annexation i ` ' •Ni \\ +\ \ lin .4 - IL t',... ‘16'.k :ts,--, 1 ii, ,. ;.. •, lik" � , 1 a \ School .k. ■ %• NA i..A4 / . 441 So 1s ?' REGISTERED VOTER t- DATE SIGNED 1. Name: (Print) MiriarY1 ( D. 1 ►$hE.r Signature: ` -- c�d����'✓ 2 . Name: (Print) `/ i/7 '? A9. f is /& 5-2:?--»'r Signature: r4,,if lL1 aL 3 . Name:. nt) Peer C M f17iivso "i gif Signature 4 ,,,, as 4. Name: (Print) ,A//' lti G,-�.� 1� 5 5 -g� � .Z1��j�i�f. j x/ Signature: ,Z'g_se. SO, 981 5. 8. 24y•3459 ( ,: TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH ITON (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 8." 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) Name: (Print) C l4 3"e12e- weir. s ignature:,,,„,,2 � - ,t i 6. Name: (Print) `. \. N\ Signature: / 7. Name: (Print) Signature ELECPET Signature:A 1 ./ Name: (Print) `.hA 4LL? ,•�y /%�-„� ,; iii .m •� ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # /,(03o.- 4f6tLS0 )2z-cake-. uht caiGg 5e4ffLe w,' 97/4 , °l rsr l .. /z /6 r � - 4/17 11.1. / j , — WARNING • Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 1. Signature: ELECPET c. TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHI- "CTON (Election Method,, TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWIL REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED Name: (Print) 4•/• /t/CDo,1J/9 ) Signature: aG ,1,, i'1 e, / %g . Name: (Print) Signature: /3. Name: .(Print). b- M 4 .2:444,4 X 10 S i gnature: -� - 4. Name: (Print) 'T11(6Fio 4,4r4gad (D s' /ice Signature,Qte ��i.�,,,,Q ( 5. Name: (Print )` j1 \e ' L L._ A 1 ; n4-0 )A S- 147).-FA . - 6. Name: (Print) C !`, f - E Signature: ( 2' 7. Name: (Print] ) /N•C , C<=' =:• j� _71 Signature: //„%e, 8. Name: (Print) /21 rti' %VF': l , G f Signature: ) -vt,, . : i % ; c f - .','1— c;.(/ We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resident in the terr tory proposed for annexation equal in number to ten percent (10t) 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 AN and map in "Exhibit 6." 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) ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # /2 L/C - &) J � lj i 3W SO. I q(0 •Se al !, o r �k)1 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. � 2 2 D JP ELECPET TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH,!"STON (Election Method;._ TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: We, the usdersigned, as qualified electors resident in the territory proposed for annexation equal in number to ten percent (10t) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to be held to determine whether such area, lying contiguous to the City of Tukwila, Washington, in which there is estimated to be registered voters, should be annexed to the City of Tukwila pursuant to Section 35A.14.020 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit A" and map in "Exhibit 8." The, undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations. Itis recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED 1. Name: (Print) c '/ ,,, ed,. S -J23- JO' Signature\ £ . 2 . Name: (Print)a4her A: C64, e7,f s t _er„.(2_ Signature: 3. Name: (Print) Signature: 4. Name: (Print) Signature: 5. Name: (Print) Signature: 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print) - Signature: ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # /1 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. r 1 1931 So )q$ 249 -3679 5. Name: (Print) Signature: 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print) Signature: ELECPET TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH " ".TON (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 (10x) 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 AN and map in "Exhibit B." The. undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations. It is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # 1. Name: (Print)GARY dt-kvr!S c Signature: - 2. Name: (Print) Signature: 2Y), u' u:tG.ut 3. Name: .(Print) Signature: 4. Name: (Print) Signature: Y'13 I '/ so /tan 98) ,Q C. 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. , • , cw , ncw So )4 2N4 -34s, TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHI ":TON (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 (10t) 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 AN and map in "Exhibit B." The• undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations. I recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # CSC yLoeC- o9 /5-0(o — 1. Name: (Print) /10k6er )). h5i . lC / / /s; /f/‘ n 7 /E Signature: — 2. Name: (Print) &) /d. L, F o sr 5a , '' 66 Gico - C'/-5- 66 3: - ;-:-41)?' -0 / /57 iy Sew 777r 3. Name: (Print 4 • A : 4 / 1 l /i ��� 1 =� 5- f1 /'14,/r11 PAd - J1r crA/ 5,4 S Signature: W�f,�/ — 4. Name: (Print) GLhiv o /1 &sou 51 : 1 ye - &8 5'yS2• , 0/ 4 /L > 4 ', Signature: 4,4 N (a„.. ZEi Wea 9R68 Signature: 5. Name: (Print) Signature: 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print) Signature: ELECPET 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. f R AN ao Va 50 4'.- )L41- 1 )4t 6 5-7 �*i .3 / 1. Name: (Print) Signature: ELECPET TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH1; (Election MethodL 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 (1Ox) 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.14.320 of the Revised Code of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as folows: SEE, attached legal description in "Exhibit AN and map in "Exhibit B." 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) 1),aY1i5. Signature: 44942. Q. . 3. Name: (Print , ; LO i ♦/1) . /5 - '9 Signature:9 e 4. Name: (Print) lef?a ril s;/, Signature: e/ , Name: (Print) g,y1Y« ..5 /i 4 ' Signature: L 4a/14`44V- 6. Name: (Pr t )Pp,Rte-tia ANN ToNe.* Signatur DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # S�/�/ /.S2 2 7 lt0 140. 52/q 6. -14 -g4 7. Name: (Print)J:iore5 Signature: 8. Name: (Print)/11117111) S�. L, / 'rAO. . /i)/s.S Ada c A,,p r 353.4 h/9 k sea q6m Se t )4/e,, C& • G (S/ cr O lStiy «c / 4E , Z) S ?T4Z 4,4 F 14 ? 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. f This page is on(_,f a group of pages containing umtical 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 SITU* UE rMusband Wife PRINTED NAME ADDRESS AND TAX LOT 1UMBER OATE SIGNED (AmNtX.M1.2) (1C.1) Revised (11/85) r1 ° DER a JoA 111(4 31'59 r So iu Int CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHIN6TON (Election Method f,_ 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 (1011) of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, do hereby call for an election to beheld 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." The undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations. It is recognized and accepted that the meeting date may be later than sixty days after the filing of this request in order to ensure adequate time for the review of the proposed zoning regulation. This group of pages is one of a number of identical groups of pages forming one petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be filed with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. The undersigned has read the above or attached text and prayer of the petition and consents to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as part of this petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with the King County Prosecuting Attorney. (Names of the petitioners should be in identical form as the same appear on the voter's permanent registration) REGISTERED VOTER DATE SIGNED , „,-1. , „,-1. Name: (Print)WAyNg E I / WLQ/%. s" /� /,` 0 1 emu, /i Signature: ELECPET Name: (Print)frmvvrOp Lau Wr4 ' r.3.o.1r' Signature:ThQ. ice' 3. Name: (Print Less /1•- Wr: Q`tf'_ // 0 Signature: - +/fi Name: (Print),r /ita I, if. Sc'J;m,dt 5-2f i � � r Signature :LZJa,iW �'•�+.wo�� 5. Name: (Print) ffer`/!, (c■ Al /V Signature 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print) Signature: S. Name: (Print) Signature: ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # yG S /Yt 9t/ S•. t el. 4 S 4 H14. WA c/ fag _ Sa. /.S t /t•i, `r4. r/ Tr Seclitte t Wa , ilf7 9*/ /1 c ?ei /7 9erlir 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. 4q31 5, I48'-' 244 -36S, TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH ( (Election Metho. 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." The. undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations: Itis 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) Signature: 5. Name: (Print) Signature: 6. Name: (Print) Signature: 7. Name: (Print) Signature: 8. Name: (Print) Signature: ELECPET REGISTERED VOTER WARNING DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # 1. Name: (Pr int)/y1 /C4 EL GOLEn'JmV ShOg ¢Z3/ 56ii 'f Signat 2. Name: (Print)/it i/�442,D /21. ti(.,.5A7 2 i / 4a Sc.).. i.Sv . Signature: - .,..-,, - °, ert .. -" - 3. Name: ...(Print Aot4- M : £&/ s i / 8 6 5 d/ SO , 4S� Signature: / m 4 1-4, / , _ 2 2 1 147 i i , i z, 4. Name: (Print) Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. To THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHIMATON 4 (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." 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) V RN MGR. H Signature: 2. Name: (Print) Signature: 3. Name:. (Print) tom T/i/P Signature 4 m ` 21 4 4. Name: (Print) f&.,,, 709cr Signature: /fit ''�l�rpy Signature: 8. Name: (Print) Be .s 5. Name: (Print) J &Ah \e S P1-9.2.6 -SQL r: Signature: *61/Z4, /4/f 6. Name: (Print) 1 +11) N J , 1)1 i .2 (�� .5-0- 96 e Signature: 7. Name: (PrintL0IPAYt p /q Gtoiz4f.t r r /y�po y4 r'a Po Signature: DATE SIGNED ADDRESS AND TAX LOT # S —IS -88 94/3/ 5 -18 -$8 ')Y31 Ste, 19 rx 4 2 /a/ S /o'' s - -RS LUG/ S /5 1 4-gro ,- aft Sr) 'ea4t;1, (1816$ 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 6. We, the undersigned, as qualified electors resident in the territory proposed for annexatioN equal in number to ten percent (1012) 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 AN and map in "Exhibit 8." The. undersigned have requested the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations. Itis 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) vjpL.T) ,/i b /Y? /'-,% Signature: /U,/ e2Z. ,6" 2. Name: (Print) ,ToA„ /14„v S Signature: 3. Name: (Prin 5. S ignatUre I� .• �' 4. Name: (Pr intCi¢,QA, -,J 7344 Signature: ELECPET TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: Q . '‘ Signature: Name: (Print) ✓Ak /}t i E S ignature: Name: (Print) H-. S .T rr-c. Signature: TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHI "4TON (Election Method.._._ Name: (Print) . { /y .' t7 - C " Signatur 8 • Name: (Print) � R WARNING DATE SIGNED •c; ADDRESS ADDRESS AND TAX LOT 0 AeGA 30 s ez/}Ye y / / 2 / r in re / C/6 c re.irrz e 9'6 / %¢ &!4. cli; /A. ' _5/ s /yam j,(c tea /Ess 5 /2 3 /lam /n26, "'CA vz _)_3 ' ' ?'' ° ?? L I AJ ` .) '') ( d 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. 1 This page is of if a group of pages containing !ntical text material and is intended by the - 4igners 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 SIMAATNI E (Husband Wife) PRINTED NAME ( ►+mNE X .,M1. ) (IC.21 ADDRESS AND TAX LOT NUMBER DATE SIGNED Revised (11/85) OWNER'S S1SMTU t'Husband rlfe) CoWIE iga i This page is orcif a group of pages containing ,antical text material and is intended by the igners 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. rU -" 6 tY7asjo ri G• /}n rl PRINTED NAME 1 _ r1 L f,, A fi c. - �; 711 1- j •t /2 y' ( . 4 • i + -( A K `; toAJ .r/PSG /l eZM Q u.e JeC_iLD AliNt CA/ (4C.l) v / 4 r/. f - 7-4/60 ADDRESS AND TAX LOT NUMBER /.� c // � " .) • /"":. 4 _ 4. , •. 1\ y '}i4� t - LI9 -/ .J /(76 .A, - t - ziz Mf s /994 S ; . of z "-' «a \LEE s .`co.eG,T<Cs Da 7,_ s, ( J 4 5.t. d 1..... 4z 3 5 r� gpi 3 5 i 4—t �f r5 - 5, i 4y'r'" ;, OATE SIGNED 5 /c; //s/ c`c• r,- z Z- 17 3"/ �au b 7, 2 ' ?/ S . 2 2 - 5 - , `sue , -‘44A t�� -Gti� 1 `r _l '/ ', - `� �'-rL e ( . '-- 2 2 -ge k t 59 «b 1 Revised (11/85) s - - 1-7 — -' , - 22 FF . •..dFlii$E4ais r"+gg,:.rtggwV{. t.;•. oat er 3. q' ?SSIi`'.: ��i[ f¢ �ssa�tia�ussinw�vrx�.,, »,„..,..,..,..�._...._._....._. _�.. _....___,.. THOIRI YICE .....,....... o....,. a.• w� ..nK,nrasrees+ Yi�Y�iw�S:'t?7fant? ^rc1 REV. MAY 17, 1988 A parcel of land situated in Section 22, and in a portion of the west 1/2 of Section 23► all in T23N. R4E► W.M. described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 23. T23N. R4E; thence north 1 34'41.5" east. 30 feet to the easterly extension of the north margin of South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing easterly along said easterly extension to the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 598539. records of King County. WA; thence southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly extension of the north margin of South 151st Street, said centerline also being the Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as filed in the office of the Secretary of State. in Washington State per King County Commissioner's Resolution #23309► dated 10- 11 -61; thence westerly along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof to the centerline of 51st Avenue South; thence southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the southerly margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 656772. records of King County. WA; thence westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection with the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said east margin to it intersection with the north margin of South 160th Street; thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th Street; thence easterly along said north margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. .. E. 2 „ /64 CITY OF TUKWILA RESOLUTION NO 9.,.2 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING- TON, APPROVING THE PROPOSED McMICKEN HEIGHTS ELECTION METHOD ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on April 3, 1984, 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 on April 23, 1984, and transmitted the same to the.. City Council of the City'of Tukwila on that date, 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 piling of the certificate of sufficiency, and WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official has determined that there will be no significant adverse environ- mental impacts as a result of the proposed annexation, and WHEREAS, the City Council has, in Resolution No. 907, previously expressed its support for the proposed annexation and has determined to approve such annexation pursuant to RC'V 35A.14.020, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Aooroval of Annexation. The City Council hereby approves the proposed election method annexation to City of Tukwila of the property located within the'McMicken Heights area generally bounded as follows: Eecinninc at the intersection of the Tukwila City limits and the south right -of -way margin of State Highway 51S; thence westerly along said south richt- of-way margin of State Highway 518 to the east riaht-of -way margin of 42nd Ave South; thence south along said east right -of -way margin H of 42nd Avenue South to the south right -of -way margin of South 164th Street; thence east .along said south ri•cht -of =way margin of South 164th Street to the Tukwila City limits; thence northerly along said Tukwila City limits to the south right -of -way margin of State Highway 518 and to the beginning. • County Boundary Review Board. 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. 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 411 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. • N'otificati'on of Petitioners. The City • Clerk is hereby directed to mail one copy of this resolution to each of the •petitioners signing the petition for election filed with the City. - 1- I0 - tna►It.D • Section 4. Filing of Petition. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file the approved petition for election with the King County Council. The City Clerk is also directed to file a copy of the petition for election with the Kinc ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: /CITY /CLERK, MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: , OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: , 1984. 9 FI "nD W TH THE CITY CLERK: May 23, 1984 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: July 2, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 920 Published Record Chronicle - July 11, 1984 RESOLVED BY _.;E . C:T`_' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. TUKW,'ILF WASHINGTON,' AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING on the ,;( — day of CITY OF TUKWILA MAYO , GARY L. VAN DUSEN COUNCIL PRESIDENT, DORIS PHELPS April , 19 84 CITY OF I WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO / / / A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED MC MICKEN HEIGHTS ELECTION METHOD ANNEXATION. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, (Special Meeting) WASHINGTON, AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING on the 9th day of CITY 0? TLj K MAYOR, GARY L. VAN DUSEN WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that the owners of certain property within the McMicken Heights area', more particularly described hereinafter, have filed a peti- tion for annexation of said to the City of Tukwila pursuant'.to the election method, and WHEREAS, the City Council feels it is appropriate to express its support for the proposed annexation and its intention to accept the annexation, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Council hereby expresses its support for the proposed annexation of the property located within the McMic- ken Heights area generally bounded as follows: Beginning at the' intersection of the Tukwike City limits and the south right -of -way margin of State Highway 518; thence westerly along said :south right -of -way margin of State Highway 518 to the east right -of -way margin of 42nd Ave South; thence south along'said east right -of -way margin of 42nd Avenue South to the south right -of -way margin of South 164th Street; thence east along said south right -of -way margin of South 164th Street to the Tukwila City limits; thence northerly along said Tukwila City limits to the south right -of -way mar- gin of State Highway 518 and to the beginning. -o MILITARY ROAD ti U. QUAR UW DALLA 5 . /40 r1 Sr SHOWALTER 44" WEL � h • m •TUK 33 -01 I) TUK 11 -01 � i T CORP. A'�f � p ub 4%0 ST. IM 1 1 /4 8-TA S: (EXV 1� I" 1 � . Q THORNDYKE _ oet TUK 33 -2 RENTHREE GALWAY STERLIN9, AT H 'XI 10 j C ELOISE / s ,C /c/Ele TUK 33- 5 Q IORIARTY _ . E- M° Al /C AE N �Hr s. K • D /1! #2 1 d�L...x__ 164ry ST. . • �. /66 =.s N -.. ANTRIM \ EMERALD It - %I._ _ ______ `_____..__._.. _ MISH LIMITS - i, eif TUK 11-05 • tel L tt 4I, G76 44, a EXTIV. 11 -7 4 at, U K 11 -9 • 1 s t TUK 11-13 rsfJS • TUUM. TUK 11 -11 1 r�' 12 _J54 rH 2 19 • 1 '10 7 -7 — ;1P NB Al 2400 • 10 R.4 ibolD .1 , 1;. A L E 100 lIOl, 102 '..11111111" H 103 D"'E 143s Ci V. JIM • : 0636 'NO M 111 II I NIT 15 eoto UNPLATTEO, TRACT E ----- - I ,;;• Ili ;• IH • ' 9 I I t I :101 I 9 1, 1 Hilg 4.1,1i0;.. i; c I 8 V) I I GO • I 1) I11 V TALI. u...1 • i 1 14001,1101oA11111, 4,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,J,,, \ . . / / L 4 ril ., 11 ,1 I '; U Ir I li; II, i t '14 . 4 1 4 ' I • I I 4 Holci , l E I Y! ...:11' ' 11 I 13 1 : 9 3 • I : ./ 1211 OMAG. A; '064AL /7,INS Ar. t . • ' • • BC • •••••:\..\ STERLING THEATRESSO \ s • 1.0S At 7 SIIIIIIIIG 1111 ATITI S 11, AL —10E0 Ac trio:Ryer. SIL111.1 11111,1111.5 • . ..., ' ". I I Ac / ' siinc.la '._,... _........_ THEATRES. CO . .;..1.00 At, ,Z " ... • 7 ..:-.—..5-,..=z-.- —• --.,• -- 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111M111 IIIIIIIIIINNMIllUDI—t,--- KING COUNTY ZONING BC COMMUN TY BUSINESS C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL a ON NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS = RS•7200 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING = RA4•2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING 13 RM-1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING • = RM•000 MAXIMUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING IMIBBIMW 1 P11111411 SSIVI CO I.SIN AL 114 HALET • . 1 ; TUKWILA ZO:■511‘1G 111 11112 I I X.N011 C.1 COMMUNITY AMAX BUSINESS C•2 REGIONAL RETAI. BUSINESS 11.1 SINGLE FAMILY 11 SIDENCT 11 .1 I OW AVAIIIMI NI!, MIMIII=MI/ in iii • ICLEAR THAN iTHIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE T0[1. .. THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS J • MRS. GLENN N. NOLSINGUI ';o likt 6 MAC. 2 _ 1'6 4. MO? 1)i r • • — 3* 4 . 5 6 7 }, 8 10 11 12 / jj .,. . 4, ■ •7 4 1 . .11 . ' ' ' 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111; 1\1 . 1 I 1 (Cli.iwouA Or OPFN q WIS. CI I TIN 11 119LSINh1 1 foi1c. • ,Lf1 SI Jr J lit ; • 1 • \ • • .'•"*/ • THORNDYKE ANNEX H 0 1 0 40 A , • ,. " „ • • • ' ' ".