HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L07-022 - OPEN FRAME LLC - TRANSIT CENTER DECISION APPEALOPEN FRAME
Appeal of the Growth Board
Decision
Re: Transit Center
100 Andover PK W
L07 -022
Rebecca Fox - Open Frame Page 1
From: Shelley Kerslake
To: Jack @ci.tukwila.wa.us,Jim „M @ci.tukwila.w...
Date: 09/05/2007 10:14 am
Subject: Open Frame
There is some good news to report this morning. After much discussion with the attorney representing
Open Frame, they have decided to drop their appeal of the Growth Board Decision regarding the transit
center as well as their challenge of the City's SEPA determination. Thus, the only Open Frame case
remaining is their challenge of the City's impact fee calculation.
Shelley Kerslake
Kenyon Disend, PLLC
11 Front Street South
Issaquah, WA 98027
425 - 392 -7090
FILED
07 MAR 29 Ff Li: 08
ENG
JUPE.:ZA 7 Li J3� li ��� C�.
• SS:_ k ( t L.{i..,
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CASE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
and
CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET
(cics)
In accordance with LR82(e), a faulty document fee of $15 will be assessed to new case filings missing this sheet
pursuant to King County Code 4.71.100.
CASE NUMBER: 0 " 2 ^ 1 0 6 2 5— 1 M
CASE CAPTION: OPEN FRAME, LLC. V. CITY OF TUKWILA
I certify that this case meets the case assignment criteria, described in King County LR 82(e), for the:
Seattle Area, defined as:
All of King County north of Interstate 90 and including all of the Interstate 90
right -of -way; all the cities of Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue, Issaquah and
North Bend; and all of Vashon and Maury Islands.
XX Kent Area, defined as:
All of King County south of Interstate 90 except those areas included in the
Seattle Case Assignment Area.
Signature of Petitioner/Plaintiff Date
or
04/29/07
gnature o Att• ' ey for Date
Petitioner/Plaintiff
4304
WSBA Number
L: forms/cashiers/cies
Rev 01/05
FILED
OS COUNTY °SUPERIOR COURT
BARBARA MINER
DIRECTOR & SUPERIOR CT CLERK
SEATTLE WA
07-2-10625-1
Rcpt. Date Acct. Date Time
03/29/2007 03/29/2007 0418 PM
ReceiPt/Item # Tran -Code Docket -Coe
2007 -02- 03298/01 1100 $FFR
Cashier: R SB
Paid Be: Williamson Law, Office
Transaction Amount: $200,00
1
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
In Re:
ORIGINAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment L06 -093, File
number E07 -001
Open Frame LLC, owner of real property with standing adversely affected and
aggrieved by the actions of the City, submits this Notice of Appeal of the City of
Tukwila's Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) under File number E07 -001 under
the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.21C, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075
and TMC 21.04.280, specifically addressing proposed amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan L06 -093 (Transit Center):
To:
BEFORE THE CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -1
File No.
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
REC 1VED
CM/ TUKWILA
MAR 2 9 2001]
PRA CENTER
NOTICE & STATEMENT
OF APPEAL
TMC 21.04.280
RCW 43.21C.075
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue - Sun 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206) 292 - 0411 /FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
And to:
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -2
SEPA Responsible Official, Steve Lancaster
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
STATEMENT OF APPEAL
I. Statement of Facts
On the March 3, 2007 the Applicant City of Tukwila applied to the Lead Agency,
City of Tukwila, for a environmental determination whether an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment L06 -093 (Transit Center). After submitting a SEPA Checklist, attached and
incorporated by reference herein, the Lead Agency, City of Tukwila, approved the DNS
on March 15, 2007.
II. Authority of Appeal
This appeal is being brought pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and TMC 21.04.280.
III. Appellant's Interest
The Appellant, Open Frame LLC, own and are in the process of developing the
commercial site on the northwest corner of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard. The
Appellants currently own and lease the "Acme Bowl" property and are in the final stages
of developing an adjacent site to the south as the part of an integrated site plan which was
approved by the City of Tukwila. The City is presently attempting to amend their
Comprehensive Plan (thru amendment number L06 -095) so as to make it possible to take
the Appellants property for a Transit Center. As explained in EXHIBIT 1 the City's
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue - SuITE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
intentions have been made clearly evident. It is only thru a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and thus the approved DNS that a taking can take place. Such a taking would
directly impact the Appellant's project and would significantly hamper how the site is
used. The City's desired location of a Transit Center would irreparably harm the
Appellant's approved site plan and applciations before the City's Board of Architectural
Review, including parking plan, and public safety involving ingress /egress movements
into the new development.
IV. Appellant's Objections to Decision
The Appellant contends that the City's procedural and substantive SEPA
analysis was significantly deficient and in direct violation of the spirit of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA implementing regulations at WAC 197-11 -
158(2)(b) require that the City, after reviewing an environmental checklist, "identify
specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the project" and determine
whether the impacts have been mitigated. The City's Environmental Checklist, who
are essentially the same employees involved in reviewing Open Frame's Park West
Development proposal to construct two commercial tenant buildings, makes no
mention of impacts to "existing and projected land uses at Page 12 of the City's
Environmental Checklist.
The City's SEPA Responsible Official, Steve Lancaster, executed a Mitigated
Determination of Non - Significance on March 15, 2007. Yet, Mr. Lancaster was
personally present on March 5, 2007 in opens session before the Tukwila City Council
when he was told by Open Frame's representative, John Stokke, and Transportation
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -3
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5TH Avenue - SuITE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
engineer, Christopher Brown, PE, of the severe, adverse and unmitigated impacts that
a Transit Center would have on the ongoing Park West office building construction
and build out of the earlier approved Acme Bowl integrated site plan approved by the
City's Board of Architectural Review. These impacts include turning movement
hazards into and exiting the Park West site, pedestrian safety, view blockage, and
conflicts with parking stall counts required for the proposed development.
WAC 365- 195 -325 requires that "Consideration of current and projected land
use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current
and projected transportation needs." Additionally "Consideration of current and
projected surrounding land -uses should be made with respect to uses that are
compatible and available for current and projected transit needs." Despite being asked
to make this analysis' at Question 8 (1) in EXHIBIT 2, the City has simply avoided
any impacts discussion in its Environmental Checklist knowing that these impacts
have not been addressed or avoided by any proposal which includes siting of a Transit
Center north of Baker Boulevard on the Open Frame Property where traffic conflicts
will be immediate and hazardous to the traveling public.
The City simply states that a "transit center is a permitted use" and its
placement will be studied later, thereby ignoring the recommendations discussed and
made in their own Transit Study. The language of the proposal avoids any attempt to
mitigate the impacts of this policy change. The prior City's Comprehensive Plan
Policy 13.4.8 achieved this mitigation by understanding and implementing
transportation alternatives and siting criteria that focused on pedestrian safety and
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -4
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5TH Avenue - SuiTE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206)292 -0411 /FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
avoidance of transportation system conflicts by requiring the queuing of buses to be
located South of Baker Boulevard. These adverse impacts have not been addressed in
any existing SEPA Environmental Impact Statement. The City's MDNS makes no
mention of this in either the MDNS or the Environmental Checklist.
The City extensively studied the placement of a Transit Center in its April
2005 Tukwila Transit Plan. The study reflected the problems discussed above (turning
movement hazards into and exiting Park West site, pedestrian safety, and view
blockage) and concluded that the placement of a northbound Transit Center should be
South of Baker Boulevard. Despite having this extensive study (Tukwila Transit Plan
— Exhibit 3) available the City simply ignores it and answers the questions pertaining
to how the proposal will affect area land uses in a general manner and contrary to the
Studies findings.
The City has shown no reasons or change in conditions that justify such a
departure from the study and in not conducting an impact analysis to existing land
uses in transportation corridors north of Baker Boulevard. As an example, the City
improperly answers Question 11 in EXHIBIT 2 that the reason for the proposed
amendments is to "provide greater flexibility....and to reflect the analysis prepared for
the Tukwila Transit Plan ". If these statements were true the Amendment would not
even be proposed because the finding at pages 77 -79 of EXHIBIT 3 clearly state that
to make a Transit Center possible north of Baker would be "not ideally situated."
One of the critical reasons for an Environmental Analysis review or limited
scope EIS, of a proposed amendment or project, is to take such impacts to the built
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -5
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5TM Avenue - SunE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
environment into account. See WAC 197 -11 -444 (2)(b) and (c). The City's cursory
SEPA Checklist analysis simply does not consider any of the severe impacts which
would be important to understand when making a determination where to place a
Transit Center based upon existing land uses and applications in process and being
reviewed by the City.
V. Relief Requested
Because of the significantly deficient SEPA Checklist and DNS, the Appellant requests
that the appeals body hearing this appeal: (1) declare the City's DNS as deficient; (2)
require a limited scope EIS dealing with impacts to the built environment, including an
analysis of conflicts and adverse impacts to existing land uses or land -use applications
being reviewed by the City, which the City should mitigate before adopting any proposed
changes to its Comprehensive Plan, including changes to the text policies affecting the
placement of a Transit Center; (3) direct that the existing DNS be withdrawn; and (4)
require that the Responsible Official properly consider and complete public consideration
as mandated by RCW 36.70A.035, RCW 36.70A.140, and RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(v), and
WAC 365- 195 -600 as part of additional environmental review information by SEPA
before making a new threshold determination.
THE UNDERSIGNED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF APPELLANT HAS READ
THIS APPEAL AND BELIEVES THE CONTENTS TO BE TRUE.
Respectfully Submitted, this day of March, 2007 at Seattle, WA.
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -6
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue - SUITE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATME, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
DNS Appeal 032907.doc
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -7
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
By: /
Director, Steve Lancaster
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Signed at Seattle, Washington, March 29, 2007.
Bill Willi. son, SBA # 4304
Attorney for Appellant
OPEN FRAME,LLC
Certificate of Mailing /Service
I, the undersigned declare and state under the pains and penalties of the laws of
perjury of the State of Washington, that I duly served by personal delivery the above
Notice of Appeal and Appeal Statement upon the following persons and offices on March
29, 2007.
The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
Bill H. Willi son
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue - SUITE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEAmE, WA 98139
(206) 292 -0411 /FAX (206) 292 -0313
February 28, 2007
Honorable Mayor Steve Mullet
City Council Members
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544
OPEN FRAME, LLC
PO Box 88198
Tukwila, WA 98138
•
Re: Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 2007 — March 5, 2007
City Council Meeting (File No. L-06 -093) - Open Frame Integrated
Site Plan
Honorable Mayor & Council Members:
I write to you on behalf of Open Frame, LLC, the ownership group of the commercial
development immediately East of the Westfield Mall known as "Parkwest Plaza." You may
know Andover Park West as the location of Acme Bowl center and multiple retail tenants.
This letter requests that the City Council decline any attempt to modify the City's current
Comprehensive Plan and Transit Plan, modification of which could allow for additional
Transit Sites beyond those authorized under Policy 13.4.8 which restricts Transit Centers to
the area south of Baker Boulevard (see attached Policy). This Policy followed years of
intense study and analysis by City Staff, King County Metro and the public, and
appropriately took into account the optimal location of the proposed Transit Center and its
impact on the surrounding areas.
Open Frame has invested over two years and millions of dollars in the acquisition and design
of an "integrated" site plan for our property following approval by the City's Board of
Architectural Review (B.A.R.) on March 24, 2005 (see attached "Acme Bowling" Plan).
Acme Bowl has been constructed and is an anchor tenant for the remainder of the site which
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 1
EXHIBIT
we are currently seeking to develop. For the last several months we have been actively
seeking approval of the City's Review Board, as well as the Departments of Community
Development and Public Works. We at Open Frame, our Architect, Project Managers,
Engineers, Contractors and Tenants have all relied on the B.A.R approved plans for build out
of the remainder of the site. In reliance on this approval, we have executed leases with two
well regarded and valuable Tenants: Pure Fitness and California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant.
This reliance was based on the City's previously adopted Transit Plan, which did not include
a Transit Center located north of Baker Boulevard or any further right of way dedication.
We acknowledge that our center is not as large as Westfield, and doesn't have the same big,
national tenants as "the mall," but we believe we are still a good neighbor and a valuable part
of the Tukwila community. Our tenants live, work and shop in the community and provide
both services and good paying jobs to their employees. Our ongoing development of the site
is intended to do more of the same and to strengthen the mix and character of the shops and
services available in the Southcenter area.
A drive by of the southern portion of our property would appear to yield a vacant, unused site
appearing somehow "available" for the siting of a Transit Center. However, this is simply
not the case and could not be further from the truth. Well before the request to modify the
longstanding Transit Plan was submitted to you, OpenFrame entered into leases for over
35,000 square feet of retail development and submitted a final site plan for the full
development of the southern portion of our property.
When the development of our site was first approved in 2005, we dedicated 4.5' feet of right -
of -way to the City to address the impacts of our full development. Moreover, we paid some
$300,000.00 in impact fees to the City based upon build -out of this plan. We then proceeded
to complete our engineered design and installed on -site storm water improvements, along
with utility connections as they appear in the approved plan.
You will see that as part of this process, back in 2004 the City specifically asked for the
dedication of an additional 30' feet of our property for additional right -of -way to support the
placement of a Transit Center on Andover Park West. Instead it was ultimately agreed that
we would dedicate 4.5 feet to the City and we did so. Since that time we have proceeded
based on the straightforward language in the City's existing Transit Plan and the existing
dedication that was required by our approved plan.
Based upon our site plan, we then sought and obtained first class commercial tenants to build
well designed and attractive commercial buildings. This completes our integrated site plan
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 2
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
In Re:
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment L06 -093, File
number E07 -001
File No.
KECE" NED
err' OF TUKWILA
MAR 2 9 2007;
KRAT CENTER
NOTICE & STATEMENT
OF APPEAL
TMC 21.04.280
RCW 43.21C.075
Open Frame LLC, owner of real property with standing adversely affected and
aggrieved by the actions of the City, submits this Notice of Appeal of the City of
Tukwila's Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) under File number E07 -001 under
the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.21C, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075
and TMC 21.04.280, specifically addressing proposed amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan L06 -093 (Transit Center):
To:
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -1
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5TM Avenue - SUITE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEArnE, WA 98139
(206) 292 - 0411 /FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
And to:
SEPA Responsible Official, Steve Lancaster
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
STATEMENT OF APPEAL
I. Statement of Facts
On the March 3, 2007 the Applicant City of Tukwila applied to the Lead Agency,
City of Tukwila, for a environmental determination whether an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment L06 -093 (Transit Center). After submitting a SEPA Checklist, attached and
incorporated by reference herein, the Lead Agency, City of Tukwila, approved the DNS
on March 15, 2007.
II. Authority of Appeal
This appeal is being brought pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and TMC 21.04.280.
III. Appellant's Interest
The Appellant, Open Frame LLC, own and are in the process of developing the
commercial site on the northwest corner of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard. The
Appellants currently own and lease the "Acme Bowl" property and are in the final stages
of developing an adjacent site to the south as the part of ari integrated site plan which was
approved by the City of Tukwila. The CitTisTTresently �jattempting7tosamend ;-,they
Comp eii ne Sikes' Elan (ilitteamendmentsnumber L-06 -095) so as to make ppossihlt7toT take
e Appellantstp . p y� - si C ,.. ..,. ,r
th ro erf for a Trap enter:• -"As explained in EXHIBIT 1 the City's
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -2
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5TM Avenue - SUIT 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206) 292 - 0411 /FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
intentions have been made clearly evident. It is only thru aP Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and thus the approved DNS a<taking +; • take place. Such a taking would
directly impact the Appellant's project and would significantly hamper how the site is
used. The City's desired location of a Transit Center would irreparably harm the
Appellant's approved site plan and before the City's Board of Architectural
Review, including parking plan, and public safety involving ingress /egress movements
into the new development.
IV. Appellant's Objections to Decision
The Appellant contends that the Crtyls aproeedural'; and substantive SEPA
analysis was significantly deficient and in direct violation of the spirit of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA implementing regulations at WAC 197-11 -
158(2)(b) require that the City, after reviewing an environmental checklist, "identify
specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the project" and determine
whether the impacts have been mitigated. Theme tyis Enyironniental Checklist, who
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC - 3
e essentially the employeesrinyolued rinzreviewinglOpen Frames Park West
Deue lopment tonconstruct :two . commercial .tenant. buildings no
mention. of irn acts ''tom` existm ec `"" E "' '
p g and projeeted�land�uses�at��Page- �1�2of-��;the
Envir"onmeritah'Ch ilist.
The City's SEPA Responsible Official, Steve Lancaster, executed a Mitigated
Determination of Non - Significance on March 15, 2007. Yet, Mr. Lancaster was
personally present on March 5, 2007 in opens session before the Tukwila City Council
when he was told by Open Frame's representative, John Stokke, and Transportation
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue - Sun 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
engineer, Christopher Brown, PE, of the severe, adverse and unmitigated impacts that
a Transit Center would have on the ongoing Park West office building construction
and build out of the earlier approved Acme Bowl integrated site plan approved by the
City's Board of Architectural Review. These impacts include turning movement
hazards into and exiting the Park West site, pedestrian safety, view blockage, and
conflicts with parking stall counts required for the proposed development.
WAC 365- 195 -325 requires that "Consideration of current and projected land
use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current
and projected transportation needs." Additionally "Consideration of current and
projected surrounding land -uses should be made with respect to uses that are
compatible and available for current and projected transit needs." Despite being asked
to make this analysis' at Question 8 (1) in EXHIBIT 2, the City has simply avoided
any impacts discussion in its Environmental Checklist knowing that these impacts
have not been addressed or avoided by any proposal which includes siting of a Transit
Center north of Baker Boulevard on the Open Frame Property where traffic conflicts
will be immediate and hazardous to the traveling public.
The City simply states that a "transit center is a permitted use" and its
placement will be studied later, thereby ignoring the recommendations discussed and
made in their own Transit Study. The language of the proposal avoids any attempt to
mitigate the impacts of this policy change. The prior City's Comprehensive Plan
Policy 13.4.8 achieved this mitigation by understanding and implementing
transportation alternatives and siting criteria that focused on pedestrian safety and
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -4
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue - Sum 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SIMILE, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
avoidance of transportation system conflicts by requiring the queuing of buses to be
located South of Baker Boulevard. These adverse impacts have not been addressed in
any existing SEPA Environmental Impact Statement. The City' NS makes no
mention of this in either the NS or the Environmental Checklist.
The City extensively studied the placement of a Transit Center in its April
2005 Tukwila Transit Plan. The study reflected the problems discussed above (turning
movement hazards into and exiting Park West site, pedestrian safety, and view
blockage) and concluded that the placement of a northbound Transit Center should be
South of Baker Boulevard. Despite having this extensive study (Tukwila Transit Plan
— Exhibit 3) available the City simply ignores it and answers the questions pertaining
to how the proposal will affect area land uses in a general manner and contrary to the
Studies findings.
The City has shown no reasons or change in conditions that justify such a
departure from the study and in not conducting an impact analysis to existing land
uses in transportation corridors north of Baker Boulevard. As an example, the City
improperly answers Question 11 in EXHIBIT 2 that the reason for the proposed
amendments is to "provide greater flexibility....and to reflect the analysis prepared for
the Tukwila Transit Plan ". If these statements were true the Amendment would not
even be proposed because the finding at pages 77 -79 of EXHIBIT 3 clearly state that
to make a Transit Center possible north of Baker would be "not ideally situated."
One of the critical reasons for an Environmental Analysis review or limited
scope EIS, of a proposed amendment or project, is to take such impacts to the built
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -5
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue -Sum 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATnE, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
environment into account. See WAC 197 -11 -444 (2)(b) and (c). The City's cursory
SEPA Checklist analysis simply does not consider any of the severe impacts which
would be important to understand when making a determination where to place a
Transit Center based upon existing land uses and applications in process and being
reviewed by the City.
V. Relief Requested
Because of the significantly deficient SEPA Checklist and DNS, the Appellant requests
that the appeals body hearing this appeal: (1) declare the City's DNS as deficient; (2)
require a limited scope EIS dealing with impacts to the built environment, including an
analysis of conflicts and adverse impacts to existing land uses or land -use applications
being reviewed by the City, which the City should mitigate before adopting any proposed
changes to its Comprehensive Plan, including changes to the text policies affecting the
placement of a Transit Center; (3) direct that the existing DNS be withdrawn; and (4)
require that the Responsible Official properly consider and complete public consideration
as mandated by RCW 36.70A.035, RCW 36.70A.140, and RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(v), and
WAC 365 -195 -600 as part of additional environmental review information by SEPA
before making a new threshold determination.
THE UNDERSIGNED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF APPELLANT HAS READ
THIS APPEAL AND BELIEVES THE CONTENTS TO BE TRUE.
Respectfully Submitted, this day of March, 2007 at Seattle, WA.
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC -6
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 Avenue - SurrE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATnE, WA 98139
(206) 292 - 0411 /FAX (206) 292 -0313
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
DNS Appeal 032907.doc
STATEMENT OF DNS APPEAL
OPEN FRAME, LLC - 7
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
By: /
Certificate of Mailing /Service
Bill Willi. son, SBA # 4304
Attorney for Appellant
OPEN FRAME,LLC
I, the undersigned declare and state under the pains and penalties of the laws of
perjury of the State of Washington, that I duly served by personal delivery the above
Notice of Appeal and Appeal Statement upon the following persons and offices on March
29, 2007.
Director, Steve Lancaster
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed at Seattle, Washington, March 29, 2007.
Bill H. Willi son
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
701 5 TM Avenue - SuITE 5500
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
SEATTLE, WA 98139
(206) 292-0411/FAX (206) 292 -0313
February 28, 2007
Honorable Mayor Steve Mullet
City Council Members
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544
Re: Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 2007 — March 5, 2007
City Council Meeting (File No. L-06 -093) - Open Frame Integrated
Site Plan
Honorable Mayor & Council Members:
OPEN FRAME, LLC
PO Box 88198
Tukwila, WA 98138
I write to you on behalf of Open Frame, LLC, the ownership group of the commercial
development immediately East of the Westfield Mall known as "Parkwest Plaza." You may
know Andover Park West as the location of Acme Bowl center and multiple retail tenants.
This letter requests that the City Council decline any attempt to modify the City's current
Comprehensive Plan and Transit Plan, modification of which could allow for additional
Transit Sites beyond those authorized under Policy 13.4.8 which restricts Transit Centers to
the area south of Baker Boulevard ( attached Policy). This Policy followed years of
intense study and analysis by City Staff, King County Metro and the public, and
appropriately took into account the optimal location of the proposed Transit Center and its
impact on the surrounding areas.
Open Frame has invested over two years and millions of dollars in the acquisition and design
of an "integrated" site plan for our property following approval by the City's Board of
Architectural Review (B.A.R.) on March 24, 2005 see attached "Acme Bowling" Plan).
Acme Bowl has been constructed and is an anchor tenant for the remainder of the site which
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 1
EXHIBIT
we are currently seeking to develop. For the last several months we have been actively
seeking approval of the City's Review Board, as well as the Departments of Community
Development and Public Works. We at Open Frame, our Architect, Project Managers,
Engineers, Contractors and Tenants have all relied on the B.A.R approved plans for build out
of the remainder of the site. In reliance on this approval, we have executed leases with two
well regarded and valuable Tenants: Pure Fitness and California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant.
This reliance was based on the City's previously adopted Transit Plan, which did not include
a Transit Center located north of Baker Boulevard or any further right of way dedication.
We acknowledge that our center is not as large as Westfield, and doesn't have the same big,
national tenants as "the mall," but we believe we are still a good neighbor and a valuable part
of the Tukwila community. Our tenants live, work and shop in the community and provide
both services and good paying jobs to their employees. Our ongoing development of the site
is intended to do more of the same and to strengthen the mix and character of the shops and
services available in the Southcenter area.
A drive by of the southern portion of our property would appear to yield a vacant, unused site
appearing somehow "available" for the siting of a Transit Center. However, this is simply
not the case and could not be further from the truth. Well before the request to modify the
longstanding Transit Plan was submitted to you, OpenFrame entered into leases for over
35,000 square feet of retail development and submitted a final site plan for the full
development of the southern portion of our property.
When the development of our site was first approved in 2005, we dedicated 4.5' feet of right -
of -way to the City to address the impacts of our full development. Moreover, we paid some
$300,000.00 in impact fees to the City based upon build -out of this plan. We then proceeded
to complete our engineered design and installed on -site storm water improvements, along
with utility connections as they appear in the approved plan.
You will see that as part of this process, back in 2004 the City specifically asked for the
dedication of an additional 30' feet of our property for additional right -of -way to support the
placement of a Transit Center on Andover Park West. Instead it was ultimately agreed that
we would dedicate 4.5 feet to the City and we did so. Since that time we have proceeded
based on the straightforward language in the City's existing Transit Plan and the existing
dedication that was required by our approved plan.
Based upon our site plan, we then sought and obtained first class commercial tenants to build
well designed and attractive commercial buildings. This completes our integrated site plan
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 2
and links all buildings on these parcels to interdependent businesses (family -based
restaurants, fitness, and recreation all tied together). This has taken over two years, hundreds
of thousands of dollars and countless hours of hard work to achieve. The site plan, buildings,
parking, landscaping, and driveways to Baker Boulevard and West Andover Parkway, as well
as our leases with Pure Fitness and California Pizza Kitchen are all predicated on the prior
4.50' foot dedication to the City.
Since the fall of 2006, Open Frame's architect, David Kehle, AIA, has met with the City on
numerous occasions about the design approval process and timeline for our site plan,
including the two new tenant buildings (California Pizza Kitchen and Pure Fitness). To the
entire design and development team's shock and dismay, approximately 45 days ago Mr.
Kehle was confronted by the City staff with a demand, described as an express condition to
design approval, that Open Frame dedicate an additional 32 feet of right -of -way on West
Andover Parkway. In this and subsequent meetings the City has acknowledged to Mr. Kehle
that the right -of -way is not intended to mitigate the impact of the project and, instead, has
provided vague and inconsistent answers, all based on some sort of undefined "transit plan."
Mr. Kehle's requests for drawings reflecting the City's proposed use of the property have not
been responded to, and his requests for a written explanation of the grounds for the
dedication have been similarly ignored. My personal calls to the City to discuss this matter
have not been returned. As of today, City Staff has not agreed to calendar our SEPA and
DRB approval, nor has it provided an explanation for its attempts to condition consideration
of our plans on the 32' dedication.
Mr. Kehle has sought information in the formof reports "about the Council's reconsideration
of Transit Center policies provided to the City Council on February 12, 2007 regarding the
Transit Center and proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Planao date.City staff hTs
only,, royided -Mr Kehle,.with ctio sn of whatI��he" 'hassrequested ^ "a d
,iP,., � ... � Po s n�similarly
y � t public information.�The only information g o'n <behalf ofthe�property�own'er�to p "r "o�id
unres onsiye to •re uests=b yother, ersons�actin
y we have about what the City is doing is in the
form of a February 6, Memorandum from Steve Lancaster to the City Council (see
attachment).
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 3
As stated above, Open Frame is now actively being injured by the City's delay in processing
our Design Review Board Application in what appears to be an attempt to re- impose a
Transit Center on our property, the same one the City sought and abandoned in 2004. In the
mean- time, the City's delay in processing our site plan design is pushing approval of our
applications and commencement of construction into, at best, the fourth quarter of 2007.
I can only infer that by conditioning our site plan's consideration on Open Frame's
dedication of 32' to the City, the City is attempting to circumvent both the existing
Comprehensive Plan and Transit Plan. Worse, as this delay takes place, we learn that the
City is seeking to modify its Transit Plan to expand the potential location of the future
Transit Center to the property we are currently seeking to develop. If our lawful and good
faith efforts to build on our property are inappropriately restricted by the City, we will be
forced to hold the City responsible for all delay damages, contractor claims, loss of tenant
income, and other damages caused by this action.
To be very clear, the consequence of a 32' dedication will prevent us from honoring our
signed, binding leases with both California Pizza Kitchen and Pure Fitness, both of which
were based on the site plan (and dedication) previously approved by the City. These leases
were negotiated and executed based on the current site plan and the existing five foot
dedication. Moreover, the City Staff's refusal to consider our bona fide plan are costing us
lost rents of over $75,000 per months (as rents do not commence until the buildings are
Amendment r for tlt'`thex n"" tv
P f .. Y y, me Staffwho ntm Co nse Plan N — 1
�
Am l dme t toTthe lvla or, andEeciunc 1" eir re iewpan&later approva r It ►'s " a ar"ent , ^�T gi v e
PP
from an earlier memo of October 22, 2004 that this same staff is consciously delaying our
application to force Open Frame to dedicate this area to make it "easier" for the City's
Transit Plan, even though our property's frontage is not the best site. These lost rents are
over and above the reduction of fair market value that will result due to the loss of some 22
parking stalls, the need for smaller buildings, lost access, and the probable creation of
non - conforming uses to buildings and setbacks if the dedication is pursued.
It is simply too late for the City to now attempt to require that our project plans be modified
to accommodate a Transit Center or otherwise surrender 32' of our property as a condition to
approval of our site plan. We have relied upon the City's written policy to locate and build a
Transit Center south of Baker Boulevard and we are baffled why our design is conditioned on
a dedication of some 32' which even the City staff admits has nothing to do with our impact
on the site or the surrounding area. We believed that we concluded this issue with the City in
November of 2004, when the City withdrew any further request for the larger dedication..
We have invested millions of dollars to make this project work for the City and our tenants,
and we are now in no financial position to accommodate a Transit Center and lose our
tenants.
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 4
Even if the City staff could condition our site plan on a future amendment of the Transit
Plan, we also respectfully submit that entertaining the possible relocation of the Transit
Center outside the location provided in the current Transit Plan is simply not necessary or
appropriate. The existing Transit Plan accounted for the optimal location ofthe transit center
south of Baker Boulevard, accounting for pedestrian and vehicle access and safety, vehicle
impacts and integration with the region as a whole. The Transit Plan was not silent on the
location of the transit center, but instead expressly specified that it be SOUTH of Baker
Boulevard. This was well founded, and locating the Transit Center north of Baker Boulevard
is not safe, practical or efficient. I would be glad to provide support for this statement, and I
have commissioned reports from transportation engineer Chris Brown, PE, our architect,
David Kehle, AIA, Site Civil Engineer, Dan Balmelli, PE, and Project Manager Bonnie
Hanson explaining the consequences of a Transit Center north of Baker Boulevard on our
Andover Park West frontage, all of which I would be happy to provide to you.
We therefore request that you direct City Staff and the B.A.R. to immediately complete the
processing of our permit applications so that we can complete construction of our buildings
for our tenants. We also request that you do not throw out what took the City some four
years to create in the present Transit Plan and instead honor this decision and locate the
Transit Center south of Baker Boulevard as mandated by the current Transit Plan.
I appreciate your time, and hope that you will permit us to continue to develop our property
as intended, bringing more jobs, vibrancy and well considered design to Tukwila.
Sincerely,
John P. Stokke
Enclosures
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 5
�1(,y V j I. L11107 114 Steven M Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Phone: 206 -431 -3670
Fax: 206 -431 -3665
Web site: http: / /www. ci. tukwila.wa.us
File Number: EO7 -001
Applied: 03/06/2007
Issue Date: 03/15/2007
Status: APPROVED
DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
)plicant: CITY OF TUKWILA Lead Agency: City of Tukwila
ascription of Proposal:
,mprehensive Plan amendments SEPA checklist — includes L06. 093 (Transit Center), L06-095—Bonsai NW
:C to LDR, and L06-096(Rezone) — Bonsai NW RCC to LDR.
Steve Lancaster, Director
ocation of Proposal:
Address:
Parcel Number:
Section/Township/Range: Citywide
Le City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
pact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.2 lc.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
tecklist and other information on file with the lead agency.. This information is available to the public on request.
its DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). .
C ( --J\-- -- CSI I S i 2.001
eve Lancaster, Responsible Official Date
ity of Tukwila
300 Southcenter Blvd
ukwila, WA 98188
;06)4314670
ny appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action
nrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to
ppeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075)
EXHIBIT z
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2006 (2007)
2. Name of applicant:
City of Tukwila
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Contact: Rebecca Fox
206 -431 -3683
rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us
4. Date checklist prepared:
March 13, 2007
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Epic File No. E01 -007
Fee: Receipt No.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
This is a non - project action.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
This is a non - project action. No further activity is planned at this time. Plans will be
evaluated once a specific Transit Center project (L06 -093) or Boundary Line
Adjustment /Short Plat /development project (L06 -095 and L06 -096) is proposed.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Page 1
future passenger demands, promote transit ridership, provide expanded capacity
for transit service (King County Metro and future Sound Transit Express or Bus
Rapid Transit) and improve passenger and business safety and security.
The existing policy wording is the following:
13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mali at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on
Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
The proposed policy wording broadens possible siting locations as follows, with
changes highlighted:
13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center and
related amenities on or near Andover Park West,
B eu i evare tA
The Tukwila Transit Plan (2005) calls for a Transit Center to meet future operational
needs for transit. Choosing a site for the Transit Center and developing a specific
project will include considerations of capacity, passenger demand, safety and
reliability, cost, passenger safety, while fitting within the Tukwila Urban Center vision
of a long -term increase in density.
• L06-095 —The proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map to
redesignate property at 14427 51st Avenue South from Residential Commercial
Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR);
• L06 -096 —The proposal is an amendment to the Zoning Map to redesignate
property at 14427 51st Avenue South from Residential Commercial Center (RCC) to
Low Density Residential (LDR);
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and
section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,
provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,
vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit
any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed
plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
These are non - project actions.
• #L06-093 "Transit Center" amendment site is in the vicinity of Andover Park West
in the Tukwila Urban Center.
Page 3
g.
This is a non - project action. Specific information about filling and grading will be
evaluated when a specific proposal is submitted.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
This is a non - project action. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing and
construction as vegetation is removed and soils are exposed through excavation.
Impacts associated with individual future developments will be analyzed when
development applications are submitted.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
This is a non - project action. Information about the percentage of the site to be
covered with impervious surfaces will be known and evaluated when specific
development proposals are submitted in the future.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
This is a non - project action.
In general, once a specific proposal is prepared, project design will minimize erosion
potential by proper design and construction practices. During construction, the
contract will be required to employ Best Management Practices to control erosion.
Specific information about erosion or other impacts to the earth will be considered
when specific development proposals are submitted in the future.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
This is a non - project action. In general, during construction emissions would include
primarily particulate matter and small amounts of carbon monoxide from
construction machinery exhaust. There would be fugitive dust from earth moving .
or excavation activities and diesel smoke. In addition, temporary odors from
machinery exhaust and paving activities could occur. Any future development
resulting from the amendments will be required to meet all air quality regulations,
and will be evaluated at that time.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If
so, generally describe.
Page 5
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
Non - project action. N/A
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
N/A
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Non - Project Action. N/A
Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground
water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known.
Non-project action. Groundwater impacts are not anticipated and will be
evaluated once a specific project is submitted.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc) Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
Non - project action. Potential wastewater discharge will be evaluated once
specific projects are proposed. No discharge of waste material into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources is planned.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water
flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
This is a non - project action. Specific runoff impacts will be evaluated for any
future development proposals.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.
Page 7
Birds:.
Songbirds
Mammals:
Squirrels, rodents
Fish:
Other:
A..., • • .a..• •.•-• •a•at_It • /„i1�J1
This is non - project action. The following animals are found in the vicinity of Andover
Park West (L06 -093) and 14427 51st Avenue South (L06 -095 and L06 -096)
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Not known.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Non - project action. No measures proposed at this time.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating manufacturing etc.
Non - project action. Additional energy will be used if projects are constructed in
future. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
Non - project action. Solar potential of adjacent properties would not be affected by
future development._ Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is
proposed.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Non - project action. Additional environmental review will , be prepared if project is
proposed.
L06 -093 — Energy conserving lighting could be included in the future plans.
L06 -095 and L06-09 — "Green Building" practices could be suggested to developer.
7. Environmental Health
Page 9
• L06 -093 —Land along Andover Park West and vicinity may have been used
for agricultural activity 30+ years ago.
• L06 -095 and L06- 096 —Site is currently vacant and accessory to adjacent
nursery.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
• L06 -093 — Andover Park West and vicinity are in the Tukwila Urban Center,
and are developed with a range of structures, including those used for office,
retail, warehouse, recreation, and other activities.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No structures are on the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Non - project action. No demolition. Additional environmental review will take
place if a specific project is proposed.
L06-093—No demolition is proposed. Depending on site that is ultimately
selected, some demolition may be required.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
• L06- 093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
• L06-095 and L06- 096 — Residential Commercial Center (RCC)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
• L06- 093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
• L06-095 and L06-096— Residential Commercial Center (RCC)
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
• L06-093 — No environmentally sensitive areas lie along Andover Park West.
L06-095 and L06 -096 — Portions of the site contain steep slopes.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Non - project action.
L06-093 — Neither housing nor employment is considered a part of any future
Transit Center proposal.
L06-095 and L06 -096 — Designating the site as LDR would allow housing to be built.
Page 11
b: Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low- income housing.
This is a non - project action. No housing units will be eliminated.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
No special measures are needed because no negative impacts to housing would
occur.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Non - project action. Height impacts will be evaluated once a specific project is
proposed.
• L06 -093 — A future Transit Center would contain bus bays, pedestrian
shelters, sidewalks and landscaping. Height limits would be observed.
Building materials are not proposed at this point.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Any structures eventually built would meet the 35'
maximum height limit per TMC Chapter 18.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Non- project action. No specific development proposed at this time. No view
alteration or obstruction is anticipated resulting from any future projects.
Additional environmental evaluation of views will be prepared if a specific project is
proposed.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Non - project action. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared when a
specific project is proposed.
• L06-093 — It is anticipated that landscaping would soften direct views of a
future Transit Center.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Non - project action. No glare produced. Additional environmental review will be
carried out if a specific project is proposed.
• L06-093 — Additional sources of light and glare associated with a future
Transit Center would include site lighting and bus traffic. On site lighting
would be present throughout the non - daylight hours. Glare from transit
Page 13
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Non - project action. No impacts on recreational opportunities.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for , national, state or local
preservation registers on or near to the potential project sites.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,
or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Non - project action.
L06- 093 — Tukwila Bicentennial Park is located within one -half mile of the possible
project site.
L06-095 and L06- 096 —No landmarks nearby.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
This is a non - project action. If evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or
cultural resources of potential were discovered during future site excavation or
development of a future Transit Center (L06-093) or housing (L06-095 and L06-096),
project work in the vicinity would be immediately halted until an expert in the
subject area was able to verify the significance of the resource and identify
appropriate measures for retrieval and removal from the site.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Non - project action.
• L06-093— Adjacent streets include: 1) Andover Park West a north /south
minor arterial road, served by Metro Transit; 2) Tukwila
Parkway /Southcenter Parkway (minor arterial); 3) Strander Boulevard
(minor arterial); 4) Baker Boulevard (collector arterial); 5) Minkler Boulevard
(minor arterial) ; 6) S. 180th Street (minor arterial); 7) Andover Park East
(minor arterial); 8) Southcenter Boulevard; 9) West Valley Highway; 10) I-405;
11) I -5.
• L06-095 and L06 -096 — Access to the site will be provided either by 51st
Avenue South, or by S. 145th Street.
Page 15
• L06 -093 — Non - project action. The future Transit Center would be located
within the Tukwila Urban Center, several blocks from the Tukwila Sounder
Commuter Rail station.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096— Non - project action. N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
• L06-093—Non-project action. The Transit Center will not have a park and ride
facility, and therefore is not expected to generate any new vehicle traffic or
cause any direct traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. The Tukwila Transit
Center recommends transit service improvements in hours and fsrequency.
Depending on the site that is selected, there may be some re- routing of buses.
Future bus service may include implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit route
in the I-405 corridor. In the future, transit service increases will be needed to
accommodate ridership growth that will occur due to expansion of the
Westfield Southcenter Mall, and in the longer term from planned increases in
housing and employment resulting from redevelopment of the Tukwila
Urban Center.
g.
• L06-095 and L06-096 —Non- project action. A maximum of four houses could
be build on the site. If four houses were built, and each house had generated
four to six vehicle trips per day, a maximum of approximately 16 to 24 trips
could be generated each day.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
• L06-093 — The Tukwila Transit Plan recommends short -term, mid -term and
long -term service improvements, including extending service hours and
frequency, and some route changes to better serve the Tukwila Urban Center.
The siting and operation of a Tukwila Transit Center will enable these service
improvements to occur.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
L06- 093 —This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services will be
evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, public service needs of a future
Transit Center could include police and fire protection.
L06 -095 and L06-096 —This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services
will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, the public service needs of
future housing could include police and fire protection, schools and healthcare for
future residents.
Page 17
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions)
Page 19
t_/ n
5;e-
3/A$7o7
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with
the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
likely to result form the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate
than in the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
• L06 -093 Construction of a future Transit Center will result in temporary increases
in noise and emissions that will cease once construction is complete.
• L06-093 There will be added noise during construction of houses.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
• L06 -093 Construction of the future Transit Center will be carried out to minimize
disruption from temporary noise and emissions. The Transit Center would be
designed to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, as well as
the entry of waste materials into ground or surface waters. As appropriate this
may indude an oil /water separator, and stormwater treatment facility for the
proposed project. Once constructed, improved bus service from the Transit Center
may lessen reliance on auto trips, and therefore reduce automobile noise and
emissions.
• L06 -095 and L06-096 Proper construction techniques will be used to minimize
emissions and noise, and stormwater runoff.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life?
• How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
• L06-093 —The future Transit Center is compatible with the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan, the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05). Tukwila Urban Center
vision calls for a long -term increase in density and activities, and the future
Transit Center is consistent with this intent. Development of the future Tukwila
Transit Center will be a first step towards implementing the future that is
envisioned for the Tukwila Urban Center as a vibrant, pedestrian - oriented area
in which to live, work, play and do business. When a specific Transit Center
project is proposed, it will set high aesthetic standards and serve as a catalyst
for implementing the larger vision for the Tukwila Urban Center, including
new and compatible development.
• L06-095 and L06 -096 — Future low- density housing development is compatible
with the proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) designation.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
• L06-093 —Urban design, landscape and architectural aspects of a future Transit
Center will result in a high quality project that will avoid negative land use
impacts. Key elements will include: 1) design for safety; 2) increased pedestrian
access ; 3) integrating the Transit Center into the pedestrian network.
The future Transit Center is intended as a necessary community resource to be
developed through careful design in order to achieve the most efficient functioning.
Safety for individuals and property will be a key consideration. Any proposed
Transit Center would be designed for compatibility with existing and future land
use in order to maintain and enhance the value of both the public and private
property.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
L06-093 — By 2020 or later, it is assumed that the WSDOT will complete planned
improvements to I-405, as well as related arterial improvements. Additional
planned regional improvements may also occur by 2020 or later, including: 1) I-405
through Tukwila widened by one lane in each direction; 2) Renton and Tukwila
would jointly extend Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale
Avenue S.E.
Potential changes to King County's Metro Transit service are unknown. However,
a well- designed future Transit Center will allow buses to serve the Tukwila Urban
Center with greater frequency. Based on current trends, King County Metro
anticipates a conservative baseline ridership growth rate of up to 3% per year.
This could mean approximately 4,600 daily riders using a future Transit Center.
Page 21
F. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be
helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information
provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the
environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive
information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objectives of the proposal?
In the broadest sense, the objective of proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning map is to respond to changed conditions in Tukwila, and to keep these
documents current so as best to reflect the community's vision.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
If changes are desired, we see no obvious means to implement that change other than
amending the primary land use regulatory documents. It might be possible to alter the
timetable of changes to delay adoption and implementation.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action:
L06 -093 —Transit Center location
• Deny the request (Retain status quo)
• Limit possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be located north of Minlder
Boulevard on Andover Park West)
• Expand possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be sited in Tukwila Urban Center
Core) — Preferred action -
L06 -065 and L06-09600 —NCC to LDR
• Deny the request (Retain status quo)
• Approve request
• Approve request with condition that applicant must complete Boundary Line
Adjustment within three months of City Council approval — Preferred action
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan?
The proposals require amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.
6. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Public input and review by the Planning Commission and City Council will minimize
potential conflicts with Tukwila codes and policies, and ensure compatibility with the
community's goals .
Page 23
i
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Transportation
13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to
provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County,
and adjacent agencies in increasing people - carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips.
. 13.4.5 . Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological
transportation improvements.
13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of
regional/rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient-
capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila.
13.4.7 • Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center.
The preferred route can be conceptually described as running South from the vicinity of 1-405,
to a station located east of Southcenter Mall and west of the eastem edge of Andover Park
West and in proximity to the TUC Transit Center, then fuming east running adjacent,to or
parallel to Strander Boulevard, across West Valley Highway and north to a second station
. adjacent to the Tukwila Sounder Station at Longacres.
• 13.4.8
Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter,
.and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center on Andover Park
West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard.
13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila. Station, the
Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage
reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle
center, and bring more customers to all businesses.
13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed-
route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route,
transportation system management (TSM). program, the continued development of commuter
and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide
and support Commute Trip Reduction service.
13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to
development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. •
13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail •system should meet the following objectives:
— Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea-
Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and
long -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter
rail, and light rail.
- Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or
light rail service to East King. County and Southeast King County.
— Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the
Tukwila Multi-modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the
manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies.
13.4.13 Encourage transit- oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity
of high - capacity Transit stations.
December 5, 2005 11
tukwila transit plan final report
long-term proposals for tukwila routes perteet
Table 5-2
Prof ected Number of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center
Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center
Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely
assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -1
shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As
shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns:
1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center,
2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and
3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center.
The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account
these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel.
Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center
With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of
routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two
routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC
will become less necessary.
Location of Transit Center
The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations
include:
• Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the
future?
• Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as
possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land
use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided.
• Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus
operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability.
• Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit
operating costs.
Existing Buses per Weekday
Long -Term Buses per Weekday
Route
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
126
11*
11*
34
34
128
34
33
34
33
140
43
44
56
56
150
54
53
66
65
155
14
13
28
29
Fed. Way Rt.
0
0
30
30
TUC Trolley
0 '
0
90
90
BRT
0
0
90
90
Total
156
154
428
427
Service levels in this table assume additional funding sources — it does not represent a
commitment by any transit agency to provide this level of service.
* Route currently does not serve Andover Park W., but instead stays on Strander Boulevard.
This analysis assumes that Route 126 will be rerouted upon redevelopment of Baker Boulevard.
Table 5-2
Prof ected Number of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center
Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center
Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely
assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -1
shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As
shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns:
1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center,
2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and
3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center.
The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account
these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel.
Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center
With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of
routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two
routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC
will become less necessary.
Location of Transit Center
The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations
include:
• Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the
future?
• Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as
possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land
use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided.
• Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus
operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability.
• Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit
operating costs.
Southbound
Location
Northbound
Location
Capacity
Passenger
Demand
Safety
for
Buses
Cost
Passenger
Safety
Within
TUC
Vision
Total
Existing
Acura
property
•
G
G
•
C
•
G
Existing
Fatigue
property
• .
C
•
fi
f
G
C
North of
Baker
Fatigue
property
•
O
G
O
G
C
Expanded
Existing
Zone
None
O
C
•
O
G
O
0
o Passenger Safety: Transit Centers should not compromise passenger safety and therefore
the need to cross streets for transfers should be minimized.
• Fit within TUC Vision: The TUC plan calls for a long -term increase in density and
activities to the east and south of the Mall. The proposed Transit Center improvements
should be compatible with the proposed density increases.
Each of the four locations has been evaluated based on these six different criteria. The results of
this evaluation is shown in Table 5 -3 and is discussed below.
Legend
Evaluation of Tukwila Transit Center Expansion Options
Much Worse than
Average
O
Table 5 -3
Average
C
Much Better than
Average
•
1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Acura
property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service
increases, including the BRT. This Transit Center would best meet the needs of the Mall,
the redeveloped TUC, and is within 1/2 mile walking distance of a significant portion of
the TUC. The near side stop in the northbound direction is a minor safety and reliability
issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a
passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer.
Virtually no out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, which reduces operating costs
and increases ridership potential. Buses traveling on east -west routes can use Baker
Boulevard and stop at the Tukwila Transit Center in both directions. This is an
improvement over today's operation. This location is well situated to accommodate the
redevelopment in the TUC.
2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue
property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service
increases, including the BRT. The northbound stop is located further away from the •
active land uses than all of the other altematives, which will reduce ridership potential.
From a bus operator standpoint, the far side configuration of the Transit Center for both
stops improves the ability to access and egress the stops. It is less optimal for passenger
safety, as passengers would need to cross two wide streets to transfer between routes.
Significant out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, particularly east west routes
(Routes 126, 140, and 155) that are traveling through the TUC. In order to access the
northbound stops, east -west buses would need to travel all the way to Tukwila Parkway,
which would add several minutes of running time. This location is an improvement over
today's operation, and is reasonably well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in
the TUC.
3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays
adjacent to the Fatigue property. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of
Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. has the capacity for future service increases,
including BRT. It is not located well to accommodate future passenger growth because
the center is further removed from active land uses — the passenger draw area shrinks as
one approaches I-405. The near side stop in the southbound direction is a minor safety
and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable.
From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer.
This location introduces out -of- direction travel for any bus routes traveling east -west
through the TUC, including Routes 126, 140, 155, and any other future east -west route
such as BRT or Federal Way route. Out -of- direction travel adds travel time, which
reduces ridership potential and adds operating costs. While an improvement over today's
operation, this location is not ideally situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the
TUC.
4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity 3 bays with independent
arrival/departure capabilities. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker
Boulevard on Andover Park W. does not have the long-term capacity for future service
increases, including BRT. Expanding the southbound capacity by one bay is an excellent
interim solution for the next five or six years. However, it is insufficient, by itself, to
accommodate a more than doubling of bus service to the Transit Center, which given the
growth in the TUC is projected in the long -term. This location has few safety and
reliability issues. It is the easiest of options for most passenger transfers — although
anyone transferring to Route 150 in the northbound direction must cross Andover Park
W. and walk a long block.
This transit center configuration often introduces passenger confusion. Several routes
stop in the same area, but they go different directions. For instance, Route 140 heads to
both Renton and Burien from the same bus stop. Many passengers do not see the
headboard showing the destination and then ask drivers their destinations, which slows
down operations and adds costs.
The routing to serve this location creates out -of- direction loops. Route 140, in particular,
has confusing figure 8 alignment around Southcenter Mall as a result of having only
southbound bays in the Tukwila Transit Center. Confusing routing patterns inhibit
potential ridership. King County Metro currently incurs additional operating costs as a
result of out -of- direction travel. The existing site, without a corresponding northbound
stop, does not tie into the TUC core development occurring on the east side of Andover
Park West.
Expansion of the existing Transit Center to three bays is a welcome addition that will
address short -term capacity concerns. Additional space will be necessary for higher
frequency services desired in the long -term.
Joint Development Potential
The current bus boarding area is perceived negatively by many of the surrounding business
owners. According to them, the bus stop brings vandalism, other crimes, and vagrants into a
prime retail area.
This perception, whether right or wrong, can only be changed using some of the elements that
addressed this issue in other areas. Eyes on the street are essential to reduce this perception. A
standalone transit center at the edge of a parking lot, no matter how architecturally appealing,
will not entirely remove the perception that transit attracts undesirable elements. Throughout
the country, it is becoming apparent that the key to success for transit centers is joint
development. Whenever possible, a transit center should be integrated with an active land use
such as a coffee shop, restaurant, or something else that could cater to the needs of both people at
the transit center and to patrons coming to the Mall. These types of businesses provide the "eyes
on the street" security. Businesses adjacent to the transit center can generate revenues from this
facility and make this into an asset instead of a perceived liability.
A successful transit center will have a supporting business adjacent to it. Relocated transit center
plans, no matter the location, should integrate the transit center into active land uses.
Tukwila Transit Center Amenities
In addition to the recommended joint development features, the existing waiting area should be
improved to incorporate the following features:
o Widened Sidewalks — During large parts of the day, the existing sidewalk is
choked with waiting passengers. Passengers spill into the Mall parking lot to
avoid the crowded sidewalk conditions. Sidewalk width should be widened by at
least 4 feet to 14 feet wide.
o Sitting Areas — Currently, there are few opportunities for waiting passengers to
be seated. Visual inspection has showed that waiting passengers often sit on the
curb separating the sidewalk and the Mall parking lot.
o Shelters — There . are two standard sized shelters at the existing Southcenter Mall
stop. Given over 1,000 daily patrons at this stop, two shelters provide inadequate
shelter. A larger canopy type shelter should be considered in lieu of adding
additional standard transit shelters.
Given the traffic levels on Andover Park West, pullouts are essential for this transit center. Two
bays in each direction should accommodate both existing and future demand.
Tukwila Station
In 1999, Sound Transit completed a draft design for the Tukwila Sounder Station. The draft
design assumes primary access to/from the facility from Longacres Way, with provisions for a
roadway extension to the proposed Strander Boulevard. The station design includes parking for
over 400 parking stalls, a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks, artwork, two retention ponds, a kiss -
and -ride, bus loop, bus driver facilities, and bus shelters. One of the goals of the Tukwila Station
design was to be functional, yet not place as much emphasis on place - making as stations in Kent,
Aubum, Sumner, and Puyallup. Budget, or lack thereof, has been a prime reason for the reduced
place - making emphasis.
The draft design of Tukwila Station no longer meets the conditions of the site. The railroad track
relocation of the UP railroad, the connection to the Strander overpass, and the sizing of the park -
and -ride are all issues that must be incorporated into the final design.
March 21, 2007
Tukwila Planning Commission
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
Re: Open Frame — Park West Plaza — Proposed Comprehensive Plan (File L #06 -093)
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Background & History of Existing Policy 13.4.8 & Park West Development
As you may be aware, my client Open Frame, LLC owns and is in the process of developing the
retail commercial site on the northeast corner of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard known
as "Parkwest Plaza." Open Frame has previously constructed the retail site you may know as
"Acme Bowl" as part of an integrated site plan for the entire property. It is now actively engaged
in completing its second phase of construction to complete implementation of an earlier
(March, 2005) City Board of Architectural approved development. This second phase has been
leased to two upscale tenants, California Pizza Kitchen and Pure Fitness, and will complete the
development of a disused industrial area into a vibrant retail property, providing jobs and other
economic benefits to the City. Open Frame's design review application for this phase was
submitted and declared complete by City staff on January 5, 2008.
In 2005, as part of BAR approval for the site, Open Frame already dedicated approximately 4.5
feet of right -of -way on West Andover Parkway and reflected this in its design of the site and its
design review application. To my client's knowledge, no new transportation studies have been
conducted by the City that changes any of the conclusions reached in a 2005 Tukwila Transit
Plan. Notably, no new transportation studies exist showing that any future Transit Centers
should be located north of Baker Boulevard on Andover Park West.
March 21 Planning Commission Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Transit Center — Policy 13.4.8)
Open Frame Property
Page - 1
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
701 5th Avenue - Suite 5500
P.O. Box 99821
Seattle, Washington 98199
Office: (206) 292-04 Fax: 206.292.0313
williamsonb @msn.com — www.land- useattorney.com
The proposal to amend Policy 13.4.8 to include language to locate "a pedestrian friendly transit
center and related amenities on or near Andover Park West" should be rejected. Over four (4)
years of detailed analysis by the City's consultants, engineers and King County Metro studied
and ranked the entirety of West Andover Parkway from Strander Boulevard north to Tukwila
Parkway. This Study comprises part of the City's Tukwila Urban Center SubArea Plan, and the
City's Transportation Element to its Comprehensive Plan, both of which support Policy 13.4.8.
The study concluded (See Page 77) that locations South of Baker were far superior to any sites
north of Baker Boulevard and were the only suitable locations. [See attachment to letter at
yellow tabs.]
There are additional and compelling reasons why the 2005 study's conclusions, and Policy 13.4.8
of the City's Comprehensive Plan which it supports, should not be changed by the Planning
Commission or City Council. The only real beneficial consideration given to the Open Frame
property (previously known as the "Fatigue Property") was the "Cost" to construct a Transit
Center. See Pages 76 — 79. The reality now is that the Fatigue Property (now "Park West
Plaza ") is very close to being "built out" with the Acme Bowling Center, and binding leases and
an final design review application for the construction of buildings for Pure Fitness and
California Pizza Kitchen. These projects will make any city acquisition of right -of -way from
these properties more expensive than already developed parcels south of Baker Boulevard.
Additionally, a transportation study conducted by transportation engineer Christopher Brown,
PE, and Associates concludes that any transit center located north of Baker Boulevard could not
properly function because traffic congestion and conditions at West Andover Parkway and
Tukwila Parkway are already at Level of Service "F." This conclusion is consistent with the
earlier Perteet Study, which was adopted by the City as the City's 2005 Transit Plan. Mr. Brown,
Open Frame's Architect, David Kehle, AIA, and Project Site Manager, Bonnie Hanson of Egis
Real Estate Services, all conclude that a Transit Center north of Baker Boulevard would pose
site distance hazards to entering and existing vehicles, and would likely be the cause of multiple
vehicle and pedestrian accidents. These conditions do not exist south of Baker Boulevard. The
only circumstances that have changed since the April 2005 Study and its adoption by the City is
Open Frame's ongoing development of its property in reliance on the City's existing
Comprehensive Plan policies and the previous 4.5 foot dedication to the City. The risks to public
safety and efficient transit do not possibly warrant relocating the proposed Transit Center
location to any location north of Baker.
The City Has Not Complied with the Growth Management Act or Its Codes
Other than a Declaration of Non - Significance, my office is unable to find that the City has
conducted any new transportation study which examines the impacts of relocating the Transit
Center to parcels north of Baker Boulevard. According to Mr. Brown, no best available
March 21 Planning Commission Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Transit Center — Policy 13.4.8)
Open Frame Property
Page - 2
scientific evidence or study exists that possibly supports or warrants locating a Transit Center
north of Baker Boulevard. Moreover, the State's Growth Management Act and implementing
regulations require written justification for changing comprehensive plan policies, such as the
carefully drafted Policy 13.4.8. The only reasons supporting this language change appears in a
February 12, 2007 Staff Report to the City Council not released by the City Clerk's Office until
March 21, 2007. This statement is entirely conclusory:
"This policy change is proposed to provide more flexibility in selecting a location for the
Transit Center. This change will enable the analysis contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan
(4/05), and competing issues raised by property owners, Metro Transit and the City of
Tukwila to be more fully addressed in the siting decision."
No transportation engineering reasons appear in this Staff Report released by the City over a
month after it was requested. The Tukwila Municipal Code at TMC 18.80.010 at ¶3 requires that
the City provide an "explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development
regulations are deficient and should not continue in effect." The attached DNS and
Environmental Checklist make no attempt at explaining why the City should not follow existing
comprehensive plan Policy 13.4.8. Additionally, no staff report or written justification has been
provided to Open Frame (despite requests) or the Public that attempt to meet required public
participation requirements in time for tonight's hearing before the Planning Commission as
required by RCW 36.70A.035, RCW 36.70A.140 and RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(v), and WAC
365- 195 -600.
These Growth Management Act provisions require more than mere legislative notice, but a
continuing opportunity for review and comment. WAC 365 -195 -600 also requires a series of
public meetings once a "draft" form of the proposal throughout the jurisdiction to "obtain public
reaction and suggestions." Only after public meetings "throughout the jurisdiction" to obtain the
reaction of the public, and affected property owners, is the Planning Commission and City
Council allowed to proceed to public hearings to consider the proposal. The City has simply
failed to comply with these mandatory provisions. No alternatives have been presented to Open
Frame or other affected property owners on West Andover Parkway as required by WAC 365-
195 -600.
On February 12, 2007, the City Council and the City's "Committee of the Whole" received a
proposal from City Staff to amend the City's comprehensive plan in the form of three ring
binders in Memorandum from Steve Lancaster, the City's Director of Community Development
and SEPA responsible official. Upon learning of the existence of this proposal, Open Frame
requested a copy of the proposal and binder presented in open session to the City Council on
February 26, 2005.
March 21 Planning Commission Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Transit Center — Policy 13.4.8)
Open Frame Property
Page - 3
Instead of disclosing this information promptly to Open Frame, the City withheld release of this
public information. By failing to honor this request and forcing Open Frame to make a Public
Records Act request the City denied Open Frame the opportunity to fully participate in Council
hearings on March 5, 2007. At this meeting, the agenda expressly included the City Counsel's
consideration of the proposed amendment to the proposed modification to the plan. In this
instance, the City has interfered with this process by preventing Open Frame from examining the
3 ring binder received by the City Council on February 12, 2007, and again on March 5, 2007,
when Councilmembers were directed to "Please bring your notebooks from the 2/12/07 C.O.W. "
Open Frame only received Notice from the City Clerk that these records were available on
Tuesday, March 20, 2007, some two weeks after the Council's decision to send the proposed
amendment to the Planning Commission and only two (2) days before the matter comes before
the Planning Commission.
The City Has Not Considered Land Use Impacts to Open Frame Development
SEPA implementing regulations at WAC 197- 11- 158(2)(b) require that the City, after reviewing
an environmental checklist, "identify specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the
project" and determine whether the impacts have been mitigated. The City's Environmental
Checklist is drafted by the same staff who are essentially the same employees involved in
reviewing Open Frame's Park West Development proposal to construct two commercial tenant
buildings and makes no mention of impacts to "existing and projected land uses" at Page 12 of
the City's Environmental Checklist. The only environmental impact analysis appears at Page 4
of the February 12, 2007 Staff Report where Ms. Knighton states that "the resulting bus and
pedestrian travel and traffic might be felt in a slightly different location in the TUC."
The City's SEPA Responsible Official, Steve Lancaster, executed a Mitigated Determination of
Non - Significance on March 15, 2007. Yet, Mr. Lancaster was personally present on March 5,
2007 in open session before the Tukwila City Council when he was told by Open Frame's
representative, John Stokke, and Transportation engineer, Christopher Brown, PE, of the severe,
adverse and unmitigated impacts that a Transit Center would have on the ongoing Park West
Plaza development per the integrated site plan approved by the City's BAR. These impacts
include turning movement hazards into and exiting the Park West site, pedestrian safety, view
blockage, and conflicts with parking stall counts required for the Park West's development.
WAC 365 -195 -325 requires that "consideration of current and projected land use should be made
with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current and projected transportation
needs." Additionally "consideration of current and projected surrounding land use should be
made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current and projected transit
March 21 Planning Commission Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Transit Center — Policy 13.4.8)
Open Frame Property
Page - 4
needs." The City has simply avoided any impacts discussion in its Environmental Checklist,
despite knowledge that these impacts were made more severe by a proposal which includes siting
of a Transit Center north of Baker Boulevard.
The language of the proposal does not contain any attempt to mitigate the impacts of this policy
change. The prior City's Comprehensive Plan Policy 13.4.8 achieved this mitigation by
understanding and implementing transportation alternatives and siting criteria that focused on
pedestrian safety and avoidance of transportation system conflicts by requiring the queuing of
buses to be located South of Baker Boulevard. These adverse impacts have not been addressed
in any existing SEPA Environmental Impact Statement. The City's MDNS makes no mention of
this in either the MDNS or the Environmental Checklist.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission should reject the change in Policy 13.4.8 requested in
haste by City Staff. It should not override what took four (4) years of study to establish through
sound transportation engineering studies. The Planning Commission should take no action
whatsoever until public meetings have been conducted as required by GMA implementing
regulations to ensure that this proposed policy change receives full and rigorous study by the
affected public and landowners who have invested millions of dollars in projects in reliance upon
the earlier Policy 13.4.8.
Sincerely,
5-Le- /fr,je.
Bill H. Williamson
cc: John Stokke /Open Frame
enclosures
Planning Commission .Letter(Williamson).032007.doc
March 21 Planning Commission Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Transit Center — Policy 13.4.8)
Open Frame Property
Page - 5
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Transportation
13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to
provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County,
and adjacent agencies in increasing people- canying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips.
13.4.5 . Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological
transportation improvements.
13.4.6 Continue to support, participate in, and encourage the development and implementation of
regionallrapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient -
capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila.
13.4.7 Support and encourage the extension of regional light rail facilities to serve the Urban Center.
The preferred route can be conceptually described as running South from the vicinity of 1 -405,
to a station located east of Southcenter Mali and west of the eastem edge of Andover Park
West and in proximity to the TUC Transit Center, then tuming east running adjacent,to or
parallel to Strander Boulevard, across West Valley Highway and north to a second station
adjacent to the Tukwila Sounder Station at Longacres.
13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter,
and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center on Andover Park
West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard.
13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila. Station, the
Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage
reduction of single - occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle
center, and bring more customers to all businesses.
13.4.10 Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed -
route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route,
transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter
and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide
and support Commute Trip Reduction service.
13.4.11 _ Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to
development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion.
13.4.12 The development of any light mil or commuter rail system should meet the following objectives:
Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea-
Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short-term and
long -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter
rail, and light rail.
— Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or
light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County.
— Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the
Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the
manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies.
13.4.13 Encourage transit- oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity
of high- capacity transit stations.
December 5, 2005 11
tukwila transit plan final report
Table 5 -2
umber of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center
Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center
Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely
assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -
shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As
shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns:
1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center,
2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and
3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center.
The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account
these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel.
Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center
With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of
routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two
routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC
will become less necessary.
Location of Transit Center
The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations
include:
• Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the
future?
• Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as
possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land
use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided.
• Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus
operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability.
• Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit
operating costs.
Final Tukwila Transit Plan
76 April 2005
Existing Buses per Weekday
Long -Term Buses per Weekday
Route
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
126
11*
11*
34
34
128
34
33
34
33
140
43
44
56
56
150
54
53
66
65
155
14
13
28
29
Fed. Way Rt.
0
0
30
30
TUC Trolley
0 .
0
90
90
BRT
0
0
90
90
Total
156
154
428
427
Service levels in this table assume additional funding sources — it does not represent a
commitment by any transit agency to provide this level of service.
* Route currently does not serve Andover Park W., but instead stays on Strander Boulevard.
This analysis assumes that Route 126 will be rerouted upon redevelopment of Baker Boulevard.
Table 5 -2
umber of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center
Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center
Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely
assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -
shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As
shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns:
1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center,
2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and
3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center.
The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account
these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel.
Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center
With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of
routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two
routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC
will become less necessary.
Location of Transit Center
The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations
include:
• Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the
future?
• Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as
possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land
use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided.
• Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus
operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability.
• Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit
operating costs.
Final Tukwila Transit Plan
76 April 2005
Southbound
Location
Northbound
Location
Capacity
Passenger
Demand
Safety
for
Buses
Cost
Passenger
Safety
Within
TUC
Vision
Total
Existing
Acura
property
•
G
G
•
C
•
G
Existing
Fatigue
property
•
c
•
6
f
G
C
North of
Baker
Fatigue
property
•
e
G
O
C
C
6
Expanded
Existing
Zone
None
0
C
•
0
G
O
`.�
• Passenger Safety: Transit Centers should not compromise passenger safety and therefore
the need to cross streets for transfers should be minimized.
• Fit within TUC Vision: The TUC plan calls for a long -term increase in density and
activities to the east and south of the Mall. The proposed Transit Center improvements
should be compatible with the proposed density increases.
Each of the four locations has been evaluated based on these six different criteria. The results of
this evaluation is shown in Table 5 -3 and is discussed below.
Legend
Much Worse than
Average
Final Tukwila Transit Plan
Table 5 -3
Evaluation of Tukwila Transit Center Expansion Options
Average
C
Much Better than
Average
•
1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Acura
property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service
increases, including the BRT. This Transit Center would best meet the needs of the Mall,
the redeveloped TUC, and is within'' Y2 mile walking distance of a significant portion of
the TUC. The near side stop in the northbound direction is a minor safety and reliability
issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a
passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer.
Virtually no out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, which reduces operating costs
and increases ridership potential. Buses traveling on east -west routes can use Baker
Boulevard and stop at the Tukwila Transit Center in both directions. This is an
improvement over today's operation. This location is well situated to accommodate the
redevelopment in the TUC.
2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue
property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service
increases, including the BRT. The northbound stop is located further away from the
active land uses than all of the other alternatives, which will reduce ridership potential.
From a bus operator standpoint, the far side configuration of the Transit Center for both
stops improves the ability to access and egress the stops. It is less optimal for passenger
safety, as passengers would need to cross two wide streets to transfer between routes.
77 April 2005
Significant out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, particularly east -west routes
(Routes 126, 140, and 155) that are traveling through the TUC. In order to access the
northbound stops, east -west buses would need to travel all the way to Tukwila Parkway,
which would add several minutes of running time. This location is an improvement over
today's operation, and is reasonably well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in
the TUC.
3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays
adjacent to the Fatigue property. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of
Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. has the capacity for future service increases,
including BRT. It is not located well to accommodate future passenger growth because
the center is further removed from active land uses — the passenger draw area shrinks as
one approaches I-405. The near side stop in the southbound direction is a minor safety
and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable.
From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer.
This location introduces out -of- direction travel for any bus routes traveling east -west
through the TUC, including Routes 126, 140, 155, and any other future east -west route
such as BRT or Federal Way route. Out -of- direction travel adds travel time, which
reduces ridership potential and adds operating costs. While an improvement over today's
operation, this location is not ideally situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the
TUC.
4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent
arrival/departure capabilities. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker
Boulevard on Andover Park W. does not have the long -term capacity for future service
increases, including BRT. Expanding the southbound capacity by one bay is an excellent
interim solution for the next five or six years. However, it is insufficient, by itself, to
accommodate a more than doubling of bus service to the Transit Center, which given the
growth in the TUC is projected in the long -term. This location has few safety and
reliability issues. It is the easiest of options for most passenger transfers — although
anyone transferring to Route 150 in the northbound direction must cross Andover Park
W. and walk a long block.
This transit center configuration often introduces passenger confusion. Several routes
stop in the same area, but they go different directions. For instance, Route 140 heads to
both Renton and Burien from the same bus stop. Many passengers do not see the
headboard showing the destination and then ask drivers their destinations, which slows
down operations and adds costs.
The routing to serve this location creates out -of- direction loops. Route 140, in particular,
has confusing figure 8 alignment around Southcenter Mall as a result of having only
southbound bays in the Tukwila Transit Center. Confusing routing patterns inhibit
potential ridership. King County Metro currently incurs additional operating costs as a
result of out -of- direction travel. The existing site, without a corresponding northbound
stop, does not tie into the TUC core development occurring on the east side of Andover
Park West.
Expansion of the existing Transit Center to three bays is a welcome addition that will
address short-term capacity concerns. Additional space will be necessary for higher
frequency services desired in the long -term.
Final Tukwila Transit Plan
78 April 2005
Joint Development Potential
The current bus boarding area is perceived negatively by many of the surrounding business
owners. According to them, the bus stop brings vandalism, other crimes, and vagrants into a
prime retail area.
This perception, whether right or wrong, can only be changed using some of the elements that
addressed this issue in other areas. Eyes on the street are essential to reduce this perception. A
standalone transit center at the edge of a parking lot, no matter how architecturally appealing,
will not entirely remove the perception that transit attracts undesirable elements. Throughout
the country, it is becoming apparent that the key to success for transit centers is joint
development. Whenever possible, a transit center should be integrated with an active land use
such as a coffee shop, restaurant, or something else that could cater to the needs of both people at
the transit center and to patrons coming to the Mall. These types of businesses provide the "eyes
on the street" security. Businesses adjacent to the transit center can generate revenues from this
facility and make this into an asset instead of a perceived liability.
A successful transit center will have a supporting business adjacent to it. Relocated transit center
plans, no matter the location, should integrate the transit center into active land uses.
Tukwila Transit Center Amenities
In addition to the recommended joint development features, the existing waiting area should be
improved to incorporate the following features:
o Widened Sidewalks — During large parts of the day, the existing sidewalk is
choked with waiting passengers. Passengers spill into the Mall parking lot to
avoid the crowded sidewalk conditions. Sidewalk width should be widened by at
least 4 feet to 14 feet wide.
o Sitting Areas — Currently, there are few opportunities for waiting passengers to
be seated. Visual inspection has showed that waiting passengers often sit on the
curb separating the sidewalk and the Mall parking lot.
o Shelters — There are two standard sized shelters at the existing Southcenter Mall
stop. Given over 1,000 daily patrons at this stop, two shelters provide inadequate
shelter. A larger canopy type shelter should be considered in lieu of adding
additional standard transit shelters.
Given the traffic levels on Andover Park West, pullouts are essential for this transit center. Two
bays in each direction should accommodate both existing and future demand.
Tukwila Station
In 1999, Sound Transit completed a draft design for the Tukwila Sounder Station. The draft
design assumes primary access to /from the facility from Longacres Way, with provisions for a
roadway extension to the proposed Strander Boulevard. The station design includes parking for
over 400 parking stalls, a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks, artwork, two retention ponds, a kiss -
and -ride, bus loop, bus driver facilities, and bus shelters. One of the goals of the Tukwila Station
design was to be functional, yet not place as much emphasis on place - making as stations in Kent,
Auburn, Sumner, and Puyallup. Budget, or lack thereof, has been a prime reason for the reduced
place - making emphasis.
The draft design of Tukwila Station no longer meets the conditions of the site. The railroad track
relocation of the UP railroad, the connection to the Strander overpass, and the sizing of the park -
and- ride are all issues that must be incorporated into the final design.
Final Tukwila Transit Plan
79 April 2005
File Number: E07 -001
Applied: 03/06/2007
Issue Date: 03/15/2007
Status: APPROVED
applicant: CITY OF TUKWILIL Lead Agency: City of Tukwila
)escription of Proposal:
:omprehensive Plan amendments SEPA checklist — includes L06 -093 (Transit Center), L06-095—Bonsai NW
LCC to LDR, and L06-096(Rezone) — Bonsai NW RCC to LDR.
,ocation of Proposal:
Address:
Parcel Number:
Section/Township/Range: Citywide
he City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
mpact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
, hecklist and other information on file with the lead agency.. This information is available to the public on request.
his DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). .
1teve Lancaster, Responsible Official
:ity of Tukwila
1300 Southcenter Blvd
'ukwila, WA 98188
206)431 -3670
1.016.,' U.1. 1 1.411V V 1164 Jteven M Mutiet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Phone: 206 -431 -3670
Fax: 206 -431 -3665
Web site: http : / /www.ci. tukwilawa us
DETERNIINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action
mrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to
appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075)
p AA& i S , 2. h)i
Date
A. BACKGROUND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2006 (2007)
2. Name of applicant
City of Tukwila
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Contact: Rebecca Fox
206 -431 -3683
rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us
4. Date checklist prepared:
March 13, 2007
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila
Epic File No. E01 -007
Fee: Receipt No.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
This is a non - project action.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
This is a non - project action. No further activity is planned at this time. Plans will be
evaluated once a specific Transit Center project (L06-093) or Boundary Line
Adjustment /Short Plat /development project (L06-095 and L06 -096) is proposed.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Page 1
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (October, 1995)
Addendum to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Addressing Implementing Zoning Code
Amendments (November, 1995)
• L06-093 — This is a non - project action. Once a specific Transit Center project is
proposed, environmental review will be prepared.
• L06 -095 and L06- 096 -- This is a non - project action. Once a specific project is proposed,
environmental review will be prepared as appropriate.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
• L06 -093 — Application pending for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
• L06-095 — Application pending for Comprehensive Plan Amendment /Map designation
• L06 -096 — Application pending for Zoning Map Change.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
• L06-093 —This is a non - project action. A future Transit Center may require a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit depending on the amount of
soil that is disturbed. Typical Tukwila permits will likely include a Type C right -of -
Way permit, Type C Grading Permit, drainage review, Type D Long Term Permit and
design review and building permits.
• L06-095 and L06-095 — This is a non - project action. Future construction will require
either a boundary line adjustment or short plat, and building and Public Works permits.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask
you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those
answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and
alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here.
This is a non - project action.
• L06- 093 —The proposal amends existing Comprehensive Plan policy 13.4.8 in order
to provide greater flexibility in selecting a location for a future Transit Center
within the Tukwila Urban Center, and to reflect the analysis prepared for the
Tukwila Transit Plan . A Transit Center would replace existing, inadequate bus
stops that serve the area in the general vicinity of the Westfield Southcenter Mall.
The Tukwila Transit Center will be a facility that can accommodate current a
Page 2
future passenger demands, promote transit ridership, provide expanded capacity
for transit service (King County Metro and future Sound Transit Express or Bus
Rapid Transit) and improve passenger and business safety and security.
The existing policy wording is the following:
13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on
Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
The proposed policy wording broadens possible siting locations as follows, with
changes highlighted:
13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center and
related amenities on or near Andover Park West,
B et a evare kL
Page 3
The Tukwila Transit Plan (2005) calls for a Transit Center to meet future operational
needs for transit. Choosing a site for the Transit Center and developing a specific
project will include considerations of capacity, passenger demand, safety and
reliability, cost, passenger safety, while fitting within the Tukwila Urban Center vision
of a long -term increase in density.
• L06-095 —The proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map to
redesignate property at 14427 51st Avenue South from Residential Commercial
Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR);
• L06-096 —The proposal is an amendment to the Zoning Map to redesignate
property at 14427 51St Avenue South from Residential Commercial Center (RCC) to
Low Density Residential (LDR);
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and
section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,
provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,
vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit
any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed
plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
These are non - project actions.
• #L06-093 "Transit Center" amendment site is in the vicinity of Andover Park West
in the Tukwila Urban Center.
• #L06 -095 and L06 -096 are located at 14427 51st Avenue South.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
This is a non - project action.
• L06 -093 — No sensitive areas are located in the vicinity of Andover Park West.
• L06 -095 & L06- 096 — Portions of the site include Type 2 slopes i.e. Landslide potential is
moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% and is underlain by relatively permeable soils.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other.
This is a non - project action.
• L06- 093 —General vicinity of Andover Park West is flat
• L06 -095 & L06 -096 —Slopes and flat
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
This is a non - project action.
• L06-093— Generally flat terrain along Andover Park West and vicinity
• L06 -095 & L06-096 — between 15% and 40%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
This is a non - project action. Specific soil conditions will be evaluated when projects
are proposed.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?
If so, describe.
This is a non - project action. Specific soil conditions will be evaluated when projects
are proposed.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Page 4
g
This is a non - project action. Specific information about filling and grading will be
evaluated when a specific proposal is submitted.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
This is a non - project action. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing and
construction as vegetation is removed and soils are exposed through excavation.
Impacts associated with individual future developments will be analyzed when
development applications are submitted.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
This is a non - project action. Information about the percentage of the site to be
covered with impervious surfaces will be known and evaluated when specific
development proposals are submitted in the future.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any
This is a non - project action.
In general, once a specific proposal is prepared, project design will minimize erosion
potential by proper design and construction practices. During construction, the
contract will be required to employ Best Management Practices to control erosion.
Specific information about erosion or other impacts to the earth will be considered
when specific development proposals are submitted in the future.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
This is a non - project action. In general, during construction emissions would include
primarily particulate matter and small amounts of carbon monoxide from
construction machinery exhaust. There would be fugitive dust from earth moving
or excavation activities and diesel smoke. In addition, temporary odors from
machinery exhaust and paving activities could occur. Any future development
resulting from the amendments will be required to meet all air quality regulations,
and will be evaluated at that time.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If
so, generally describe.
Page 5
This is a non - project action. No off -site emissions known at this time.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control emissions will be
implemented at the time a specific project is constructed. Measures to reduce or
control emissions are likely to include the following:
• Cover loads, wet down during transport of fill material or topsoil;
• Clean up any spills of transported material on public roads promptly by
frequent use of a street sweeper machine;
• Cover loads of hot asphalt to minimize odors;
• Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of existing vehicle traffic on
streets in the vicinity of the proposed project;
• Maintain all construction machinery engines in good mechanical condition to
minimize exhaust emissions.
No additional measures to reduce operational air quality effects beyond those
typically employed by the transit service providers are likely to be needed or
proposed. Within the region, the proposed Transit Center would contribute to
improvement of air quality as persons make greater use of transit as an alternative to
the use of private automobiles.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
• L06- 093 —No surface water in immediate vicinity. Tukwila Pond and
Duwamish River are within one -half mile
• L06-095 and L06- 096 —N /A
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Non - project action. N/A
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Non - project action. N/A
Page 6
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
Non - project action. N/A
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
N/A
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Non - Project Action. N/A
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground
water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known.
Non - project action. Groundwater impacts are not anticipated and will be
evaluated once a specific project is submitted.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
Non - project action. Potential wastewater discharge will be evaluated once
specific projects are proposed. No discharge of waste material into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources is planned.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water
flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
This is a non - project action. Specific runoff impacts will be evaluated for any
future development proposals.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.
Page 7
x
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
x
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
x
shrubs
x
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
4. Plants
This is a non - project action. Specific impacts of waste materials will be evaluated
for specific future development proposals.
Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if
any:
This is a non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts
will be evaluated if a specific project is submitted.
This is a non - project action. The following vegetation is found in the vicinity of Andover Park
West (L06-093), and at 14427 51st Avenue South (L06 -095 and L06 -096).
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
This is a non - project action. No vegetation removal is proposed at this time.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
This is a non - project action. No threatened or endangered species are known, but
this element would be evaluated for a specific proposal.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Non - project action. Item does not apply
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
Page 8
Birds:.
Songbirds
Mammals:
Squirrels, rodents
Fish:
Other:
This is non - project action. The following animals are found in the vicinity of Andover
• Park West (L06 -093) and 14427 51st Avenue South (L06 -095 and L06 -096)
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Not known.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Non - project action. No measures proposed at this time.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
Non - project action. Additional energy will be used if projects are constructed in
future. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
Non - project action. Solar potential of adjacent properties would not be affected by
future development. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is
proposed.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is
proposed.
L06 -093 —Energy conserving lighting could be included in the future plans.
L06 -095 and L06-09 — "Green Building" practices could be suggested to developer.
7. Environmental Health
Page 9
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of
this proposal? If so, describe.
Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is
proposed.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Non- project action. No special emergency services required at this time.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Non - project action. No environmental health hazards will result. Additional
environmental evaluation will be prepared if a specific project is proposed.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Non - project action. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared if a
specific project is proposed.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Non - project Action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is
proposed.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
N/A
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
• L06 -093 —Mall, retail, commercial, warehouse, office, service, pond /park,
roadway uses along Andover Park West corridor and vicinity.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 —Single-family residential, vacant land, nursery, office,
road and Sound Transit light rail
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Page 10
• L06- 093 —Land along Andover Park West and vicinity may have been used
for agricultural activity 30+ years ago.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 —Site is currently vacant and accessory to adjacent
nursery.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
• L06 -093 — Andover Park West and vicinity are in the Tukwila Urban Center,
and are developed with a range of structures, including those used for office,
retail, warehouse, recreation, and other activities.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No structures are on the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Non - project action. No demolition. Additional environmental review will take
place if a specific project is proposed.
L06 -093 — No demolition is proposed. Depending on site that is ultimately
selected, some demolition may be required.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
• L06-093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
• L06 -095 and L06-096 — Residential Commercial Center (RCC)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
• L06- 093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
• L06 -095 and L06-096— Residential Commercial Center (RCC)
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A
g.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
• L06-093—No environmentally sensitive areas lie along Andover Park West.
L06 -095 and L06 -096 —Portions of the site contain steep slopes.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Non - project action.
L06-093 — Neither housing nor employment is considered a part of any future
Transit Center proposal.
L06 -095 and L06- 096 — Designating the site as LDR would allow housing to be built.
Page 11
1•
Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Non - project action.
L06 -093 — No housing displacement will occur.
L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No housing displacement will occur as site is currently
vacant. It is likely that housing will be built in the future on the site.
k Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
This is a non - project action. No measures are proposed or necessary because no
displacements would occur.
L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected
land uses and plans, if any:
Non - project action. Additional review will be undertaken to ensure compatibility with
existing and proposed land uses once a specific project is proposed.
• L06-093 — A transit center is a permitted use within the Tukwila Urban Center
(TUC) zone. Future development of a Transit Center is compatible with the
Tukwila Transit Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and is supportive of state, regional
and local efforts to reduce commute trips. The general site area has been identified
by the Tukwila Transit Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and is served by transit.
A future Transit Center would be sited and designed based on work by design,
transportation and planning professionals to ensure compatibility with existing and
proposed land uses. Public input would also be evaluated. A focus group was
undertaken for the Tukwila Transit Plan and additional public workshops have been
held. Design of any future Transit Center would be compatible with the character of
the surrounding area. Any specific proposal would be subject to Design Review by
the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review.
• L06-095 and L06- 096 —If the property were redesignated to LDR, single - family
housing could be built at the site. This would be consistent with adjacent land
uses.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low - income housing?
Non - project action.
• L06-093— No housing units would be provided in association with a future
Transit Center.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Redesignating the site to LDR could allow several
single - family homes or duplexes to be built. The specific housing impacts
would be evaluated once a project was submitted
Page 12
b: Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low - income housing.
This is a non - project action. No housing units will be eliminated.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
No special measures are needed because no negative impacts to housing would
occur.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Non - project action. Height impacts will be evaluated once a specific project is
proposed.
• L06 -093 — A future Transit Center would contain bus bays, pedestrian
shelters, sidewalks and landscaping. Height limits would be observed.
Building materials are not proposed at this point.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 —Any structures eventually built would meet the 35'
maximum height limit per TMC Chapter 18.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Non - project action. No specific development proposed at this time. No view
alteration or obstruction is anticipated resulting from any future projects.
Additional environmental evaluation of views will be prepared if a specific project is
proposed.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Non - project action. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared when a
specific project is proposed.
• L06-093 — It is anticipated that landscaping would soften direct views of a
future Transit Center.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Non - project action. No glare produced. Additional environmental review will be
carried out if a specific project is proposed.
• L06 -093 — Additional sources of light and glare associated with a future
Transit Center would include site lighting and bus traffic. On site lighting
would be present throughout the non - daylight hours. Glare from transit
Page 13
vehicles could be more prevalent at dawn and dusk during the winter
months.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future houses would have on -site lighting, and
possible street lighting.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be carried out if a specific
project is proposed.
• L06 -093 — Night lighting would not create a safety hazard or adversely
affect views.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Non - project action. No impacts from off -site glare. Additional environmental work
will be prepared if a specific project is proposed.
• L06 -093 — No offsite sources of light would affect the future Transit
Center. Lighting may come from passing vehicles, transit, neighboring
businesses, and the street system.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be undertaken if a
specific project is proposed.
• L06 -093— Transit Center lighting will be carefully planned to ensure the
greatest safety for pedestrians and transit users, while minimizing glare
and other off site light - related impacts.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
Non - project action.
• L06 -093 — Andover Park West is within one block of Tukwila Pond Park,
within one -half mile of Bicentennial Park and the Duwamish River Trail.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 —The site is within one -half mile of playing fields at
Foster High School and Showalter Middle School, and within 3 /4 mile of the
Foster Library.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational
uses? If so, describe.
Non - project action. No displacement of existing recreational uses.
Page 14
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Non - project action. No impacts on recreational opportunities.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for , national, state or local
preservation registers on or near to the potential project sites.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,
or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Non - project action.
L06 -093 — Tukwila Bicentennial Park is located within one -half mile of the possible
project site.
L06 -095 and L06 -096 —No landmarks nearby.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
This is a non - project action. If evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or
cultural resources of potential were discovered during future site excavation or
development of a future Transit Center (L06 -093) or housing (L06-095 and L06 -096),
project work in the vicinity would be immediately halted until an expert in the
subject area was able to verify the significance of the resource and identify
appropriate measures for retrieval and removal from the site.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Non - project action.
• L06 -093 — Adjacent streets include: 1) Andover Park West a north/ south
minor arterial road, served by Metro Transit; 2) Tukwila
Parkway /Southcenter Parkway (minor arterial); 3) Strander Boulevard
(minor arterial); 4) Baker Boulevard (collector arterial); 5) Minkler Boulevard
(minor arterial) ; 6) S. 180th Street (minor arterial); 7) Andover Park East
(minor arterial); 8) Southcenter Boulevard; 9) West Valley Highway; 10) I-405;
11) I -5.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Access to the site will be provided either by 51st
Avenue South, or by S. 145th Street.
Page 15
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
• L06 -093 — Andover Park West is served by Metro Transit routes 126, 128, 140,
150 and 155. A Transit Center would provide improved transit opportunities
with bus pull -outs, and enhanced facilities for transit riders, including
sidewalks, seating, lighting and other safety features.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 —The site is served by Metro Transit route 128
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
Non - project action. Parking impacts will be evaluated when a specific project is
proposed.
• L06- 093 —No parking spaces will be created for a future on -street Transit
Center, just bus zones.
• L06-095 and L06-096 —Future housing would be required to provide two off -
street parking spaces.
c. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads
or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public
or private).
Non - project action. Road improvements will be evaluated when a specific project is
proposed.
• L06 -093. No road improvements are proposed. The proposal pertains to
locations for a future transit center. Some road and frontage improvements
may be required for transit operations once a transit center project is proposed.
Pedestrian walkways would be provided and /or improved. Per the "Tukwila
Transit Plan," bus pull-out stops /bays are proposed.
• L06 -095 and L06- 096 —No changes in roads or streets are proposed. The
proposal could result in eventual single -family housing development, which
would require road improvements and site access via existing roads through an
existing access easement. Additional environmental evaluation will be
prepared if a specific project is proposed.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Page 16
• L06 -093— Non - project action. The future Transit Center would be located
within the Tukwila Urban Center, several blocks from the Tukwila Sounder
Commuter Rail station.
• L06 -095 and L06- 096 — Non - project action. N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
• L06- 093 --Non- project action. The Transit Center will not have a park and ride
facility, and therefore is not expected to generate any new vehicle traffic or
cause any direct traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. The Tukwila Transit
Center recommends transit service improvements in hours and fsrequency.
Depending on the site that is selected, there may be some re- routing of buses.
Future bus service may include implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit route
in the I-405 corridor. In the future, transit service increases will be needed to
accommodate ridership growth that will occur due to expansion of the
Westfield Southcenter Mall, and in the longer term from planned increases in
housing and employment resulting from redevelopment of the Tukwila
Urban Center.
g.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096— Non - project action. A maximum of four houses could
be build on the site. If four houses were built, and each house had generated
four to six vehicle trips per day, a maximum of approximately 16 to 24 trips
could be generated each day.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
• L06-093 — The Tukwila Transit Plan recommends short -term, mid -term and
long -term service improvements, including extending service hours and
frequency, and some route changes to better serve the Tukwila Urban Center.
The siting and operation of a Tukwila Transit Center will enable these service
improvements to occur.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
L06-093 —This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services will be
evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, public service needs of a future
Transit Center could include police and fire protection.
L06 -095 and L06-096 — This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services
will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, the public service needs of
future housing could include police and fire protection, schools and healthcare for
future residents.
Page 17
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
16. Utilities
• L06-093 — This is a non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control
any direct impacts on public services will be evaluated once a project is
proposed. In general potential police and fire protection will be addressed
through improved lighting, implementation of security technologies, removal
of problematic items such as payphones, incorporation of shelter and
landscape design that supports good visibility and creation of an attractive
and easily maintainable waiting environment.
• L06-095 and L06-096 — This is a non - project action. A maximum of four
single - family homes could eventually be constructed on the site. Although
this incremental increase is completely within the existing capacity of
Tukwila's public service capabilities, any specific impacts will be addressed
once a project is proposed.
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
• L06 -093 — This is a non- project action located in the Tukwila Urban Center. All
appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a site is selected and a
specific project proposed.
• L06-095 and L06-096 --This is a non - project action. All appropriate utilities can be
available on site as needed once a specific project proposed, and constructed.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
• L06 -093— This is a non - project action located in the Tukwila Urban Center. All
appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a site is selected and a
specific project proposed. Depending on the scope of the Transit Center, utilities
are likely to include electricity, water, stormwater, sewer and telephone.
• L06 -095 and L06-096 --This is a non - project action. All appropriate utilities can be
available on site as needed once a specific project proposed. Utilities are likely to
include water, sewer, electricity, cable, stormwater, telephone.
Page 18
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: / j2Gt -rte
Date Submitted: ,V/
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with
the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
likely to result form the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate
than in the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
• L06 -093 Construction of a future Transit Center will result in temporary increases
in noise and emissions that will cease once construction is complete.
• L06 -093 There will be added noise during construction of houses.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
• L06 -093 Construction of the future Transit Center will be carried out to minimize
disruption from temporary noise and emissions. The Transit Center would be
designed to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, as well as
the entry of waste materials into ground or surface waters. As appropriate this
may include an oil /water separator, and stormwater treatment facility for the
proposed project. Once constructed, improved bus service from the Transit Center
may lessen reliance on auto trips, and therefore reduce automobile noise and
emissions.
• L06 -095 and L06-096 Proper construction techniques will be used to minimize
emissions and noise, and stormwater runoff.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life?
Page 19
• L06 -093 -- Construction of a Transit Center may result in increased impervious
surfaces.
• L06 -093 — The site is currently vacant. Future construction of houses will result in
increased impervious surfaces.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are:
• L06 -093 — A future Transit Center will be landscaped with plant materials. As
appropriate, existing vegetation/ trees may be retained.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Some of the site will remain undeveloped.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
• L06 -093 — Construction of a future Transit Center will require the use of resources
including electricity, gasoline, building materials (concrete, metal, wood).
• L06 -095 and L06 -096— Construction of future housing will require the use of
resources including electricity, gasoline, building materials.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
• L06-093 --Once constructed, a Transit Center will become the focal point of transit
use in the Tukwila Urban Center, and will provide enhanced facilities to meet
current transit needs and future demands. Increased transit use will conserve
petroleum resources by providing individuals with a viable alternative to auto
trips.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future homes encouraged to be built conserve energy and
natural resources.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for government protection; such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic
or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
• L06 -093 — No impacts on environmentally sensitive areas are anticipated by
locating a Transit Center in the vicinity of or along Andover Park West.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 —Portions of the site contain steep slopes.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
N/A
Page 20
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
• L06 093 — The future Transit Center is compatible with the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan, the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05). Tukwila Urban Center
vision calls for a long -term increase in density and activities, and the future
Transit Center is consistent with this intent. Development of the future Tukwila
Transit Center will be a first step towards implementing the future that is
envisioned for the Tukwila Urban Center as a vibrant, pedestrian - oriented area
in which to live, work, play and do business. When a specific Transit Center
project is proposed, it will set high aesthetic standards and serve as a catalyst
for implementing the larger vision for the Tukwila Urban Center, including
new and compatible development.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future low- density housing development is compatible
with the proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) designation.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
• L06-093 — Urban design, landscape and architectural aspects of a future Transit
Center will result in a high quality project that will avoid negative land use
impacts. Key elements will include: 1) design for safety; 2) increased pedestrian
access ; 3) integrating the Transit Center into the pedestrian network.
The future Transit Center is intended as a necessary community resource to be
developed through careful design in order to achieve the most efficient functioning.
Safety for individuals and property will be a key consideration. Any proposed
Transit Center would be designed for compatibility with existing and future land
use in order to maintain and enhance the value of both the public and private
property.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
L06 - 093 — By 2020 or later, it is assumed that the WSDOT will complete planned
improvements to I405, as well as related arterial improvements. Additional
planned regional improvements may also occur by 2020 or later, including: 1) I405
through Tukwila widened by one lane in each direction; 2) Renton and Tukwila
would jointly extend Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale
Avenue S.E.
Potential changes to King County's Metro Transit service are unknown. However,
a well - designed future Transit Center will allow buses to serve the Tukwila Urban
Center with greater frequency. Based on current trends, King County Metro
anticipates a conservative baseline ridership growth rate of up to 3% per year.
This could mean approximately 4,600 daily riders using a future Transit Center.
Page 21
Expansion of Westfield Southcenter Mall and the ongoing redevelopment of the
Tukwila Urban Center could accelerate ridership growth further.
Specific design of a future Transit Center will ensure the most efficient operation
possible and minimize transportation impacts. Making all stops pull -out stops will
reduce transit /traffic conflicts. Good design, including passenger amenities,
shelters and landscaping will increase the comfort of waiting passengers and will
encourage and enhance transit use.
• L06 -095 and L06 -096 —New housing would generate additional vehicle trips, as
well as additional transit use.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
L06 -093 — Improved transit facilities and services will reduce demand for auto use,
and make road use more efficient. A well - designed and well-sited Transit Center
with improved transit rider and pedestrian safety and convenience will result in
fewer transit /traffic conflicts, fewer pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and less crime
and vandalism. This, in turn, will reduce demands on public services, including
police, fire and emergency services. Reductions in demand for public service
would be offset by additional housing construction, and increases in employment
resulting from redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
• L06 -093 —The proposal is consistent with local, state and federal requirements for
environmental protection by encouraging increased transit use in the Tukwila
Urban Center and beyond.
• L06 -093 --The proposal is consistent with local, state and federal environmental
requirements.
Page 22
F. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be
helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information
provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the
environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive
information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objectives of the proposal?
In the broadest sense, the objective of proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning map is to respond to changed conditions in Tukwila, and to keep these
documents current so as best to reflect the community's vision.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
If changes are desired, we see no obvious means to implement that change other than
amending the primary land use regulatory documents. It might be possible to alter the
timetable of changes to delay adoption and implementation.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action:
L06 -093 — Transit Center location
• Deny the request (Retain status quo)
• Limit possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be located north of Minkler
Boulevard on Andover Park West)
• Expand possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be sited in Tukwila Urban Center
Core) —Preferred action -
L06 -065 and L06-09600 —NCC to LDR
• Deny the request (Retain status quo)
• Approve request
• Approve request with condition that applicant must complete Boundary Line
Adjustment within three months of City Council approval — Preferred action
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan?
The proposals require amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.
6. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Public input and review by the Planning Commission and City Council will minimize
potential conflicts with Tukwila codes and policies, and ensure compatibility with the
community's goals .
Page 23
February 28, 2007
Honorable Mayor Steve Mullet
City Council Members
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544
Re: Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 2007 — March 5, 2007
City Council Meeting (File No. L- 06-093) - Open Frame Integrated
Site Plan
Honorable Mayor & Council Members:
OPEN FRAME, LLC
PO Box 88198
Tukwila, WA 98138
I write to you on behalf of Open Frame, LLC, the ownership group of the commercial
development immediately East of the Westfield Mall known as "Parkwest Plaza." You may
know Andover Park West as the location of Acme Bowl center and multiple retail tenants.
This letter requests that the City Council decline any attempt to modify the City's current
Comprehensive Plan and Transit Plan, modification of which could allow for additional
Transit Sites beyond those authorized under Policy 13.4.8 which restricts Transit Centers to
the area south of Baker Boulevard see attached Policy). This Policy followed years of
intense study and analysis by City Staff, King County Metro and the public, and
appropriately took into account the optimal location of the proposed Transit Center and its
impact on the surrounding areas.
Open Frame has invested over two years and millions of dollars in the acquisition and design
of an "integrated" site plan for our property following approval by the City's Board of
Architectural Review (B.A.R.) on March 24, 2005 (see attached "Acme Bowling" Plan).
Acme Bowl has been constructed and is an anchor tenant for the remainder of the site which
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 1
we are currently seeking to develop. For the last several months we have been actively
seeking approval of the City's Review Board, as well as the Departments of Community
Development and Public Works. We at Open Frame, our Architect, Project Managers,
Engineers, Contractors and Tenants have all relied on the B.A.R approved plans for build out
of the remainder of the site. In reliance on this approval, we have executed leases with two
well regarded and valuable Tenants: Pure Fitness and California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant.
This reliance was based on the City's previously adopted Transit Plan, which did not include
a Transit Center located north of Baker Boulevard or any further right of way dedication.
We acknowledge that our center is not as large as Westfield, and doesn't have the same big,
national tenants as "the mall," but we believe we are sti 11 a good neighbor and a valuable part
of the Tukwila community. Our tenants live, work and shop in the community and provide
both services and good paying jobs to their employees. Our ongoing development of the site
is intended to do more of the same and to strengthen the mix and character of the shops and
services available in the Southcenter area.
A drive by of the southern portion of our property would appear to yield a vacant, unused site
appearing somehow "available" for the siting of a Transit Center. However, this is simply
not the case and could not be further from the truth. Well before the request to modify the
longstanding Transit Plan was submitted to you, OpenFrame entered into leases for over
35,000 square feet of retail development and submitted a final site plan for the full
development of the southern portion of our property.
When the development of our site was first approved in 2005, we dedicated 4.5' feet of right -
of -way to the City to address the impacts of our full development. Moreover, we paid some
$300,000.00 in impact fees to the City based upon build -out of this plan. We then proceeded
to complete our engineered design and installed on -site storm water improvements, along
with utility connections as they appear in the approved plan.
You will see that as part of this process, back in 2004 the City specifically asked for the
dedication of an additional 30' feet of our property for additional right -of -way to support the
placement of a Transit Center on Andover Park West. Instead it was ultimately agreed that
we would dedicate 4.5 feet to the City and we did so. Since that time we have proceeded
based on the straightforward language in the City's existing Transit Plan and the existing
dedication that was required by our approved plan.
Based upon our site plan, we then sought and obtained first class commercial tenants to build
well designed and attractive commercial buildings. This completes our integrated site plan
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 2
and links all buildings on these parcels to interdependent businesses (family -based
restaurants, fitness, and recreation all tied together). This has taken over two years, hundreds
of thousands of dollars and countless hours of hard work to achieve. The site plan, buildings,
parking, landscaping, and driveways to Baker Boulevard and West Andover Parkway, as well
as our leases with Pure Fitness and California Pizza Kitchen are all predicated on the prior
4.50' foot dedication to the City.
Since the fall of 2006, Open Frame's architect, David Kehle, AIA, has met with the City on
numerous occasions about the design approval process and timeline for our site plan,
including the two new tenant buildings (California Pizza Kitchen and Pure Fitness). To the
entire design and development team's shock and dismay, approximately 45 days ago Mr.
Kehle was confronted by the City staff with a demand, described as an express condition to
design approval, that Open Frame dedicate an additional 32 feet of right -of -way on West
Andover Parkway. In this and subsequent meetings the City has acknowledged to Mr. Kehle
that the right -of -way is not intended to mitigate the impact of the project and, instead, has
provided vague and inconsistent answers, all based on some sort of undefined "transit plan."
Mr. Kehle's requests for drawings reflecting the City's proposed use of the property have not
been responded to, and his requests for a written explanation of the grounds for the
dedication have been similarly ignored. My personal calls to the City to discuss this matter
have not been returned. As of today, City Staff has not agreed to calendar our SEPA and
DRB approval, nor has it provided an explanation for its attempts to condition consideration
of our plans on the 32' dedication.
Mr. Kehle has sought information in the form of reports about the Council's reconsideration
of Transit Center policies provided to the City Council on February 12, 2007 regarding the
Transit Center and proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. To date, City staff has
only provided Mr. Kehle with portions of what he has requested, and has been similarly
unresponsive to requests by other persons acting on behalf of the property owner to provide
this public information. The only information we have about what the City is doing is in the
form of a February 6, Memorandum from Steve Lancaster to the City Council (see
attachment).
As stated above, Open Frame is now actively being injured by the City's delay in processing
our Design Review Board Application in what appears to be an attempt to re- impose a
Transit Center on our property, the same one the City sought and abandoned in 2004. In the
mean- time, the City's delay in processing our site plan design is pushing approval of our
applications and commencement of construction into, at best, the fourth quarter of 2007.
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 3
I can only infer that by conditioning our site plan's consideration on Open Frame's
dedication of 32' to the City, the City is attempting to circumvent both the existing
Comprehensive Plan and Transit Plan. Worse, as this delay takes place, we learn that the
City is seeking to modify its Transit Plan to expand the potential location of the future
Transit Center to the property we are currently seeking to develop. If our lawful and good
faith efforts to build on our property are inappropriately restricted by the City, we will be
forced to hold the City responsible for all delay damages, contractor claims, loss of tenant
income, and other damages caused by this action.
To be very clear, the consequence of a 32' dedication will prevent us from honoring our
signed, binding leases with both California Pizza Kitchen and Pure Fitness, both of which
were based on the site plan (and dedication) previously approved by the City. These leases
were negotiated and executed based on the current site plan and the existing five foot
dedication. Moreover, the City Staff's refusal to consider our bona fide plan are costing us
lost rents of over $75,000 per months (as rents do not commence until the buildings are
completed). Frustratingly, this is the same Staff who is presenting the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the Mayor and Council for their review and later approval. It is apparent
from an earlier memo of October 22, 2004 that this same staff is consciously delaying our
application to force Open Frame to dedicate this area to make it "easier" for the City's
Transit Plan, even though our property's frontage is not the best site. These lost rents are
over and above the reduction of fair market value that will result due to the loss of some 22
parking stalls, the need for smaller buildings, lost access, and the probable creation of
non - conforming uses to buildings and setbacks if the dedication is pursued.
It is simply too late for the City to now attempt to require that our project plans be modified
to accommodate a Transit Center or otherwise surrender 32' of our property as a condition to
approval of our site plan. We have relied upon the City's written policy to locate and build a
Transit Center south of Baker Boulevard and we are baffled why our design is conditioned on
a dedication of some 32' which even the City staff admits has nothing to do with our impact
on the site or the surrounding area. We believed that we concluded this issue with the City in
November of 2004, when the City withdrew any further request for the larger dedication..
We have invested millions of dollars to make this project work for the City and our tenants,
and we are now in no financial position to accommodate a Transit Center and lose our
tenants.
Even if the City staff could condition our site plan on a future amendment of the Transit
Plan, we also respectfully submit that entertaining the possible relocation of the Transit
Center outside the location provided in the current Transit Plan is simply not necessary or
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 4
appropriate. The existing Transit Plan accounted for the optimal location of the transit center
south of Baker Boulevard, accounting for pedestrian and vehicle access and safety, vehicle
impacts and integration with the region as a whole. The Transit Plan was not silent on the
location of the transit center, but instead expressly specified that it be SOUTH of Baker
Boulevard. This was well founded, and locating the Transit Center north of Baker Boulevard
is not safe, practical or efficient. I would be glad to provide support for this statement, and I
have commissioned reports from transportation engineer Chris Brown, PE, our architect,
David Kehle, AIA, Site Civil Engineer, Dan Balmelli, PE, and Project Manager Bonnie
Hanson explaining the consequences of a Transit Center north of Baker Boulevard on our
Andover Park West frontage, all of which I would be happy to provide to you.
We therefore request that you direct City Staff and the B.A.R. to immediately complete the
processing of our permit applications so that we can complete construction of our buildings
for our tenants. We also request that you do not throw out what took the City some four
years to create in the present Transit Plan and instead honor this decision and locate the
Transit Center south of Baker Boulevard as mandated by the current Transit Plan.
I appreciate your time, and hope that you will permit us to continue to develop our property
as intended, bringing more jobs, vibrancy and well considered design to Tukwila.
Sincerely,
John P. Stokke
Enclosures
March 5, 2007 Council Meeting
File No. L06 -093 (Modify Wording of Transit Center)
Open Frame Property
Page - 5
TO:
TRANSMITTAL: 8 Pages
Dear City Clerk Jim Morrow:
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
FROM: Bill H. Williamson
COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER
701 5th Avenue - Suite 5500
P.O. Box 9982
Seattle, Washington 98 139 - 0821
Office: (206 t $2 -0411 /Fa 20 0 6. 292.0313
(I FACSIMILE `TRANSMITTAL`,QCOVER,SMEET: Date Trariismitted 2,March 5 "2
I�,(P{ ease€ Notfy� '.Recpientrtinm'e'diately . ofsPages .(mcl� °covey);>1:0�;,.�;
Jane Cantu, City Clerk
Jim Morrow, Public Works Director
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544
Facsimile Number: 206- 433 -1833
Telephone Number: 206 -433 -1800
REFERENCE: Open Frame Public Records Act Request
March 5, 2007 Public Meeting — 2007 Comprehensive Plan
February 12, 2007 Committee of the Whole Presentation Materials —
Public Works Department
My office is in receipt of your letter of March 5, 2007 indicating that you are reviewing the Public
Records Act Request made to your office on February 26, 2007. As you see in the attached
February 6, 2007 Memorandum, the February 12, 2006 presentation materials have been
requested so that my client Open Frame can participate in proceedings before the City Council
scheduled tonight.
Failing to provide these materials related to comprehensive plan amendments, which the City
Council considered in open public session on February 12, 2007, prejudices Open Frame's
rights to fully and intelligently participate in comprehensive plan proceedings. Preventing Open
Frame from reviewing this comprehensive plan amendment proposal constitutes a violation of
F:\MY DOCUMENTS (USE THIS TO OPEN LAW OFFICE) \OPENffRAME \CITY.FAX.030507.DOC
the public participation requirements of RCW 36.70A.035 and WAC 365- 195 -600.
Open Frame cannot effectively review, let alone comment, on proposals being considered by
the City Council, when it cannot see, review, and comment upon the February 12, 2007
Proposal entitled "Transit Center - Modify Wording. Applicant: Tukwila Department of
Community Development (File #L06- 093)." Instead of promptly disclosing and making these
files available to encourage early and effective public participation, Public Records Act
procedures are being used to delay, interfere with, and defeat any meaningful review of the
draft proposals to comprehensive plan amendments being actively considered before the City
Council. The City Council admittedly has available before it these files, which it reviewed earlier
in public before Council proceedings or the Committee of the Whole on February 12, 2007. As
you can readily see, City Council members are being directed in the Agenda to "Please bring
your notebooks from the 2/12/07 C.O.W."
In not receiving this information before the City Council's meeting tonight (March 5, 2007),
which Open Frame's presentation to the City Council, Open Frame, and the public are being
significantly prejudiced in asserting rights protect by the Growth Management Act. Open Frame
and the public are being precluded from knowing what drafts, altematives, and proposals for
the Transit Center, the City Council has before it. The refusal to provide this information
prevents Open Frame from determining if, how, and why the City is proceeding under TMC
18.80.050, RCW 36.70A.020(11), RCW 36.70A.140, including the City's compliance with
SEPA. Open Frame has no means to determine and review what the Council considered on
February 12, 2007, what it has received since that date, and the timing of information received
by the City Council for its consideration, before making any decision to refer the comprehensive
plan amendment proposal to the City's Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Bill H. Williamson
Enclosures: (1) February 26, 2007 Public Records Act Request; (2) February 6, 2007
Memo to City Council on Transit Center - Modify Wording. Applicant: Tukwila Department of Community
Development (File #L06 -093); (3) March 5, 200 Agenda Item 6.e; (4) Public Records Act Response
Letter from City Clerk dated March 5, 2007; WAC 365 - 195 -600 Public Participation Requirements.
Original: 0 Forwarded [ X] Not Forwarded
If you do not receive all of the indicated pages, please call (206) 292 -0411 as soon as possible.
Confidentiality Notice
This facsimile transmission and any accompanying documents are intended for use only by the individual or
entity named above and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender protected by the attorney-
client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or
distribution of or any reliance on this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return of the documents. OpenFrame.City.Fax.030507.doc
F: MY DOCUMENTS (USE THIS TO OPEN LAW OFFICE ) \OPENtRAME \CITY.FAX.030507.DOC
February 26, 2007
Jane Cantu, City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear City Clerk:
Sincerely,
WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE
BANK OF AMERICA TOWER
701 5 Avenue - Suite 5500
P.O. Box 99821
Seattle, Washington 98139 - 0821
Offices (206) 292-0411/ Far: 206.292.0313
Re: Continuing Public Records Act Request, RCW Chapter 42.56 - Tukwila Transit Center
This supplemental letter is submitted pursuant to RCW 42.56.070 for purposes of seeking
continuing review any and all public records from your office as the records custodian for the
City of Tukwila related to or arising out of the Tukwila Urban Center and the "Transit Center
Proposal" as described in the City's 2007 -2012 Transportation Improvement Plan inclusive of
the Farside and Nearside Transit Center Concepts. Briefing documents were provided to the
Tukwila City Council at its Regular Meeting on February 12, 2007 for public review by the City
Council. This Public Records Act request seeks a copy of these materials along with any and all
electronic records of Staff, testimony, council consideration and comments.
Also, if these records are being withheld from disclosure, please provide a written statement
containing the reasons as provided by RCW 42.56.520. Please identify on a written matrix, and
describe the specific record document being withheld, the number of pages of such record
document, the date and maker of such document, and the specific exemption claimed from
public disclosure as provided by RCW 42.56.
Bill H. Williamson
enclosure: February 6, 2007 Memo to City Council from Steve Lancaster
cc: John Stokke, Open Frame
OpenFrame.Supplemental.Public Records Act.Letter.022607.wpd
RECEIVED
FEB 26 2007
CITY OF TUKWILA
CITY CLERK
reo iff ut U1:02p DAVID P LONGBINE
Rr
MEMORANDUM
February 6, 2007
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
TO: Tukwila City Council
FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Conununitybeve opnient
SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR;2007
Attached with this memo are the proposed annual amendments to
Plan for 2007. The CAP was briefed on January 23, 2007: Ther
COW meeting on February 12, 2007 to review the proposals and
public meeting to receive input on the proposed amendments is s
2007.
Introduction
Two applications were submitted by the December 31, 2004 dea
are as follows:
• Transit Center—Modify Wording. Applicant: Tokviila D
Community Development (File #L06 -093) — The prnposa1
existing policy to incorporate current information from t 1e.T
the Tukwila Transit Center Design Report (1/07). The (lurren
future Transit Center should be sited on Andover Park;East b
and Strander Boulevard; the proposed wording allows somew
selecting a location for the future Transit Center. This Omen
the City Attorney and developed in conjunction with the City
Works Department.
• Bonsai Northwest – Regional Commercial Center (ACC) t
Residential (LDR) at S. 144 and 51 Avenue S.)— Applic
#L06 -095 and L06 -096) –The applicant seeks to redesignate
of a 1.35 acre site from commercial (RCC) to single- fajt:lily
property is vacant nursery property adjacent to and asspciated
Northwest nursery property. Attached Exhibits A and B sho
the area to be rezoned respectively.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 i lPhon
325 672 9635
p. 1
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
the Comprehensive
will be a briefing at the
deci: ion process. A
; heduled for March 5,
line. The applications
partment of
eek. to modify an
1? Transit Plan and
policy states that a
twee Baker Boulevard
at greater flexibility in
meat was requested by
ttorney and the Public
Low Density
nt: Sohn Muth (File
pproximately .63 acres
ider.tial (LDR); The
with the Bonsai
the >ite location and
02/04, 21107
• 205- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206.431 -3665
Feb 14 07 01:02p DRVID P LONGDINE
Any proposed amendments that are referred by the Council to the
will return before the Council for a final public hearing and a deci
Council may:
• Adopt a proposed amendment;
• Adopt a modified version of a proposed amendment; or
• Reject the amendment.
Attachments:
1. CAP minutes (1/23/07)
2. Transit Center—Mod Policy Wording. (File.1L06 -t
3. Bonsai Northwest -- Regional Commercial Center (RC
Residential (LDR) at S 144` and S1 S)= (Fi
096)
325 672 9635
Next Steps
A public meeting will take place on March 5, 200 to recei input on t
amendments. After the public meeting, the City Council will decide
amendments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission, for ft rthe:
P1
Sion.
93)
) to
e #L
1e potential
hich proposed
consideration_
W ing Commission
At that point, the
Low Density
06 -095 and L06-
2
p. 2
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
March 5, 2007
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
a .Introduction Dave Hauntz, Senior Fiscal Coordinator, Finance Department
b. Introduction of Steve Batz, Administrative Assistant, Parks & Recreation
c. Youth related activities — Police Chief Dave Haynes and Dave Johnson, Recreation
Superintendent
3. CITIZENS COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items that are
not included on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes). To comment
on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented
for discussion.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
a.Approval of Minutes: 2/20/07 (Regular
b. Approval of Vouchers
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
An ordinance clarifying Zoning Code language regarding development of substandard
lots within the City.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. An ordinance clarifying Zoning Code language regarding development of substandard
lots within the City (see 5 above).
b. An ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2142, which established a six -month
moratorium on development of lots not meeting the City's minimum lot size.
c. Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the cities of Sea -Tac and
Des Moines for Minor Home Repair Program utilizing Community Development Block
Grant Funds in the amount of $65,000.
d. A resolution waiving the bidding requirements and authorizing the purchase of a
computerized irrigation control system in the amount of $32,018.43.
e. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be conducted in Public Meeting
format. Please bring your notebooks from the 2/12/07 CO. W.
f. Concurrency Test Fee and Traffic Impact Fees.
1) An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2110, regarding concurrency test fees.
2) A resolution adopting a Public Works Fee Schedule.
3) An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2111, to update the Traffic Impact Fee
Schedule.
g. A motion to amend the scope of work for the Tukwila International Boulevard Phases
2 and 3 construction project due to cost increases.
h. Authorize the Mayor to sign an amendment to the interlocal agreement with King
County for animal control services in the amount of $35,000.
i. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with M. J. Durkan for 2007 lobbying services
in the amount of $4,000 per month, plus expenses.
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. REPORTS
9. MISCELLANEOUS
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pending Litigation (15 Minutes)
11. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Tukwila City
Hall is wheelchair accessible. Please contact the City Clerk's Office by noon on Monday
if we can be of assistance. (206 433 -1800 or TDD 206 248 -2933)
Return to Home
03/05/100( 13:'11 FAX Z06 433 1833
Williamson Law Office
Bank of America Tower
701 5 Avenue — Ste 5500
PO Box 99821
Seattle, WA 99821 -0821
Attn: Bill H. Williamson
Re: Continuing Public Records Act Request — Tukwila Transit Center
Dear Mr. Williamson:
City of Tukwila
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
The City is in receipt of your public records request of February 26, 2007 wherein you
requested copies of briefing documents that were provided to the Tukwila City Council at their
Regular Meeting of February 12, 2007. Also requested was a copy of any and all electronic
records of Staff, testimony, council consideration and comments.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires a prompt response to all requests for public
record. Within five business days, the Gty must:
1, release /disclose the records requested;
2. acknowledge receipt and provide an approximate time for release of the
requested documents; or
3. deny the request and provide a statutory reason as to why the request is being
denied.
City staff is currently in the process of identifying those records responsive to your request and
anticipates making those records available to you by March 19 , 2007. Should I receive the
records prior to March 19 I will notify you.
Copying charges are .15 cents per single - sided, standard -sized documents. Charges are payable
upon receipt of documents. Oversized documents, or those sent out for reproduction, will be
billed to the requester.
If you have questions or require further information, you may reach me at 206- 433 -1800.
Sjgcerely,
e E. Cantu, CMC
City Clerk
C: S. Kerslake, City Attorney
S. Lancaster, DCD Director
R. Fox, Senior Planner, DCD
Phone: 206- 433.1800 • City Hall Fax: 206.433 -1833 • www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
145002/002
WAC 365 - 195 -600
Public participation.
(I) Requirements. Each county and city planning under the act shall establish procedures for early and
continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and
development regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad
dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings
after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information
services, and consideration of and response to public comments. Errors in exact compliance with the
established procedures shall not render the comprehensive plan or development regulations invalid if the
spirit of the procedures is observed.
(2) Recommendations for meeting requirements. The recommendations made in this subsection are
intended as a list of possible choices, but it is recognized that meaningful public participation can be
accomplished without using all of the suggestions made here or by adopting other methods.
(a) Public involvement in plan and regulation development.
(i) In designing its public participation program, each planning jurisdiction should endeavor to involve the
broadest cross - section of the community, so that groups not previously involved in planning become
involved. The programs should include efforts to explain that citizen input is an essential part of the planning
process and provide a framework for advising citizens about timelines for steps in the process and when
citizen input will be sought.
(ii) Visioning. The public should be involved at the earliest possible time in the process of comprehensive
planning under the act. This should begin with a visioning process in which the public is invited to participate
in a broad definition of the kind of future to be sought for the community. The results of this process should
then be incorporated into the plan features, including, but not limited to, locally adopted levels of service and
densities selected for commercial, industrial, and residential development.
(iii) Planning commission. In the process of plan development, full use should be made of the planning
commission as a liaison with the public.
(iv) Public meetings on draft plan. Once the plan is completed in draft form, or as parts of it are
drafted, a series of public meetings or workshops should be held at various locations throughout
the jurisdiction to obtain public reaction and suggestions.
(v) Public hearings. When the final draft of the plan has been completed, at least one public hearing
should be held prior to the presentation of the final draft to the legislative authority of the jurisdiction adopting
it. When the plan is proposed for adoption, the legislative authority should conduct another public hearing
prior to voting on adoption.
(vi) Written comment. At each stage of the process when public input is sought, opportunity
should be provided to make written comment.
(vii) Communication programs and information services. Each jurisdiction should make every effort to
collect and disseminate public information explaining the act and the process involved in complying
with it In addition, locally relevant information packets and brochures should be developed and
disseminated. Planners should actively seek to appear before community groups to explain the act
and the plan development process.
(viii) Proposals and alternatives. Whenever public input is sought on proposals and alternatives,
the relevant drafts should be reproduced and made available to interested persons.
(ix) Notice. Notice of all events at which public input is sought should be broadly disseminated in advance
through all available means, including flyers and press releases to print and broadcast media. Notice should
be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least one week in advance of any public hearing.
When appropriate, notices should announce the availability of relevant draft documents on request.
(x) All meetings and hearings to which the public is invited should be free and open. At hearings all
persons desiring to speak should be allowed to do so, consistent with time constraints.
(xi) Consideration of and response to public comments. All comments and recommendations of the public
should be reviewed. Adequate time should be provided between the time of any public hearing and the date
of adoption of all or any part of the comprehensive plan to evaluate and respond to public comments. The
proceedings and all public hearings should be recorded. A summary of public comments and an explanation
of what action was taken in response to them should be made in writing and included in the record of
adoption of the plan.
(xii) Every effort should made to incorporate public involvement efforts into the SEPA process.
(xiii) Except for the visioning effort, the same steps should precede the adoption of development
regulations as was used for the comprehensive plan.
(b) Continuous public involvement. The planning commission should monitor development of both the
plan and the development regulations. After these are adopted, the commission should monitor compliance.
The commission should report to the city or county at least annually on possible amendments to the plan or
development regulations. In addition at least annually, the commission should convene a public meeting to
provide information on how implementation is progressing and to receive public input on changes that may
be needed. When any amendments are proposed for adoption, the same public hearing procedure should
be followed as attended initial adoption.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 36.70A.190 (4)(b). 92 -23 -065, § 365 - 195 -600, filed 11/17/92, effective 12/18/92.)
WAC 365- 195 -325 Transportation element. (1) Requirements. This element shall contain at least
the following subelements:
(a) Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
(b) Facilities and services needs, including:
(i) An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit
alignments, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning;
(ii) Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge
performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated;
(iii) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are
below an established level of service standard;
(iv) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide
information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth;
(v) Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet
current and future demands;
(c) Finance, including:
(i) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources;
(ii) A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the
appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six -year street, road, or transit program
required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public
transportation systems;
(iii) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional
funding will be raised or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service
standards will be met;
(d) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the
transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions;
(e) Demand - management strategies.
(2) Recommendations for meeting requirements. The following steps are recommended in
preparing the transportation element:
(i) Roadways;
(ii) Transit: Fixed route and demand response;
(iii) Nonmotorized travel: Bicycle and pedestrian;
Page 1 of 4
(a) Local and regional transportation goals and policies for the following transportation modes, where
applicable:
Mt A (''0%711Z CO%7(10 /_1(17TTT R/\aI A rol: 11F,So/7f)_1 Qco/7( /. 4/1LI nfA
Page 2 of 4
(iv) Port and intermodal facilities: Water, rail, air, and industrial;
(v) Rail: Passenger and freight;
(vi) Freight mobility: Truck, rail, and barge.
(b) A discussion of how the transportation element implements the land use element, how the
transportation and land use elements are consistent, and how the transportation element is consistent
with the regional transportation plan. Discussion concerning regional development strategies which
promote the regional transportation plan and an efficient transportation system should be included.
(c) Inventories, incorporating the level of detail appropriate for the planning jurisdiction:
(i) Air transportation facilities inventory can include but not necessarily be limited to: A description
of the services provided by the facilities and location of the air transportation facilities; a capacity
analysis to compare current and projected airport needs; a capacity analysis of roads, rail, and
navigational routes to assess freight and passenger access to airport facilities. Consideration of the
current and projected surrounding land uses should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and
available for projected airport needs.
(ii) Inventory of water transportation can include but not necessarily be limited to:
(A) A description of the ferry service, ownership, a map of the routes, the number of vessels,
frequency of the service, passenger capacity, and vehicle capacity impacting the planning area; a
capacity analysis of ferry service compared to current and projected needs. Consideration of the current
and projected surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and
available for current and projected ferry needs.
(B) A description of the port facilities, service and location of the facilities; an analysis of freight
movement showing the proportion of freight which is moved by rail and by truck to determine access
adequacy. Consideration of the current and projected surrounding land use should be made in terms of
compatibility and availability for current and projected port needs.
(iii) Inventory of land transportation can include but not necessarily be limited to:
(A) A map of arterials and limited access facilities; a description of the general travel market (i.e.,
commuter, tourist, farm to market, etc.) served by the transportation network; traffic volumes, functional
classification, ownership and physical and operational condition. Consideration of current and projected
surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current
and projected transportation needs.
(B) A map of the rail lines and intermodal facilities; a description of ownership, condition, and
identification of whether the rail lines are for passenger and/or freight movement. Consideration of
current and projected surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and
available for current and future projected land transportation needs.
(iv) Inventory of transit facilities and services within the planning area can include but not
necessarily be limited to, a description of the service, service area, routes, major transfer centers,
population base, passengers carried, number of vehicles including seating capacity, miles of route and
vehicle hours within the local jurisdiction's boundaries. Analysis of projected transit needs should be
/IV A r•o/ 7( 1 Z PRY 4ro/')(11K 5o/7(L195 /1(1o/ 9 /1d /')(Nl(
made based on projected land use assumptions. For example, transit improvements should be planned in
areas of projected residential and/or employment centers. Consideration of current and projected
surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current
and projected transit needs.
Page 3 of 4
(d) If the planning area is within a National Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainment area,
compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is required. The following should be included
in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan as applicable to locally generated mobile
sources of pollutants: A map of the area designated as the nonattainment area for ozone, carbon
monoxide, and particulate matter (PM 10); a discussion of the severity of the violation(s) contributed by
transportation- related sources causing nonattainment and a description of measures that will be
implemented consistent with the state implementation plan for air quality, in order to comply with the
national standards for the air, land, water, and transit sections of the transportation element. Local
jurisdictions should refer to local air quality agencies and metropolitan planning organizations for
assistance.
(e) Provide a definition of the level of service (LOS) to be adopted for the transportation system that
includes at least arterials and transit routes. The definition of level of service is not restricted to the
traditional Highway Capacity Manual approach, but could include district, area -wide, corridor, or other
nontraditional level of service standards. Provide an inventory of the current level of service of at least
arterial and transit routes. Adopted level of service standards should reflect access, mobility, mode - split,
or capacity goals for the transportation facility depending upon the surrounding development density
and community goals, and should be developed in consultation with transit agencies serving the
planning area.
(f) System expansion needs should include considerations for: Repair, replacement, or enhancement,
and/or expansion.
(g) Transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM)
implementation measures can include, but not necessarily be limited to: Signal coordination,
channelization, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, ridesharing, trip substitution, trip shifting,
increased public transportation, parking policies and high occupancy subsidy programs. Provision
should be made for evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies, and funding sources should be
identified.
(h) The finance subelement should include, but not necessarily be limited to:
(i) Results of the identification study of current and projected deficiencies;
(ii) Development of cost estimates to alleviate deficiencies;
(iii) Assessment of revenue forecasts /shortfalls;
(iv) Development of financing policies; and
(v) Development of a financing schedule which matches projects and funding availability.
If sufficient public and/or private funding cannot be found, land use assumptions will be reassessed
to ensure that level of service standards will be met, or level of service standards will be adjusted.
(i) Intergovernmental coordination.
Page 1 of 2
i) Jurisdictions should assess the impacts of their transportation and land use decisions on adjacent
jurisdictions. Impacts of those decisions should be identified and discussion of strategies to address
inconsistencies should be included.
(A) A discussion of how the local transportation and land use goals relate to adjacent jurisdictions'
transportation and land use goals, county -wide policies, regional land use and transportation strategies,
and statewide goals outlined in the act.
(B) Local jurisdictions should refer to the Washington state transportation policy plan for guidance
on statewide transportation policy.
(C) Local jurisdictions should refer to the regional transportation plan produced by the regional
transportation planning organization for guidance concerning the designated regional transportation
system. Local jurisdictions should also define their community's role in the regional transportation and
land use strategy and produce transportation and land use plans, and development regulations which
promote that role.
(D) Local jurisdictions should refer to the responsible transportation agencies for information
concerning current and projected plans for air, land, and water transportation facilities and services.
Local jurisdictions and agencies responsible for air, land, and water transportation facilities and services
should cooperate in identifying and resolving land use and transportation linkage issues.
(ii) All transportation projects which have an impact on the regional transportation system must be
consistent with the regional transportation plan as defined by RCW 47.80.030. A regional transportation
planning organization shall certify that the transportation elements of the adopted county, city, and town
comprehensive plans within the region conform with RCW 36.70A.070. Regional transportation plans,
state transportation plans, and county and city comprehensive plans shall be consistent with one another.
(iii) Traffic forecasts should be based on adopted regional growth strategies, the regional
transportation plan, and comprehensive plans within the region to ensure consistency between
jurisdictions. The forecast of at least ten years of travel demand should include vehicular, transit, and
nonmotorized modes of transportation.
(iv) The state department of transportation and the transportation commission will develop a state
transportation plan as required by RCW 47.01.071, and identify and jointly plan improvements and
strategies within corridors of regional or statewide significance coordinated and consistent with the
RTPO's.
Local jurisdictions should refer to the Systems Plan produced by the department of transportation for
service objectives on state -owned transportation facilities, proposed improvements, and identification of
deficiencies for the state -owned transportation facilities.
The department of transportation should be involved with the regionally coordinated effort to set
level of service standards for arterials and transit routes.
(v) Key coordination efforts between interested public, private, and citizen groups should include:
Transportation plan development; identification of needs; land use coordination; capital program
development; prioritization of projects, financial plan, LOS standards development; capacity accounting
procedures; development review process; timing of concurrency review; analysis methods; legal
requirements (vesting, appeals); concurrency management system ordinance; LOS monitoring.
Fr 7 • rni nnn /rn, /'1(1TTTT T" MIT A ('O /'1(1^2 C 0/7!1 1(lco /')(10% C1Md /'>nnV
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
February 12, 2007 7:00 p.m.
Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council President, Verna Griffin, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
OFFICIALS
Present were Verna Griffin, Council President, Councilmembers Joe Duffle, Joan
Hernandez, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton, and Pam Linder.
Councilmember Robertson was not in attendance.
ATTENDANCE
Steve Mullet, Mayor; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator; Dave Haynes, Police Chief;
Nick Olivas, Fire Chief; Jim Morrow, Public Works Director; Jack Pace, Community
Development Deputy Director; Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner; Katherine Kertzman,
Tourism Manager; Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Manager; Christy O'Flaherty,
Deputy City Clerk.
a. Results of ESL Summit - Bonnie Olson, Emerging Design Consultants
Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Manager, indicated diversity in Tukwila has changed
since the inception of the Human Services Program in the 1990s. In 2006 the decision was
made to bring together representatives from providers and stakeholders who were
involved in ESL (English as a Second Language) and literacy. The goal was to look at the
overall landscape of needs and available services to determine where gaps might exist and
to ensure the dollars being utilized are maximized to the fullest extent. Bonnie Olson with
Emerging Design Consultants was hired to review the challenges and to identify possible
gaps in the system and determine if enhancements were necessary.
Ms. Olson referenced the spreadsheet on ESL and literacy services and the summary
document from the Community Planning Summit that had been distributed to the Council.
She discussed the key points from the summary to include the need to serve whole
families; increasing ESL classes, primarily 2nd and 3rd stage courses; expanding
collaborations and access to services; focusing on self - sufficiency; and monitoring
changes in the larger system to mitigate unexpected events (such as senior citizens losing
benefits due to lack of citizenship).
Ms. Boykan conveyed that, based on recommendations coming out of the summit, the
Human Services Advisory Board suggested funding in two different directions. One
partnership involves working with the organization, Para Los Ninos, in that they provide a
whole family approach. They offer programs for young children and early learning that
include a childcare component. This organization has also partnered with Highline
Community College in providing local services. The other agency recommended by the
Board is Literacy Source which provided on -site ESL services at a local apartment
complex that was very well received. This organization also provides basic education in
civics and citizenship.
The Councilmembers offered comments about the Human Services program and asked
questions of Ms. Boykan and Ms. Olson. They thanked them both for their work in the
Tukwila community and for the informative presentation.
b. 2006 Chamber of Commerce Report - Nancy Damon, President
Nancy Damon, President of the Chamber of Commerce, provided packets for distribution
to the Council. She discussed the 2006 achievements and milestones of the Chamber to
include active participation in regional transportation issues; welcoming of Des Moines
businesses to the Chamber; partnering with King County on economic development
issues; creation of the "E" (email) Newsletter and weekly bulletin; attendance at Valley
Cities meetings; presentation of the ACE Award to the Tukwila Costco as an outstanding
business; and involvement in various activities such as the Independence Day Parade, IRS
Business Fair, Highway 99 barbecue and a multitude of ribbon cuttings and open house
events.
The Councilmembers thanked Ms. Damon for the informational update on Chamber of
Commerce activities as well as her contribution to the City.
CITIZEN COMMENT
Linda Smith, Seattle Jaycees Bingo, 11030 East Marginal Way South, thanked the City
Council and Mayor for the waiver of gambling taxes. Ms. Smith extended an invitation to
any interested parties to an event on February 16, 2007 at 7:30 pm at the Seattle Jaycee
Bingo Hall. Information will be provided regarding grant money that is available to non-
profit organizations in Tukwila. The Jaycees also offer scholarship opportunities to high
school students based on leadership and community service. She conveyed the Jaycees
hope to get the word out in the community and see high attendance at the event.
SPECIAL ISSUES
a. Contract with Encore Media West for a Seattle Southside advertisement in the
2007 Washington State Visitors' Guide
Councilmember Haggerton indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety
Committee meeting on February 5, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
The Tukwila Lodging Tax Advisory Committee recommended the Mayor sign a contract
with Encore Media West for a Seattle Southside full back -page, 4 -color ad in the 2007
Washington State Visitors' Guide in the amount of $31,873. This is part of the 2007
budgeted Media Plan.
Councilmember Carter asked if, in the future, this could come before the Council earlier
to allow a more timely authorization process. Katherine Kertzman, Tourism Manager,
indicated her office will be starting in July of this year to allow for the planning and
approval process.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
b. Resolution declaring a fire truck and related equipment surplus and authorizing
their donation
Councilmember Haggerton indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety
Committee meeting on February 5, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
Sea -Tac Occupational Skills Center has requested that the Fire Department donate surplus
firehose, nozzles, miscellaneous equipment and a surplus 1986 International Pumper to
the firefighter program for high school students. The value of the equipment and pumper
is estimated to be approximately $7,500.
Councilmember Carter relayed that Fife should be added to the list of cities served by the
Occupational Skills Center noted in the fourth WHEREAS of the draft resolution.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
c. Water District 125 Infrastructure Transfer Agreement
Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Utilities Committee
meeting on January 17, 2007 and February 6, 2007. The committee members were
unanimous in recommending approval.
This interlocal agreement will transfer infrastructure, including pipes, meters, services,
valves, and hydrants from Water District 125 to Tukwila. The boundaries include the
Foster Point area and the Interurban area along I -5. Service will be provided to 96
customers in these areas with the exception of Baker Commodities, which will remain
with Water District 125. The cost of the infrastructure has been assessed at $243,641. The
citizens in these areas are already served by Tukwila sewer, and the process of adding
water service to the bills is expected to be a smooth transition. After purchase by the City,
approval from Cascade Water Alliance and Seattle Public Utilities will be needed, and
then customers will be transferred to the City of Tukwila's water district.
Councilmember Carter referenced Sections 2.03 and 2.05 of the proposed interlocal
agreement and requested clarification as to whether there was a difference in the handling
of the Interurban area and the Foster Point area. Jim Morrow, Public Works Director,
indicated any differences involve clarification with regard to the maintenance of the water
lines until the transfer process is complete.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
d. Resolution declaring an emergency in response to erosion damage on 35th Avenue
South
Councilmember Carter indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee
meeting on February 12, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
City maintenance crews discovered a large sinkhole on 35th Avenue South just south of
South 128th Street. The sinkhole resulted from a failed 18" storm water pipe beneath the
roadway that conveys Riverton creek. The hole is approximately 6' deep, and there is an
exposed sewer pipe and gas main visible that requires immediate repair. This resolution
will declare an emergency and allow staff to immediately enter into a construction
contract (waiving the competitive bidding requirement) per RCW 39.04.280.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
e. Contract with R. L. Alia Company for 35th Avenue South emergency erosion
repair
Councilmember Carter indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee
meeting on February 12, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
The sink hole discovered by city crews on 35th Avenue South as described in Item d
above requires immediate repair. The small works roster was used to solicit bids, and
three quotes were received with the lowest quote from R. L. Alia Company in the amount
of $41,458.24. This contractor is currently working on other projects in the City and has a
good reputation.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
f. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, provided a briefing on the review process for two proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments. This issue will be forwarded to the regular council
meeting on March 5, 2007 for a public meeting. The Council will then decide which items
to forward to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation.
The following four criteria are utilized in reviewing and evaluating Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not
adequately addressed, is there a need for it?
2. Impacts
3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need?
What other options are there for meeting the identified public need?
4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what
result can be expected and why?
Proposed amendments received from the public and the City are reviewed and adopted
once each year unless there is an emergency. Two applications were submitted by the
December 31, 2006 deadline as follows:
1. Transit Center - Modify Wording. Applicant: Tukwila Department of Community
Development. The proposal seeks to modify an existing policy to incorporate
current information. The current policy states that a future Transit Center should
be sited on Andover Park East between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard;
the proposed wording allows somewhat greater flexibility in selecting a location
for the future Transit Center. The amendment was requested by the City Attorney
and developed in conjunction with the City Attorney and the Public Works
Department.
2. Bonsai Northwest - Regional Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density
Residential (LDR) at South 144th and 51st Avenue South. Applicant: John Muth.
The applicant seeks to redesignate approximately .63 acres of a 1.35 acre site from
commercial (RCC) to single - family residential (LDR). The property is vacant
nursery property adjacent to and associated with the Bonsai Northwest nursery
property.
Councilmember Hernandez conveyed that in the past it was considered unacceptable to
drive by properties under consideration and asked for clarification on this issue.
Jack Pace, Community Development Deputy Director, indicated this is a legislative matter
and not a quasi-judicial issue, and driving by the site would be acceptable.
Ms. Fox asked that the Councilmembers bring their notebooks to the March 5, 2007
meeting when this issue will be back before the Council.
REPORTS
a. Mayor
8:36 p.m. (occurred after Council reports)
Mayor Mullet reported that a solution to securing funding for undergrounding on Tukwila
International Boulevard has not been found. It may be determined that the City will go out
to bid for the entire project and include the undergrounding portion as an additive
alternate.
The Mayor reminded the Council of the impending visit from the citizens of Miyoshi,
Japan. There will be a Sister City business meeting on February 19, 2007 at Gordy's
restaurant to discuss the future of the exchange program. There will also be a presentation
honoring the visitors at the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting. Any speeches should
be provided ahead of time to Bev Willison in the Mayor's Office, so they can be translated
into Japanese. A short reception with refreshments will be a part of the meeting as well.
Mayor Mullet also conveyed there will be a visit from Russian citizens in late March,
2007. They are interested in learning about retail development matters and will be
involved in eight days of intense seminar related activities. The Tukwila Rotary Club is
overseeing the event, and host families are still needed for some of the visitors.
The Mayor will be attending the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) event this
week in Olympia involving interaction with Tukwila's legislators and senators.
b. Council
8:17 p.m.
Councilmember Hernandez attended the February 6, 2007 Government Affairs Committee
meeting. Jim Morrow, Tukwila Public Works Director, gave a presentation on emergency
management that was very well received, and he was invited back. Ms. Hernandez also
attended the February 7, 2007 AWC Workshop on "Leading High Impact Change - The
Art of Effective Influencing." She also attended the February 9, 2007 Chamber of
Commerce luncheon meeting.
Councilmember Carter also attended the February 7, 2007 AWC Workshop and the
February 8, 2007 Transportation Policy Board meeting. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) corridor study was a topic at the meeting, and the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) website has additional information on the issue. Ms. Carter also attended the
Destination 2030 workgroup meeting on February 8, 2007. An issue of discussion was
Senate Bill 5803 involving transportation issues that was found to be contradictory and
poorly written. Another bill may be written to clarify the issues and provide better
alternatives. Councilmember Carter will also be attending the Association of Washington
Cities (AWC) event this week in Olympia involving interaction with Tukwila's legislators
and senators.
Councilmember Haggerton attended the February 6, 2007 Government Affairs Committee
meeting and commented on the positive response to Mr. Morrow's presentation. He also
attended the February 8, 2007 event celebrating the 10th birthday of the Tukwila
Community Center. He conveyed that the Tukwila American Legion Post is seeking
suggestions on ways to improve the Veterans' Memorial at the Community Center. Mr.
Haggerton met with members of the School District on February 12, 2007 regarding
upcoming telecommunications issues.
Councilmember Linder also attended the February 7, 2007 AWC Workshop on "Leading
High Impact Change - The Art of Effective Influencing."
Council President Griffin reported that Diane Jenkins, Council Assistant, has resigned
with her last day being February 22, 2007. Efforts are being made to advertise the position
as soon as possible. Council President Griffin conveyed that due to the issues relative to
work hours and comp time accumulation, it has been suggested the position be upgraded
to Legislative Analyst. The broadness of the classification would allow the functions
previously agreed upon by the Council to be included under "Essential Duties,"
"Minimum Qualifications," and "Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities." Council consensus
existed to upgrade the position to Legislative Analyst.
Discussion ensued among the Councilmembers regarding the hiring process and it was
determined that the Council would be provided a copy of the advertisement prior to
publication; review of the full application packets would be available to the
Councilmembers through the Personnel Division; staff from the Mayor's Office, Personnel
Division, and the Council President would interview 5 to 7 applicants; and the top 2 to 3
finalists would be interviewed by the full Council for a final decision.
Comments were exchanged regarding the need for further discussion about the fine points
of the necessary job duties. Council President Griffin indicated there would be time for
additional discussion between now and the time the position is filled.
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, indicated the hiring process typically takes
approximately six weeks. She also relayed that the Personnel Division will be contacted
regarding hiring a temporary staff person until the process is complete.
c. Staff
There was no report.
d. City Attorney
The City Attorney was not present.
e. Intergovernmental
There was no report.
MISCELLANEOUS
There were no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
9:07 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GRIFFIN DECLARED THE COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURNED.
Return to Home
02/26/2007 15:30 FAX
0 002/003
TO: File
FROM: Cyndy Knighton
DATE: October 22, 2004
RE: TUC Transit Center Location
Coordination with Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Project
This memo summarizes the discussion and thought processes behind decisions made surrounding
the location of a future transit center on Andover Park East near Baker Boulevard as related to
the 700,000sf expansion of the Mall.
As part of the Mall's expansion, a parking variance is being requested for up to 10% of the
required parking. This equates to an approximately 700 parking stall reduction. As part of the
negotiations with granting this reduction, improvements to transit facilities are being requested
by the City.
King County Metro was invited to share their needs and preferences. Metro staff expressed a
strong preference for far -side stops. Further, Metro staff preferred keeping the existing location
of the transit stop (Andover Park E, south of Baker Boulevard, west side of the street only) for
the long term. This benefits their lay -over site on Tukwila Parkway between Andover Park E
and Andover Park W. Metro is supportive of a stop on the east side, of Andover Park W, again,
preferring a far -side location to that of a near -side one.
The property on the east side of Andover Park W, immediately north of Baker Boulevard
(commonly called the Fatigue site) is under new ownership and redevelopment is expected at any
time. With this site 'in play,' obtaining ROW for street widening as well as additional ROW or
easements for transit improvements becomes easier. The property immediately south of Baker
Boulevard, known as the Acura Dealership, is not expected to be redeveloped in the near or mid
term.
The I -405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit project recently presented findings
surrounding the expected needs and service information for the BRT portion. Those findings
showed the Southcenter area, in particular the Mall, as the terminus of one route. The nature of
BRT is more similar to rail and therefore facility needs are closer to those of a rail (light or
heavy) station than of traditional bus transit. To wit, the future BRT stop is envisioned to be a
strong focal point, with stops across from each other. In this instance, the stops are configured in
a northbound near -side, southbound far -side configuration on Andover Park W, south of Baker
Boulevard. BRT is a long -range plan at this time, but consideration was given to find ways to
accommodate, if possible. The BRT report showed a potential need for 3 "bays" at the stops.
However, city staff, on the recommendation of the consultant preparing the forthcoming Transit
Network Plan, is comfortable in future transit volumes being accommodated by 2 "bays" if a
comparable northbound stop is in place.
Staff put on the table the possibility of creating a strong transit focal point, much like the needs
for BRT, using the transit station for "place making." This idea blended well with the Tukwila
Urban Center plan and the Transit Plan. The consultant preparing the Transit Plan weighed in on
this issue and communications to that effect are attached. Three possible options were discussed:
1) creating the focal point on the south side of Baker Boulevard utilizing the existing stops and
5
coo
O
ger
M
to
G
N
nT
..4
D
cs
NOTIFICATION:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONE DESIGNATION:
STAFF:
Rf
Depa i t of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE
CITY COUNCIL
February 12, 2007
Notice published in the Seattle Times, 2/22/07
L06-093 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Revise Comprehensive Plan policy wording for siting of
transit center in Tukwila Urban Center
Tukwila Urban Center
Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
Rebecca Fox
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
A I I ACHMENT 2
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
1 02/06/2007
6300 Southceriter itlatV117011,r, War:agtorii"91AP Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
DISCUSSION
The City of Tukwila Public Works Department proposes update wording of existing
Transportation Element Policy 13.4.8 in order better reflect transit system and Transit
Center analysis, and to expand options for siting a Transit Center.
The existing wording is the following:
13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on
Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
The proposed wording broadens possible siting locations as follows, with changes
highlighted:
13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Wesffield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center and
related amenities on or near Andover Park West : - :: :: • .
FINDINGS
CCStaffReptTransitCtr#L06- 093-- 42- 2.12.07.doc
This policy change is proposed in order to provide more flexibility in selecting a location
for the Transit Center. This change will enable the analysis contained in the Tukwila
Transit Plan (4/05), and competing issues raised by property owners, Metro Transit and
the City of Tukwila to be more fully addressed in the siting decision.
BACKGROUND
Project History
The vision for the Tukwila Urban Center foresees a vibrant high- density area with
regional employment, areas of high quality housing in concert with water amenities,
excellent retail and recreational opportunities for business people, residents and shoppers.
High quality transit and pedestrian facilities are a vital part of this vision.
The Tukwila Transit Center project will replace existing, inadequate transit stops located
near the intersection of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard with an expanded,
improved Transit Center to accommodate current and future passenger demands. It will
be a first step towards implementing the future that is envisioned for the Tukwila Urban
Center. It is intended to set the standard for quality redevelopment and serve as a catalyst
for the implementation of the larger vision. The Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05) analyzes
the future Transit Center and possible locations_
Vicinity /Site Information
Land uses immediately adjacent to the portion of possible Transit Center locations are :
North — Commercial/Retail
South— Commercial/Retail
East— Westfield Southcenter Mall
West— Commercial, Andover Park West
Rf 2 02/06/2007
Q: \CLOMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \CCStaffReptTransitCtr #L06 - 093- 42-- 2.12.07.doc
CCStaffReptl ransitCtr#L06- 093-- #2-- 2.12.07.doc
Land uses between 500 and 1,000 feet from the site include the following:
North -- Commercial, Tukwila Parkway, I -405
South-- Commercial/Retail
East — Westfield Southcenter Mall
West — Commercial
THRESHOLD REVIEW CRITERIA
1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is
not adequately addressed, is there a need for it?
Through several policies and their implementation strategies, Tukwila's Comprehensive
Plan addresses the need for good transit service and, by extension, the Transit Center in
the Tukwila Urban Center Element. These include:
Tukwila Urban Center -- Policy 10.1.1 Recognize the Tukwila Urban Center as a regional
commercial/industrial area, with opportunities for residential development served by a
balance of auto, pedestrian and transit facilities.
Implementation Strategy
• Coordinate land use with City facility improvements, for transportation facilities
such as transit facilities and structured parking easily accessed by service streets
and from freeways
Tukwila Urban Center - -Goal 10.3 Transportation and Circulation
A balanced transportation network that complements the Tukwila Urban Center land use
and design policies and provides access for all transportation modes, to, from, and within
the center.
Tukwila Urban Center -- Policy 10.3.1. Regional Access. Promote transportation and
transit services and facilities, as well as traffic management systems that increase and
improve access to and from the Tukwila Urban Center for all transportation modes;
encourage a range of solutions, including but not limited to local circulator systems,
regional - serving park -n -ride sites, connections to regional rail alignments, and regional
and local high - occupancy vehicle systems.
Implementation Strategy
• Develop, in conjunction with appropriate transit providers, transit facilities and
routes in the Tukwila Urban Center
Transportation -- Policy 13.4.8 addresses developing and locating a transit center as
follows:
"Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on
Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
Rf 3 02/06/2007
Q:ICOMP PLAN AMI ND 2006- 20071CCStafrReptTransitCtr#L06- 093— #2- 2.12.07.doc
CCStaffReptTransitCtr#L06 -09 ;-- #2- 2.12.07.doc
The Tukwila Transit Center will be integrated with the future redevelopment of the
Tukwila Urban Center Core, to the east, and is a necessary component of meeting travel
demand management requirements for the Tukwila Urban Center as a whole. The
proposed change is needed since the current wording is unnecessarily restricts the location
and choice of potential sites for the future Transit Center.
2) Impacts
The proposed amendment expands the geographic range of possible locations for the
future Transit Center. Per the proposed amendment, the future Transit Center could be
located in the Tukwila Urban Center in the general vicinity of Westfield Southcenter Mali,
rather than being specifically limited to the area between Baker Boulevard and Strander
Boulevard on Andover Park East. This means that any impacts associated with
constructing the Transit Center, and the resulting bus and pedestrian travel and traffic
might be felt in a slightly different location in the TUC. Building an improved Transit
Center would address the deficiencies of the existing transit stops and provide improved
service to the Tukwila Urban Center, including the Westfield Southcenter Mall.
3) Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need?
What other options are there for meeting the identified public need?
The proposed change broadens the geographic range of locations for consideration as sites
for the future Transit Center, and clarifies the intent of the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05). It
would also allow a fuller discussion of issues that are being raised by the City of Tukwila,
property owners and Metro Transit.
Other possible options would be to:
• extend the siting options to include an even broader geographic range, such as the
northern portion of the Tukwila Urban Center
• broaden the discussion to refer to all pedestrian- friendly transit facilities, rather
than exclusively the Transit Center
• leave the wording unchanged.
4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what
result can be expected and why?
The proposed change will benefit the community by allowing a fuller discussion of
potential sites, with the likely result that a better site will be chosen. The Tukwila Transit
Center is critical to the future growth and urban development in the Tukwila Urban
Center, and offers the community significant benefits. Replacing the existing, inadequate
transit stops by siting an expanded, high quality Transit Center will:
1) help create a long -term solution to the need for high - quality, high- capacity transit
facilities as a part of a more balanced multimodal transportation system;
2) offer access to jobs and increased mobility for all transit patrons, including minority,
low - income, transit dependent and "choice" riders;
3) substantially improve pedestrian safety by providing crossing improvements and
reconfiguring the stop locations to reduce the incentives to jaywalk;
RI" 4 02/06/2007
Q: COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 2007\C CtitaffReptTransitCtr#L06- 093-- #2-- 2.12.07.doc
CCStaffR: ptTransitCtr#L06- 093-- #2-- 2.12.07.doc
4) reduce crime and fear of crime through improved lighting and other measures;
5) encourage transit riders and others to make trips by foot and by bicycle.
CONCLUSIONS
As currently worded, Policy 13.4.8 overly limits the geographic area that can be
considered as a site for the future Transit Center. It does not take the findings of the
Tukwila Transit Plan into account since that study was completed after the policy was
adopted.
Recommendation
Staff recommends forwarding the application to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Alternatives for Action
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following:
• Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review;
• Modify-the proposal and refer it to the Planning Commission for further review
• Defer consideration until a late time;
• Reject the proposal
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could:
• Recommend approval;
• Modify the proposal
• Recommend denial
After Planning Commission review, the proposal will return to the City Council for a
public hearing and decision.
Rf 5 02/06/20117
Q;ICOMP PLAN AMEND 2006-20071CCSta ffReptTran:, itCtr#L06- 093— #2-- 2.12.07.doc
Q \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006-2007 \ TransitCenter.doc
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us
rtL.,,v a .
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT— "TRANSIT CENTER" SITING CRITERIA
LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement).
COMMUNITY
DEV LOPM t T OMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
AMENDMENTS
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and
subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection.
Tukwila Urban Center, generally on or near Andover Park West
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR :
The individual who:
• has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff,
• has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping
development standards, and
• is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
Name: Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner/Department of Community Development
Address: City of Tukwila
Phone: 206 - 431 -3683
E -mail: rfox @ci.tukwila.wa..
Signature: fx -� -- r '' Date:
December 27, 2006
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P-CPA
Planner: Rebecca Fox
File Number: #L06 -093
Application Complete
(Date:
)
Project File Number:
Application Incomplete
(Date:
)
Other File Numbers:
Q \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006-2007 \ TransitCenter.doc
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us
rtL.,,v a .
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT— "TRANSIT CENTER" SITING CRITERIA
LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement).
COMMUNITY
DEV LOPM t T OMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
AMENDMENTS
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and
subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection.
Tukwila Urban Center, generally on or near Andover Park West
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR :
The individual who:
• has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff,
• has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping
development standards, and
• is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
Name: Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner/Department of Community Development
Address: City of Tukwila
Phone: 206 - 431 -3683
E -mail: rfox @ci.tukwila.wa..
Signature: fx -� -- r '' Date:
December 27, 2006
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Existing: _ Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
Proposed: Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
B. ZONING DESIGNATION:
Existing: Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
Proposed: _Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
C. LAND USE(S):
Existing: N/A
Proposed: N/A
(for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones)
D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for
which a change is proposed.
West — Westfield Mall, other retail, service (Post Office)
North — Vacant land, bowling facility, retail shops
South — Automotive dealership
East —Office, retail
Q \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \TransitCenter.doc December q, 2006
This change is proposed in order to reflect more fully the analysis in the Tukwila Transit
Plan (4/05) and the recommendations of the Tukwila Transit Center Final Draft Design
Report (12/06). It will allow a siting decision to be made with fuller discussion of these
findings. The policy change will add flexibility to the siting discussion in the Tukwila
Transit Plan by expanding the geographic area that can be considered as a location for the
future Transit Center, and to allow for more thoughtful placement.
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the
geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change;
Per the proposed amendment, the future Transit Center could be located in the Tukwila
Urban Center in the general vicinity of Westfield Southcenter Mall, rather than being
restricted to the area between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard on Andover Park
East. As stated above, the changed wording would enable a siting decision to take into
account analysis in the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05) and the recommendations of the
Tukwila Transit Center Final Draft Design Report (12/06). The Transit Center will
provide improved service to the Tukwila Urban Center, including the Westfield
Southcenter Mall.
3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development
regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific; cite
policy numbers and code sections that apply!)
The Tukwila Transit Plan 6v.75 -79) calls for a Tukwila Transit Center, and describes
potential siting considerations and locations. Policy 13.4.8 is currently overly restrictive
and should be revised to accommodate a broader discussion of potential sites.
4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes
the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act;
RCW 36.70 A.070 (6) requires a Transportation element that is consistent with the Land
Use element of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable
Countywide Planning Policies;
LU-41 Jurisdictions which contain Urban Centers, in conjunction with METRO, shall
identify transit station areas and rights -of -way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas
shall be sited so that all portions of the Urban Center are within walking distance (one-
half- mile) of a station.
This policy states that transit stations (and by extension, transit centers) shall be sited so
that they serve the Urban Center.
Rf 3
Q:ICOMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 20071Transitcentercriteria.doc
12/27/2006
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.050)
Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of
your property or a change in existing Plan policies:
1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is
not adequately addressed, is there a need for the proposed change?
Through several policies and their implementation strategies, Tukwila's Comprehensive
Plan addresses the need for good transit service and, by extension, the Transit Center in
the Tukwila Urban Center Element. These include:
10.1.1 Recognize the Tukwila Urban Center as a regional commercial/industrial area,
with opportunities for residential development served by a balance of auto, pedestrian and
transit facilities.
Implementation Strategy
• Coordinate land use with City facility improvements, for transportation facilities
such as transit facilities and structured parking easily accessed by service streets
and from freeways
Goal 10.3 Transportation and Circulation
A balanced transportation network that complements the Tukwila Urban Center land use
and design policies and provides access for all transportation modes, to, from, and within
the center.
10.3.1. Regional Access. Promote transportation and transit services and facilities, as
well as traffic management systems that increase and improve access to and from
the Tukwila Urban Center for all transportation modes; encourage a range of
solutions, including but not limited to local circulator systems, regional- serving
park -n -ride sites, connections to regional rail alignments, and regional and local
high- occupancy vehicle systems.
Implementation Strategy
• Develop, in conjunction with appropriate transit providers, transit facilities and
routes in the Tukwila Urban Center
Policy 13.4.8 addresses developing and locating a transit center as follows:
"Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on
Adover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
The Tukwila Transit Center will be integrated with the future redevelopment of the
Tukwila Urban Center Core, to the east, and is a necessary component of meeting travel
demand management requirements for the Tukwila Urban Center as a whole. The
proposed change is needed since the current wording is unnecessarily restricts the
location and choice of potential sites for the future Transit Center.
Rf 1 12/27/2006
Q:ICOMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 20071Transitcentercriteria.doc
2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public
need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need?
The proposed change broadens the geographic range of locations for consideration as sites
for the future Transit Center, and clarifies the intent of the Tukwila Transit Plan (April,
2005). It also implements the recommendations of the Tukwila Transit Center Final Draft
Design Report (December, 2006).
3. Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not,
what type of benefit can be expected and why?
The proposed change will benefit the community by allowing a fuller discussion of
potential sites, with the likely result that a better site will be chosen. The Tukwila Transit
Center is critical to the future growth and urban development in the Tukwila Urban
Center, and offers the community significant benefits. Replacing the existing, inadequate
transit stops by siting an expanded, high quality Transit Center will:
1) help create a long -term solution to the need for high - quality, high - capacity transit
facilities as a part of a more balanced multimodal transportation system;
2) offer access to jobs and increased mobility for all transit patrons, including minority,
low - income, transit dependent and "choice" riders;
3) substantially improve pedestrian safety by providing crossing improvements and
reconfiguring the stop locations to reduce the incentives to jaywalk;
4) reduce crime and fear of crime through improved lighting and other measures;
5) encourage transit riders and others to make trips by foot and by bicycle.
B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.010)
1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why;
The City of Tukwila Public Works Department proposes to change the wording of existing
Transportation Element Policy 13.4.8 in order expand the geographic area that can be
considered in siting a Transit Center. The existing wording is the following:
"Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on
Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
The current wording is quite limiting. The proposed wording revised wording broadens
possible siting locations as follows:
"Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center and
related amenities on or near Andover Park West.
Rf 2
Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 2007\Transitcentercriteria.doc
12/27/2006
This change is proposed in order to reflect more fully the analysis in the Tukwila Transit
Plan (4/05) and the recommendations of the Tukwila Transit Center Final Draft Design
Report (12/06). It will allow a siting decision to be made with fuller discussion of these
findings. The policy change will add flexibility to the siting discussion in the Tukwila
Transit Plan by expanding the geographic area that can be considered as a location for the
future Transit Center, and to allow for more thoughtful placement.
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the
geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change;
Per the proposed amendment, the future Transit Center could be located in the Tukwila
Urban Center in the general vicinity of Westfield Southcenter Mall, rather than being
restricted to the area between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard on Andover Park
East. As stated above, the changed wording would enable a siting decision to take into
account analysis in the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05) and the recommendations of the
Tukwila Transit Center Final Draft Design Report (12/06). The Transit Center will
provide improved service to the Tukwila Urban Center, including the Westfield
Southcenter Mall.
3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development
regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific; cite
policy numbers and code sections that apply!)
The Tukwila Transit Plan (pp. 75-79) calls for a Tukwila Transit Center, and describes
potential siting considerations and locations. Policy 13.4.8 is currently overly restrictive
and should be revised to accommodate a broader discussion of potential sites.
4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes
the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act;
RCW 36.70 A.070 (6) requires a Transportation element that is consistent with the Land
Use element of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable
Countywide Planning Policies;
LU-41 Jurisdictions which contain Urban Centers, in conjunction with METRO, shall
identify transit station areas and rights -of -way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas
shall be sited so that all portions of the Urban Center are within walking distance (one -
half- mile) of a station.
This policy states that transit stations (and by extension, transit centers) shall be sited so
that they serve the Urban Center.
R1 3 12/27/2006
Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 20071Transitcentercriteria.doc
6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans
(i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the
proposed amendment is adopted;
No changes to functional plans are expected.
7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to
support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the
capital facilities plans of the City;
Any Transit Center site would require additional bays to accommodate bus traffic, as well
as widened sidewalks, sitting areas, plazas and shelters as pedestrian/rider amenities. No
additional or specific capital improvements would be needed to support the proposed
change.
8. A statement of what other changes, if any, is required in other City codes,
plans or regulations to implement the proposed change.
No other code changes are expected.
Rf 4 12/27/2006
Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 2007\Transitcentercriteria.doc
Rebecca Fox - Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Transit Center Page 1
From: Cyndy Knighton
To: Rebecca Fox
Date: 12/05/2006 11:23 am
Subject: Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment -- Transit Center
I won't be in at this time. This email will hopefully suffice for the meeting. :-)
Existing wording:
13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and
surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between
Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard.
Suggested wording:
13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and
surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between
Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard.
Rational:
The limited area between Baker and Strander is more restrictive than the Transit Network Plan. Though
the first recommended site per the Transit Plan would meet that area, the second recommendation, and
future staff recommendation to the Council for approval, won't be within that very narrow location. We
need to update the policy to be more reflective of the detailed transit plan as well as open up our options
for a more thoughtful placement.
Cyndy
»> On 12/5/2006 at 10:58 am, in message <457550F8.A13D.001 F.0 @ci.tukwila.wa.us >,
Rebecca Fox wrote:
> Discuss rationale for proposed amendment. Suggest wording.
>
March 6, 2007
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: Proposed amendment to an existing Comprehensive Plan policy to provide additional
flexibility in locating a future Transit Center in the Tukwila Urban Center.
(File #L06 -093)
The City of Tukwila Planning Commission will consider revising Comprehensive Plan
Policy 13.4.8 to provide additional options to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center and
related amenities on or near Andover Park West, rather than on Andover Park West between
Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard in Tukwila.
The Tukwila Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to give residents and
businesses an opportunity to comment on the proposal.
Public Hearing
Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington
Thursday, March 22, 2007
7 p.m.
After the hearing, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Tukwila
City Council for a hearing and decision. There will be an additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this proposal before the City Council.
Please contact Rebecca Fox, Tukwila Department of Community Development at 206 -431-
3683 or rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions or would like additional information
about this proposal.
The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment from Tukwila's residential and business community.
Comments may be submitted prior to March 22, 2002 via e-mail or via postal mail
addressed to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188.
Rf 1 03/07/2007
Steven M Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southc&i PWILV ,N dW dal 9 70609't (4Pit ll ?,ton 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Christopher Brown (n Associates
9688 rainier Ave. 8.
Seattle, WA 98118 -5981
(206) 722 -1910 Fax (206) 722 -1909
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
The Williamson Law Office
P. 0. Box 99821
Seattle, WA 98139 -0821
Re: The Tukwila Urban Center
Transit Center — Tukwila DCD, File Number L06 -093
Comments in Support of Comprehensive Plan Policy 13.4.8
Dear Mr. Williamson:
I have reviewed the Tukwila Transit Plan (Final Report dated April 2005) by the
consulting engineers Pelted Inc., the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (updated
December 2005), the Appendix to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, Transportation Analysis & recommendations (Draft Report dated September, 2005)
by Mirai Associates, Transportation Planning & Engineering, the PSRC's 2006 FTA
Regional Competition Application, associated documents regarding the Exhibits prepared
by the consulting firms of KPFF, Mirai Associates, Karen Kiest, TresWest and the IBI
Group, used for the Stakeholder Workshop #1 concerning Design Elements, Stop
Locations and the Next Step, the (Cynthia) Knighton Memorandum to Jim Morrow dated
June 23, 2006, various other correspondence and technical reports from city staff and city
consultants, and related design criteria commonly used by the transportation profession
not the least being the standards of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets (2001).
The specific purpose of this review was to determine the appropriateness, the power and
correctness of the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan, Policy 13.4.8, that states, in part,
... to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between
Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. (emphasis added)
You should note this review is with respect to the public health, safety and welfare.
Traffic Engineers 4 Transportation Planners
March 1, 2007
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 2
Stated another way, the precise focus of this review is to ascertain whether or not a transit
"bus -bay" or "pullout" located on east side of Andover Park W., north of Baker
Boulevard, is in the broad public interest. In this regard I also make reference to the
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, Goals and Policies, Goal 13.1 Overall concerning the,
"Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within and through
Tukwila."
As shown below, the first two policies of this Comprehensive Plan section are of special
concern with respect to the following analysis. They concern the optimum location for
what may be called the northbound transit- loading zone on Andover Park W. at Baker
Boulevard, also referred to in various correspondence and reports as a "far- side" loading
zone.
For convenience, these two policies are stated in full, below.
Policy 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous
monitoring program.
Policy 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing
the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are
designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses.
With these policies in mind, there are naturally several items to review and discuss.
First, when discussing transportation efficiency and maximizing traffic movement it may
be realized that in many of the city's documents reviewed in this analysis the location of
a transit- loading zone (TLZ) on the north side of Baker Boulevard, the so called "far -
side- loading" zone is contrasted against a loading zone on the south side of Baker
Boulevard and referred to as a "near- side - loading" TLZ.
When discussing the advantages of a "far- side" TLZ versus a "near- side" TLZ it is
important to recall that they only apply to the typical and commonly found "curb side"
bus stop. (See Traffic Engineering, Theodore Matson, Wilbur Smith and Frederick Hurd,
McGraw -Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1955. Chapter 17, Curb - Parking
Regulations, page 278).
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 3
This is the usual urban or suburban case where the bus stop occupies a curbside traffic
lane which lane also carries vehicular traffic. It is always found in most large cities'
central business district (CBD) where the need for wide sidewalks prohibits the TLZ
from being constructed in a "turnout" or "bus- bay ". Obviously, every time a bus stops in
that traffic lane to load or discharge passengers every vehicle in that lane behind the bus
must also stop as well and wait for it to move. This is naturally inefficient.
With the above understanding it can be seen that a "near- side" TLZ excludes all free right
turns at the intersection, as a case in point. A "near- side" TLZ is thus less efficient since
it interferes with the general traffic stream when a bus is standing there. Conversely, a
"far- side" TLZ does not interfere with free right turns since the bus does its loading on
the far -side of the intersection where it is clear of all free right turning vehicles.
Obviously, this is more efficient.
However, transit loading/discharging facilities that are removed from the general arterial
street traffic stream by means of "turnouts ", "bus- bays" or some other kind of off - street
bus facility cannot interfere with the normal traffic stream operating on the street. Thus,
there is no inefficiency with either the "near- side" or "far- side" TLZ when turnouts or
bus -bays are provided. Basically, to suggest a far -side TLZ is better when transit
facilities are built away from the general traffic lanes is rather misleading. "Near -side
and "far- side" bus turnouts have the same operating efficiency. Access to the adjacent
traffic lanes from a bus turnout is then merely a function of that street's general volume.
Second, and to continue, there are several major operational issues associated with
general street traffic that should also be of concern. Among these are the following.
1. When considering "near- side" versus "far- side" turnouts or bus -bays on the east
side of Andover Park W. at Baker Boulevard, which TLZ has the ability to better
serve future transit needs with adequate bus queuing space?
2. If severe peak hour traffic congestion occurs at the intersection of Tukwila
Parkway and Andover Park W. can a "far- side" TLZ operate at all?
3. With a "far-side" turnout or bus -bay on the east side of Andover Park W. north of
Baker Boulevard and immediately south of the main driveway serving the Acme
Bowling Lanes, restaurant, and related commercial establishments, will there be
adequate entering sight distance (ESD) available to traffic entering Andover Park
W. from that property so that traffic safety will be preserved when a long queue of
buses is occupying the TLZ?
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 4
4. With clear ESD issues associated with the far -side bus turnout on the east side of
Andover Park W. if constructed north of Baker Boulevard what tort liability does
the city and its consultants then carry?
5. Since the far-side bus turnout (for Transit Routes 140 and 150) on the east side of
Andover Park W. at Baker Boulevard must, for capacity purposes, also include a
TLZ on Baker Boulevard (for Transit Routes 128 and 155) how much additional
maintenance cost is imputed by this "split" transit loading operation?
Considering Item 1, above, it may be noted that Final Tukwila Transit Plan, April 2005,
on page 77 under Table 5 -3, at indent Item 1 states,
This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service
increases, (emphasis added) including the BRT. (From Table 3 -1, page 21 of the
Final Tukwila Transit Plan, April 2005, the horizon year transit demand indicates
a weekday peak hour volume of at least 33 buses).
With the far-side loading zone, serving only Transit Routes 140 and 150, the horizon year
demand is estimated to be at least 24 buses per hour. It could be higher. Due to the
shorter length of the loading zone, limited to only 2 buses, any bus queuing will back into
the intersection or require buses to wait at the curb on the south side of the Baker
Boulevard intersection.
In this important traffic operations issue, buses queuing back into the through traffic
stream was brought to the attention of (Cynthia) Knighton in an e-mail from Thomas
Wittmann of the Perteet consulting firm on November 1 2004 (at 2:53 p.m.) when he
stated concerns with current (2004) transit demands. For instance, he states that:
As for the future, I think the need is there today, as I have personally seen 3 buses
in that pull out tail to nose (sic).
The ridership levels at that stop are high, so you've got a fair amount of time of
loading/unloading per bus, so you can't just say that it's a touch and go. There
are times today that this stop is close to the edge of its capacity.
If you add any more additional peak hour buses, you will put this zone over the
edge; you will likely have buses in the travel lane waiting to get into the pull-
out. (Emphasis added)
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 5
This is a tremendously important consideration since it goes to the heart of an adequate
design, a design sufficient to accommodate not just today's bus demands which he notes
are substantial but, more important, the future year's bus demands that will only grow.
And when we talk about a TLZ turnout design we must include not just the length of the
bus turnout but its location and its ability to be expanded even more than presently
proposed to meet the long -range transit forecasts.
Because buses entering the northbound traffic stream from a loading zone on the south
side of Baker Boulevard can proceed north or turn right to go east, the Final Tukwila
Transit Plan, April 2005, page 77, Indent Item 1 below Table 5 -3, 2 paragraph, states,
Virtually no out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, which reduces
operating costs and increases ridership potential. (Emphasis added)
Considering only future transit demands and the ability to operate efficiently, a clear
requirement of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 13.1.2, the transit zone located on the
south side of Baker Boulevard must be considered the optimum and accordingly the best
choice. (See Final Tukwila Transit Plan, April 2005, on page 77, Table 5 -3 at
Northbound Location, Acura Property.)
There should be no misunderstanding that the above recommendation noticeably
addresses the concerns so clearly stated in the Wittmann e-mail of November 1 2004
and highlighted on the pervious page of this letter. Those concerns cannot be dismissed.
To continue, and considering Item 2 and the matter of severe peak hour congestion, it
should be noted that the City of Tukwila Urban Center Traffic Analysis Study, by Mirai
Associates, Figure 12, 2020 LOS for the "Mall to Pond" Scenario, describes the
intersection of Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park W. as having an LOS `F' with an
average vehicular delay of 124 seconds. What this kind of delay means is shown on
another Mirai Associates document entitled Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs
over 1-405, in Table 1, Comparison: 2020 Baseline vs. 2020 with recommended
Improvements. The queue length in this table is 896 feet. From this long queue, backing -
up traffic to and past the far -side bus turnout on the east side of Andover Park W. north
of Baker Boulevard then prevents all northbound buses from entering the traffic stream.
They essentially become confined in that "far- side" loading zone unless aggressive
driving is undertaken which in turn induces significant traffic hazard.
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 6
Only major construction improvements along Tukwila Parkway and two costly expanded
bridges over I -405 will inhibit this problem. If all of that construction is delayed, then
northbound traffic on Andover Park W. north of Baker Boulevard will suffer. The "far -
side" transit - loading zone then becomes unusable. This becomes especially significant in
light of the Wittmann a -mail of November 1 2004 to Ms. Knighton previously quoted
on the bottom of page 4. Buses backing into the adjacent arterial street's traffic lanes will
obviously devastate the street's traffic capacity, even ignoring the accident potential.
Fundamentally, the "far- side" bus turnout on the east side of Andover Park W. the
year 2020 congestion problem cannot be avoided. However, with a "near- side" bus
turnout on the east side of Andover Park W., sometimes called the Acura Site, the
problem is resolved since a re -route to the east via Baker Boulevard can be readily
implemented. (Note that under this scenario the intersection of Baker Boulevard at
Andover Park E. is described at LOS `C' and at Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park E. it
is LOS `E'. For short, according to the 2020 traffic forecast, the better transit route is to
the east and this can only be accessed from a transit station on the south side of Baker
Boulevard— the so called "near- side" location or the oft noted Acura location.)
Considering Item 3 and the matter of traffic safety it should also be clearly understood
that with buses queued in the far-side transit - loading zone, north of Baker Boulevard and
virtually immediately south of the Acme Bowl main driveway, there will not be adequate
entering sight distance (ESD) available to traffic entering Andover Park W. when buses
are present. During the peak hour, with a demand of up to 24 buses per hour under the
most conservative estimates, ESD is compromised. This is a compelling safety issue.
In this regard the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2001),
under the section entitled Driveways (page 402) states:
Sight distance is an important design control for driveways.
For the driveway having an assumed STOP control (by statute) the sight distance to the
left, pass the bus turnout, must be at least 300 feet. Clearly, with buses standing in the
turnout or loading/discharging passengers, let alone any that may be backed into the
northbound through traffic lanes this sight distance is not achieved. As a consequence
traffic hazard is extreme. This element cannot be lightly ignored.
With the loading zone on the south side of Baker Boulevard, this worry is removed.
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 7
Considering Item 4 and the matter of tort liability, particularly for a design that fails to
anticipate traffic hazards associated with an inadequate ESD, this consultant has served
as an expert witness in a case that serves as an example. While the property owner
(insured by Safeco and represented by this consultant) was dismissed, it may be of
interest to note that the jury award was $3.5 million. Accidents involving poor design
choices are often serious and are often expensive.
Considering Item 5 and the matter of increased maintenance from a "split" TLZ it is
acknowledged that this is purely a county (Metro) concern. Nonetheless, since the
adopted policy (Policy 13.1.2) demands a "Focus on highest possible transportation
efficiency ..." the splitting of one significant bus terminal into two separate and distinct
parts cannot be overlooked. Indeed, in addressing this "split" loading zone issue, the
Final Tukwila Transit Plan, April 2005, on page 77, at indent item 2 states the following.
The northbound stop is located further away from the active land uses than all the
other alternatives, which will reduce ridership potential.
While this document also makes a comment about improved access with a "far- side" bus
stop it seems the writer failed to make the distinction between "curb- side" transit stops
and transit stops located on a TLZ turnout.
To continue, the comment also states,
Significant out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, particularly east -west
routes (Routes 126, 140, and 155, sic. `see note 1 below.) that are traveling through the
TUC.
Note 1: Exhibit D, Transit Circulation, does not show Route 126 operating from
this transit center. Perhaps it is in error and should read "Route 128 ".)
As before, there is no question this (far -side transit turnout option) fails to comply with
the adopted Comprehensive Plan Policy 13.1.2.
To conclude, it seems that the all of the various issues described above would be voided
if the city's Comprehensive Plan Policy 13.4.8, stating in part,
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 8
... to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between
Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. (emphasis added)
is fully complied with in regard to the design of a northbound transit facility on Andover
Park West located south of Baker Boulevard.
Finally, to ensure a full understanding of the foregoing issues, it may be useful to place
them as "answers" to a recent memorandum written. by Ms. (Cynthia) Knighton to Mr.
Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works, dated June 23, 2006.
In this regard, and referring to page 7 of this June 23` memorandum she lists, in italics,
"... some considerations." In the context of that memorandum and to answer these they
are repeated below with the appropriate answer.
1. Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in
the future?
Answer: Only if the northbound transit loading zone is moved to the Acura site.
Otherwise, at the Open Frame LLC site it is limited to no more than 2 transit
vehicles for simultaneous passenger loading/unloading. See the concerns noted in
the Wittmann e-mail of November 1 2004 (attached):
2. Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual
destinations as possible.
Answer: The largest origin/destination for transit users is the Mall and its closest
location for northbound transit users is the Acura site. The. Open Frame LLC site
and the loading zone on Baker Boulevard are further away with the former site also
requiring a signal controlled crossing of Baker Boulevard.
3. Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus
operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability.
Answer: Schedule reliability is compromised by the horizon year due to severe
congestion at the Tukwila Parkway intersection at Andover Park W. that will
produce long standing queues of traffic which will interfere with any transit facility
located in front of the Open Frame LLC site. This problem will not exist with the
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 9
Acura site. Safety is severely compromised with a transit facility in front of the
Open Frame LLC site with two separate traffic hazard issues. These are:
(1.) The creation of significant impediments to entering sight distance (ESD) at
the Open Frame LLC site main access driveway and,
(2.) Due to increased pedestrian hazard by virtue of an additional pedestrian
crossing of Baker Boulevard.
4. Cost: Transit Center should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases
transit operating costs.
Answer: The use of a transit - loading zone for northbound travel in front of the
Acura site will not create any out -of- direction travel increases. However, the use of
a loading facility in front of the Open Frame LLC site will increase costs due to
forecast severe congestion backing traffic south from the Tukwila Parkway/
Andover Park W. intersection which will make access to and from the TLZ
problematical. Moreover, since a transit - loading zone in front of the Open Frame
LLC site carries a concomitant need for yet an additional transit- loading zone on
Baker Boulevard there is a perpetual increase in maintenance costs due to the
splitting of what could be a single transit- loading zone at the Acura site into two
transit- loading zones — one at the "far- side" TLZ and one on Baker Boulevard.
5. Passenger Safety: Transit Center should not compromise passenger safety and
therefore the need to cross streets for transfers should be minimized.
Answer: The Final Tukwila Transit Plan, on Table 5 -3, page 77, characterizes a
northbound transit loading facility in front of the Open Frame LLC site (the Fatigue
Site in the parlance of the Transit Plan) as having a potential adverse effect on
safety twice as great as a facility zone in front of the Acura site.
6. Fit within TUC Vision: The TUC plan calls for a long term increase in density and
activities to the east and south of the Mall. The proposed Transit Center
improvements should be compatible with the proposed density increases.
Answer: The northbound transit loading facility in front of the Acura site best fits
this requirement being closer to the location of the forecast density increases,
particularly when recognizing the issue raised in the Wittmann e-mail of November
1 2004 and quoted earlier on page 4 of this letter.
Bill H. Williamson, Esq.
March 1, 2007
Page 10
Of interest, all of these answers fundamentally go to the heart of the concerns raised by
the Wittmann e -mail of November 1 2004 and quoted on page 4 of this letter.
It may be concluded that with respect to these six items, raised in the Cynthia Knighton
memorandum of July 23` 2006, the optimum location for a northbound transit loading
facility is at the Acura site, not the Open Frame LLC/Fatigue site. Importantly, this
judgment is noted in the Final Tukwila Transit Plan, on Table 5 -3, Evaluation of Tukwila
Transit Center Expansion Options, at page 77 where the Acura site leads all other choices
by a margin of twenty -five percent for the northbound direction.
Finally and significantly important, it meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan
as stated in Policy 13.4.8, to wit:
... to locate a pedestrian- friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between
Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard.
I am attaehing to this letter a few pages of the key documents referenced in this letter for
your reviewing ease.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Yours truly,
C. V. Brown, P.E.
cvb /s
encl. Tukwila Transit Plan, page 77
Marai Associates, TUC Traffic Analysis, Figure 12, page 17
Marai Associates, Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs, page 7
Thomas Wittmann e-mail dated 11/1/04 to Cynthia Knighton
Southbound
Location
Northbound
Location
Capacity
Passenger
Demand
Safety
for
Buses
Cost
Passenger
Safety
Within
TUC
Vision
Total
Existing
Acura
property
•
C
G
•
C
•
G
Existing
Fatigue
property
•
O
•
O
fi
C
C
North of
Baker .
Fatigue
property
•
cO
C
O
C
O
e
Expanded
Existing
Zone
None
p
C
•
0
G
fO
n
• Passenger Safety: Transit Centers should not compromise passenger safety and therefore
the need to cross streets for transfers should be minimized.
• Fit within TUC Vision: The TUC plan calls for a long -term increase in density and
activities to the east and south of the Mall. The proposed Transit Center improvements
should be compatible with the proposed density increases.
Each of the four locations has been evaluated based on these six different criteria. The results of
this evaluation is shown in Table 5 -3 and is discussed below.
[Legend
Table 5 -3
pion of Tukwil Transit Center Expansion Options
Much Worse than
Average
•
Average
C
Much Better than
Average
c •
1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Acura
property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service
increases, including the BRT. This Transit Center would best meet the needs of the Mall,
the redeveloped TUC, and is. within V2 mile walking distance of a significant portion of
the TUC. The near side stop in the northbound direction is a minor safety and reliability
issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a
passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer.
Virtually no out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, which reduces operating costs
and increases ridership potential. Buses traveling on east -west routes can use Baker
Boulevard and stop at the Tukwila Transit Center in both directions. This is an
improvement over today's operation. This location is well situated to accommodate the
redevelopment in the TUC.
2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue
property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service
increases, including the BRT. The northbound stop is located further away from the
active land uses than all of the other altematives, which will reduce ridership potential.
From a bus operator standpoint, the far side configuration of the Transit Center for both
stops improves the ability to access and egress the stops. It is less optimal for passenger
safety, as passengers would need to cross two wide streets to transfer between routes.
Final Tukwila Transit Plan 77 April 2005 3 q
Figure 12. 2020 LOS for the "Mall to Pond" Scenario
City of Tukwila Urban Center Traffic Analysts Study
1
M1r
1
A S S O C I A T E S
North
Legend:
...�.� Freeway
Ramp
Mileillanall Rives
.. . »d�...... Tral
- -• —• Railroad
Note: not to scale
UnsignaIized
Intersection
Level of Service 1
Delay
J
Page 17
• Intersection
• Baseline
With Improvements
LOS
Delay
Avg. Queue
LOS
Delay
Avg. Queue
Southcenter Boulevard
61st Street
E
67.0
1269
C
27.8
521
Tukwila Parkway
61st Street
D
53.2
797
C
31.4
436
Tukwila Parkway
Shopping Center Entrace
A
8.0
109
A
6.9
101
Tukwila Parkway
Andover Park West
F
104.4
896
C
20.1
389
Tukwila Parkway
Andover Park East
F
147.3
650
E
70.9
559
Tukwila Parkway
NB 1-405 On -Ramp
F
' 190.9
1583
E
71.7
615
Southcenter Boulevard .
66th Street
B
16.7
270
B
17.5
304
Southcenter Boulevard
West Valley Highway
F
148.8
1132
F
90.6
733
NB 1-405 Off -Ramp
West Valley Highway
F
140.1 ,
1392.
B
18.9
• 356
Tukwila Parkway
West Valley Highway
E
61.7
909
E
61.7.
1193
Strander Boulevard
West Valley Highway
F
211.6
1647
F
130.7
739
Table 1. Comparison: 2020 Baseline vs. 2020 with Recommended Improvements
'Average Queue Length (feet) represents the 50% percentile queue length of the longest movement of any one intersection.
A S S O C I A T E S
Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 7
TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER SITE PLAN
t �
SOUTHBOUND STO
a
T
NORTHBOUND STOP
BAKER BLVD.
Features
Pedestrian lighting
Streetlights
Shelter lighting
Ttanslucent canopies
Individual seating
Route markers
Bicycle racks
Low level screen planting
Tactile waming strip at curb edge
Emergency call box
Security cameras
Textured crosswalk
Intersection improvements
Plaza art
BAKER BOULEVARD STOP
2W
TRANSIT CENTER SITE PLAN
�,,, SE ONLY
This request is best handled by: Dal ` 1 P - (U !CQ WSJ!, the department
j\\
Copies of the request were provided to: 1. r , h. on A1019'167
vi, NOTE TO RESPONSIBLE STAFF: K � �� r W ���
RCW 42.17.320 requires (in part) a WRITTEN RESPONSE within 5 working days of the request. The five -day rule begins one business day post receipt.
Upon hearing from you, the City Clerk's Office will prepare the 5 -day letter, notifying the requestor of an approximate date records will be ready; or, if the
information sought is exempted by statute. Contact the City Attorney's Office with specific questions.
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
General Notes (&/or) Reason for delay or inability to produce records:
Sgnatu
•
-',��� mini
outto
RECEIVED
OF TUKWILA
R 01 20071
RMIT C EtfTER
ter'k lot
x ..J I -4
., . Alt ' 0
1908
NOTIFICATION:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONE DESIGNATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
Rf
6300 Southci ' er . : ou evarr, u e •
t of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT
TO THE
CITY COUNCIL
February 12, 2007
Notice published in the Seattle Times, 2/22/07
L06 -093 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Revise Comprehensive Plan policy wording for siting of
transit center in Tukwila Urban Center
Tukwila Urban Center
Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
Rebecca Fox
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
1
n t i nt.ninciv I c
Steven M Mullet, Mayor
02/06/2007
u tiv a, .PTas u 9 : : Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665
B oit l eiparc p
FINDINGS
DISCUSSION
The City of Tukwila Public Works Department proposes update wording of existing
Transportation Element Policy 13.4.8 in order better reflect transit system and Transit
Center analysis, and to expand options for siting a Transit Center.
The existing wording is the following:
13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on
Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
The proposed wording broadens possible siting locations as follows, with changes
highlighted:
13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, WesYield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center and
related amenities on or near Andover Park West., : s : :: • .
This policy change is proposed in order to provide more flexibility in selecting a location
for the Transit Center. This change will enable the analysis contained in the Tukwila
Transit Plan (4/05), and competing issues raised by property owners, Metro Transit and
the City of Tukwila to be more fully addressed in the siting decision.
BACKGROUND
Project History
The vision for the Tukwila Urban Center foresees a vibrant high - density area with
regional employment, areas of high quality housing in concert with water amenities,
excellent retail and recreational opportunities for business people, residents and shoppers.
High quality transit and pedestrian facilities are a vital part of this vision.
The Tukwila Transit Center project will replace existing, inadequate transit stops located
near the intersection of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard with an expanded,
improved Transit Center to accommodate current and future passenger demands. It will
be a first step towards implementing the future that is envisioned for the Tukwila Urban
Center. It is intended to set the standard for quality redevelopment and serve as a catalyst
for the implementation of the larger vision. The Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05) analyzes
the future Transit Center and possible locations..
Vicinity/Site Information
Land uses immediately adjacent to the portion of possible Transit Center locations are :
North— Commercial/Retail
South— Commercial/Retail
East— Westfield Southcenter Mall
West— Commercial, Andover Park West
Rf 2 02/06/2007
Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 2007\CCStaffReptTransitCtr #L06- 093-- #2-- 2.l2.07.doc
Land uses between 500 and 1,000 feet from the site include the following:
North -- Commercial, Tukwila Parkway, I -405
South--Commercial/Retail
East--Westfield Southcenter Mall
West — Commercial
THRESHOLD REVIEW CRITERIA
1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is
not adequately addressed, is there a need for it?
Through several policies and their implementation strategies, Tukwila's Comprehensive
Plan addresses the need for good transit service and, by extension, the Transit Center in
the Tukwila Urban Center Element. These include:
Tukwila Urban Center -- Policy 10.1.1 Recognize the Tukwila Urban Center as a regional
commercial/industrial area, with opportunities for residential development served by a
balance of auto, pedestrian and transit facilities.
Implementation Strategy
• Coordinate land use with City facility improvements, for transportation facilities
such as transit facilities and structured parking easily accessed by service streets
and from freeways
Tukwila Urban Center - -Goal 10.3 Transportation and Circulation
A balanced transportation network that complements the Tukwila Urban Center land use
and design policies and provides access for all transportation modes, to, from, and within
the center.
Tukwila Urban Center -- Policy 10.3.1. Regional Access. Promote transportation and
transit services and facilities, as well as traffic management systems that increase and
improve access to and from the Tukwila Urban Center for all transportation modes;
encourage a range of solutions, including but not limited to local circulator systems,
regional- serving park -n -ride sites, connections to regional rail alignments, and regional
and local high - occupancy vehicle systems.
Implementation Strategy
• Develop, in conjunction with appropriate transit providers, transit facilities and
routes in the Tukwila Urban Center
Transportation -- Policy 13.4.8 addresses developing and locating a transit center as
follows:
"Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at
Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center on
Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard."
RC 3 02/06/2007
Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 2007\CCStaffReptTransitCtr#L06- 093— #2- 2.12.07.doc
The Tukwila Transit Center will be integrated with the future redevelopment of the
Tukwila Urban Center Core, to the east, and is a necessary component of meeting travel
demand management requirements for the Tukwila Urban Center as a whole. The
proposed change is needed since the current wording is unnecessarily restricts the location
and choice of potential sites for the future Transit Center.
2) Impacts
The proposed amendment expands the geographic range of possible locations for the
future Transit Center. Per the proposed amendment, the future Transit Center could be
located in the Tukwila Urban Center in the general vicinity of Westfield Southcenter Mall,
rather than being specifically limited to the area between Baker Boulevard and Strander
Boulevard on Andover Park East. This means that any impacts associated with
constructing the Transit Center, and the resulting bus and pedestrian travel and traffic
might be felt in a slightly different location in the TUC. Building an improved Transit
Center would address the deficiencies of the existing transit stops and provide improved
service to the Tukwila Urban Center, including the Westfield Southcenter Mall.
3) Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need?
What other options are there for meeting the identified public need?
The proposed change broadens the geographic range of locations for consideration as sites
for the future Transit Center, and clarifies the intent of the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05). It
would also allow a fuller discussion of issues that are being raised by the City of Tukwila,
property owners and Metro Transit.
Other possible options would be to:
• extend the siting options to include an even broader geographic range, such as the
northern portion of the Tukwila Urban Center
• broaden the discussion to refer to all pedestrian- friendly transit facilities, rather
than exclusively the Transit Center
• leave the wording unchanged.
4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what
result can be expected and why?
The proposed change will benefit the community by allowing a fuller discussion of
potential sites, with the likely result that a better site will be chosen. The Tukwila Transit
Center is critical to the future growth and urban development in the Tukwila Urban
Center, and offers the community significant benefits. Replacing the existing, inadequate
transit stops by siting an expanded, high quality Transit Center will:
1) help create a long -term solution to the need for high - quality, high - capacity transit
facilities as a part of a more balanced multimodal transportation system;
2) offer access to jobs and increased mobility for all transit patrons, including minority,
low - income, transit dependent and "choice" riders;
3) substantially improve pedestrian safety by providing crossing improvements and
reconfiguring the stop locations to reduce the incentives to jaywalk;
RI 4 02/06/2007
Q: COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 2007\('('titaffReptTransitCtr #L06- 093-- #2-- 2.12.07.doc
4) reduce crime and fear of crime through improved lighting and other measures;
5) encourage transit riders and others to make trips by foot and by bicycle.
CONCLUSIONS
As currently worded, Policy 13.4.8 overly limits the geographic area that can be
considered as a site for the future Transit Center. It does not take the findings of the
Tukwila Transit Plan into account since that study was completed after the policy was
adopted.
Recommendation
Staff recommends forwarding the application to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Alternatives for Action
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following:
• Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review;
• Modify- the - proposal and refer it to the Planning Commission for further review
• Defer consideration until a late time;
• Reject the proposal
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could:
• Recommend approval;
• Modify the proposal
• Recommend denial
After Planning Commission review, the proposal will return to the City Council for a
public hearing and decision.
Rf 5 02/06/20u7
Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 20071CCStaffReptTran.itCtr#L06- 093— #2- 2.12.07.doc
Williamson Law Office
Bank of America Tower
701 5 Avenue — Ste 5500
PO Box 99821
Seattle, WA 99821 -0821
Attn: Bill H. Williamson
Dear Mr. Williamson:
Sjg cerely,
e E. Cantu, CMC
City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Continuing Public Records Act Request — Tukwila Transit Center
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
The City is in receipt of your public records request of February 26, 2007 wherein you
requested copies of briefing documents that were provided to the Tukwila City Council at their
Regular Meeting of February 12, 2007. Also requested was a copy of any and all electronic
records of Staff, testimony, council consideration and comments.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires a prompt response to all requests for public
record. Within five business days, the City must:
1. release /disclose the records requested;
2. acknowledge receipt and provide an approximate time for release of the
requested documents; or
3. deny the request and provide a statutory reason as to why the request is being
denied.
City staff is currently in the process of identifying those records responsive to your request and
anticipates making those records available to you by March 19 , 2007. Should I receive the
records prior to March 19 I will notify you.
Copying charges are .15 cents per single - sided, standard -sized documents. Charges are payable
upon receipt of documents. Oversized documents, or those sent out for reproduction, will be
billed to the requester.
If you have questions or require further information, you may reach me at 206 - 433 -1800.
C: S. Kerslake, City Attorney
S. Lancaster, DCD Director
R. Fox, Senior Planner, DCD
Phone: 206- 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: 206- 433 -1833 • wwwci.tukwila.wa.us
WAC 365- 195 -600
Public participation.
(I) Requirements. Each county and city planning under the act shall establish procedures for early and
continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and
development regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad
dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings
after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information
services, and consideration of and response to public comments. Errors in exact compliance with the
established procedures shall not render the comprehensive plan or development regulations invalid if the
spirit of the procedures is observed.
(2) Recommendations for meeting requirements. The recommendations made in this subsection are
intended as a list of possible choices, but it is recognized that meaningful public participation can be
accomplished without using all of the suggestions made here or by adopting other methods.
(a) Public involvement in plan and regulation development.
(i) In designing its public participation program, each planning jurisdiction should endeavor to involve the
broadest cross- section of the community, so that groups not previously involved in planning become
involved. The programs should include efforts to explain that citizen input is an essential part of the planning
process and provide a framework for advising citizens about timelines for steps in the process and when
citizen input will be sought.
(ii) Visioning. The public should be involved at the earliest possible time in the process of comprehensive
planning under the act. This should begin with a visioning process in which the public is invited to participate
in a broad definition of the kind of future to be sought for the community. The results of this process should
then be incorporated into the plan features, including, but not limited to, locally adopted levels of service and
densities selected for commercial, industrial, and residential development.
(iii) Planning commission. In the process of plan development, full use should be made of the planning
commission as a liaison with the public.
(iv) Public meetings on draft plan. Once the plan Is completed in draft form, or as parts of it are
drafted, a series of public meetings or workshops should be held at various locations throughout
the Jurisdiction to obtain public reaction and suggestions.
(v) Public hearings. When the final draft of the plan has been completed, at least one public hearing
should be held prior to the presentation of the final draft to the legislative authority of the jurisdiction adopting
it. When the plan is proposed for adoption, the legislative authority should conduct another public hearing
prior to voting on adoption.
(vi) Written comment At each stage of the process when public input is sought, opportunity
should be provided to make written comment
(vii) Communication programs and information services. Each jurisdiction should make every effort to
collect and disseminate public information explaining the act and the process involved in complying
with it In addition, locally relevant information packets and brochures should be developed and
disseminated. Planners should actively seek to appear before community groups to explain the act
and the plan development process.
(viii) Proposals and alternatives. Whenever public input is sought on proposals and alternatives,
the relevant drafts should be reproduced and made available to interested persons.
(ix) Notice. Notice of all events at which public input is sought should be broadly disseminated in advance
through all available means, including flyers and press releases to print and broadcast media. Notice should
be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least one week in advance of any public hearing.
When appropriate, notices should announce the availability of relevant draft documents on request.
(x) All meetings and hearings to which the public is invited should be free and open. At hearings all
persons desiring to speak should be allowed to do so, consistent with time constraints.
(xi) Consideration of and response to public comments. All comments and recommendations of the public
should be reviewed. Adequate time should be provided between the time of any public hearing and the date
of adoption of all or any part of the comprehensive plan to evaluate and respond to public comments. The
proceedings and all public hearings should be recorded. A summary of public comments and an explanation
of what action was taken in response to them should be made in writing and included in the record of
adoption of the plan:
(xii) Every effort shoulder made to incorporate public involvement efforts into the SEPA process.
(xiii) Except for the visioning effort, the same steps should precede the adoption of development
regulations as was used for the comprehensive plan.
(b) Continuous public involvement. The planning commission should monitor development of both the
plan and the development regulations. After these are adopted, the commission should monitor compliance.
The commission should report to the city or county at least annually on possible amendments to the plan or
development regulations. In addition at least annually, the commission should convene a public meeting to
provide information on how implementation is progressing and to receive public input on changes that may
be needed. When any amendments are proposed for adoption, the same public hearing procedure should
be followed as attended initial adoption.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 36.70k190 (4)(b). 92- 23-065, § 365 - 195 -600, filed 11117192, effective 12/18/92.)
WAC 365- 195 -325 Transportation element. (1) Requirements. This element shall contain at least
the following subelements:
(a) Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
(b) Facilities and services needs, including:
(i) An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit
alignments, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning;
(ii) Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge
performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated;
(iii) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are
below an established level of service standard;
(iv) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide
information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth;
(v) Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet
current and future demands;
(c) Finance, including:
(i) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources;
(ii) A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the
appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six -year street, road, or transit program
required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public
transportation systems;
(iii) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional
funding will be raised or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service
standards will be met;
(d) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the
transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions;
(e) Demand - management strategies.
(2) Recommendations for meeting requirements. The following steps are recommended in
preparing the transportation element:
(i) Roadways;
(ii) Transit: Fixed route and demand response;
(iii) Nonmotorized travel: Bicycle and pedestrian;
i asc I ut 't
(a) Local and regional transportation goals and policies for the following transportation modes, where
applicable:
http: / /www.mrsc. org/mc /wac/WAC %20365 %20 %20TITLE /WAC %20365 %20 - 195 %20 %... 9/24/2006
Page 2 of 4
(iv) Port and intermodal facilities: Water, rail, air, and industrial;
(v) Rail: Passenger and freight;
(vi) Freight mobility: Truck, rail, and barge.
(b) A discussion of how the transportation element implements the land use element, how the
transportation and land use elements are consistent, and how the transportation element is consistent
with the regional transportation plan. Discussion concerning regional development strategies which
promote the regional transportation plan and an efficient transportation system should be included.
(c) Inventories, incorporating the level of detail appropriate for the planning jurisdiction:
(i) Air transportation facilities inventory can include but not necessarily be limited to: A description
of the services provided by the facilities and location of the air transportation facilities; a capacity
analysis to compare current and projected airport needs; a capacity analysis of roads, rail, and
navigational routes to assess freight and passenger access to airport facilities. Consideration of the
current and projected surrounding land uses should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and
available for projected airport needs.
(ii) Inventory of water transportation can include but not necessarily be limited to:
(A) A description of the ferry service, ownership, a map of the routes, the number of vessels,
frequency of the service, passenger capacity, and vehicle capacity impacting the planning area; a
capacity analysis of ferry service compared to current and projected needs. Consideration of the current
and projected surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and
available for current and projected ferry needs.
(B) A description of the port facilities, service and location of the facilities; an analysis of freight
movement showing the proportion of freight which is moved by rail and by truck to determine access
adequacy. Consideration of the current and projected surrounding land use should be made in terms of
compatibility and availability for current and projected port needs.
(iii) Inventory of land transportation can include but not necessarily be limited to:
(A) A map of arterials and limited access facilities; a description of the general travel market (i.e.,
commuter, tourist, farm to market, etc.) served by the transportation network; traffic volumes, functional
classification, ownership and physical and operational condition. Consideration of current and projected
surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current
and projected transportation needs.
(B) A map of the rail lines and intermodal facilities; a description of ownership, condition, and
identification of whether the rail lines are for passenger and/or freight movement. Consideration of
current and projected surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and
available for current and future projected land transportation needs.
(iv) Inventory of transit facilities and services within the planning area can include but not
necessarily be limited to, a description of the service, service area, routes, major transfer centers,
population base, passengers carried, number of vehicles including seating capacity, miles of route and
vehicle hours within the local jurisdiction's boundaries. Analysis of projected transit needs should be
http: / /www.mrsc. org/mc /wac/WAC %20365 %20 %20TITLE /WAC %20365 %20 - 195 %20 %... 9/24/2006
made based on projected land use assumptions. For example, transit improvements should be planned in
areas of projected residential and/or employment centers. Consideration of current and projected
surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current
and projected transit needs.
(d) If the planning area is within a National Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainment area,
compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is required. The following should be included
in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan as applicable to locally generated mobile
sources of pollutants: A map of the area designated as the nonattainment area for ozone, carbon
monoxide, and particulate matter (PM 10); a discussion of the severity of the violation(s) contributed by
transportation- related sources causing nonattainment and a description of measures that will be
implemented consistent with the state implementation plan for air quality, in order to comply with the
national standards for the air, land, water, and transit sections of the transportation element. Local
jurisdictions should refer to local air quality agencies and metropolitan planning organizations for
assistance.
(e) Provide a definition of the level of service (LOS) to be adopted for the transportation system that
includes at least arterials and transit routes. The definition of level of service is not restricted to the
traditional Highway Capacity Manual approach, but could include district, area -wide, corridor, or other
nontraditional level of service standards. Provide an inventory of the current level of service of at least
arterial and transit routes. Adopted level of service standards should reflect access, mobility, mode - split,
or capacity goals for the transportation facility depending upon the surrounding development density
and community goals, and should be developed in consultation with transit agencies serving the
planning area.
(f) System expansion needs should include considerations for: Repair, replacement, or enhancement,
and/or expansion.
(g) Transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM)
implementation measures can include, but not necessarily be limited to: Signal coordination,
channelization, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, ridesharing, trip substitution, trip shifting,
increased public transportation, parking policies and high occupancy subsidy programs. Provision
should be made for evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies, and funding sources should be
identified.
(h) The finance subelement should include, but not necessarily be limited to:
(i) Results of the identification study of current and projected deficiencies;
(ii) Development of cost estimates to alleviate deficiencies;
(iii) Assessment of revenue forecasts /shortfalls;
(iv) Development of financing policies; and
(v) Development of a financing schedule which matches projects and funding availability.
Page 3 of 4
If sufficient public and/or private funding cannot be found, land use assumptions will be reassessed
to ensure that level of service standards will be met, or level of service standards will be adjusted.
(i) Intergovernmental coordination.
http: / /www.mrsc.org/mc /wac/WAC %20365 %20 %20TITLE /WAC % 20365 %20- 195 %20 %... 9/24/2006
Page 1 of 2
i) Jurisdictions should assess the impacts of their transportation and land use decisions on adjacent
jurisdictions. Impacts of those decisions should be identified and discussion of strategies to address
inconsistencies should be included.
(A) A discussion of how the local transportation and land use goals relate to adjacent jurisdictions'
transportation and land use goals, county -wide policies, regional land use and transportation strategies,
and statewide goals outlined in the act.
(B) Local jurisdictions should refer to the Washington state transportation policy plan for guidance
on statewide transportation policy.
(C) Local jurisdictions should refer to the regional transportation plan produced by the regional
transportation planning organization for guidance concerning the designated regional transportation
system. Local jurisdictions should also define their community's role in the regional transportation and
land use strategy and produce transportation and land use plans, and development regulations which
promote that role.
(D) Local jurisdictions should refer to the responsible transportation agencies for information
concerning current and projected plans for air, land, and water transportation facilities and services.
Local jurisdictions and agencies responsible for air, land, and water transportation facilities and services
should cooperate in identifying and resolving land use and transportation linkage issues.
(ii) All transportation projects which have an impact on the regional transportation system must be
consistent with the regional transportation plan as defined by RCW 47.80.030. A regional transportation
planning organization shall certify that the transportation elements of the adopted county, city, and town
comprehensive plans within the region conform with RCW 36.70A.070. Regional transportation plans,
state transportation plans, and county and city comprehensive plans shall be consistent with one another.
(iii) Traffic forecasts should be based on adopted regional growth strategies, the regional
transportation plan, and comprehensive plans within the region to ensure consistency between
jurisdictions. The forecast of at least ten years of travel demand should include vehicular, transit, and
nonmotorized modes of transportation.
(iv) The state department of transportation and the transportation commission will develop a state
transportation plan as required by RCW 47.01.071, and identify and jointly plan improvements and
strategies within corridors of regional or statewide significance coordinated and consistent with the
RTPO's.
Local jurisdictions should refer to the Systems Plan produced by the department of transportation for
service objectives on state -owned transportation facilities, proposed improvements, and identification of
deficiencies for the state -owned transportation facilities.
The department of transportation should be involved with the regionally coordinated effort to set
level of service standards for arterials and transit routes.
(v) Key coordination efforts between interested public, private, and citizen groups should include:
Transportation plan development; identification of needs; land use coordination; capital program
development; prioritization of projects, financial plan, LOS standards development; capacity accounting
procedures; development review process; timing of concurrency review; analysis methods; legal
requirements (vesting, appeals); concurrency management system ordinance; LOS monitoring.
httn: / /www.mrsc. ore /mc /wac/WAC %20365 %20 %20TITLE /WAC %20365 %20- 195 %20 %... 9/24/2006
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
February 12, 2007 7:00 p.m.
Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council President, Verna Griffin, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
OFFICIALS
Present were Verna Griffin, Council President, Councilmembers Joe Duffle, Joan
Hernandez, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton, and Pam Linder.
Councilmember Robertson was not in attendance.
ATTENDANCE
Steve Mullet, Mayor; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator; Dave Haynes, Police Chief;
Nick Olivas, Fire Chief; Jim Morrow, Public Works Director; Jack Pace, Community
Development Deputy Director; Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner; Katherine Kertzman,
Tourism Manager; Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Manager; Christy O'Flaherty,
Deputy City Clerk.
a. Results of ESL Summit - Bonnie Olson, Emerging Design Consultants
Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Manager, indicated diversity in Tukwila has changed
since the inception of the Human Services Program in the 1990s. In 2006 the decision was
made to bring together representatives from providers and stakeholders who were
involved in ESL (English as a Second Language) and literacy. The goal was to look at the
overall landscape of needs and available services to determine where gaps might exist and
to ensure the dollars being utilized are maximized to the fullest extent. Bonnie Olson with
Emerging Design Consultants was hired to review the challenges and to identify possible
gaps in the system and determine if enhancements were necessary.
Ms. Olson referenced the spreadsheet on ESL and literacy services and the summary
document from the Community Planning Summit that had been distributed to the Council.
She discussed the key points from the summary to include the need to serve whole
families; increasing ESL classes, primarily 2nd and 3rd stage courses; expanding
collaborations and access to services; focusing on self - sufficiency; and monitoring
changes in the larger system to mitigate unexpected events (such as senior citizens losing
benefits due to lack of citizenship).
Ms. Boykan conveyed that, based on recommendations coming out of the summit, the
Human Services Advisory Board suggested funding in two different directions. One
partnership involves working with the organization, Para Los Ninos, in that they provide a
whole family approach. They offer programs for young children and early learning that
include a childcare component. This organization has also partnered with Highline
Community College in providing local services. The other agency recommended by the
Board is Literacy Source which provided on -site ESL services at a local apartment
complex that was very well received. This organization also provides basic education in
civics and citizenship.
The Councilmembers offered comments about the Human Services program and asked
questions of Ms. Boykan and Ms. Olson. They thanked them both for their work in the
Tukwila community and for the informative presentation.
b. 2006 Chamber of Commerce Report - Nancy Damon, President
Nancy Damon, President of the Chamber of Commerce, provided packets for distribution
to the Council. She discussed the 2006 achievements and milestones of the Chamber to
include active participation in regional transportation issues; welcoming of Des Moines
businesses to the Chamber; partnering with King County on economic development
issues; creation of the "E" (email) Newsletter and weekly bulletin; attendance at Valley
Cities meetings; presentation of the ACE Award to the Tukwila Costco as an outstanding
business; and involvement in various activities such as the Independence Day Parade, IRS
Business Fair, Highway 99 barbecue and a multitude of ribbon cuttings and open house
events.
The Councilmembers thanked Ms. Damon for the informational update on Chamber of
Commerce activities as well as her contribution to the City.
CITIZEN COMMENT
Linda Smith, Seattle Jaycees Bingo, 11030 East Marginal Way South, thanked the City
Council and Mayor for the waiver of gambling taxes. Ms. Smith extended an invitation to
any interested parties to an event on February 16, 2007 at 7:30 pm at the Seattle Jaycee
Bingo Hall. Information will be provided regarding grant money that is available to non-
profit organizations in Tukwila. The Jaycees also offer scholarship opportunities to high
school students based on leadership and community service. She conveyed the Jaycees
hope to get the word out in the community and see high attendance at the event.
SPECIAL ISSUES
a. Contract with Encore Media West for a Seattle Southside advertisement in the
2007 Washington State Visitors' Guide
Councilmember Haggerton indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety
Committee meeting on February 5, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
The Tukwila Lodging Tax Advisory Committee recommended the Mayor sign a contract
with Encore Media West for a Seattle Southside full back -page, 4 -color ad in the 2007
Washington State Visitors' Guide in the amount of $31,873. This is part of the 2007
budgeted Media Plan.
Councilmember Carter asked if, in the future, this could come before the Council earlier
to allow a more timely authorization process. Katherine Kertzman, Tourism Manager,
indicated her office will be starting in July of this year to allow for the planning and
approval process.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
b. Resolution declaring a fire truck and related equipment surplus and authorizing
their donation
Councilmember Haggerton indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety
Committee meeting on February 5, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
Sea -Tac Occupational Skills Center has requested that the Fire Department donate surplus
firehose, nozzles, miscellaneous equipment and a surplus 1986 International Pumper to
the firefighter program for high school students. The value of the equipment and pumper
is estimated to be approximately $7,500.
Councilmember Carter relayed that Fife should be added to the list of cities served by the
Occupational Skills Center noted in the fourth WHEREAS of the draft resolution.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
c. Water District 125 Infrastructure Transfer Agreement
Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Utilities Committee
meeting on January 17, 2007 and February 6, 2007. The committee members were
unanimous in recommending approval.
This interlocal agreement will transfer infrastructure, including pipes, meters, services,
valves, and hydrants from Water District 125 to Tukwila. The boundaries include the
Foster Point area and the Interurban area along I -5. Service will be provided to 96
customers in these areas with the exception of Baker Commodities, which will remain
with Water District 125. The cost of the infrastructure has been assessed at $243,641. The
citizens in these areas are already served by Tukwila sewer, and the process of adding
water service to the bills is expected to be a smooth transition. After purchase by the City,
approval from Cascade Water Alliance and Seattle Public Utilities will be needed, and
then customers will be transferred to the City of Tukwila's water district.
Councilmember Carter referenced Sections 2.03 and 2.05 of the proposed interlocal
agreement and requested clarification as to whether there was a difference in the handling
of the Interurban area and the Foster Point area. Jim Morrow, Public Works Director,
indicated any differences involve clarification with regard to the maintenance of the water
lines until the transfer process is complete.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
d. Resolution declaring an emergency in response to erosion damage on 35th Avenue
South
Councilmember Carter indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee
meeting on February 12, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
City maintenance crews discovered a large sinkhole on 35th Avenue South just south of
South 128th Street. The sinkhole resulted from a failed 18" storm water pipe beneath the
roadway that conveys Riverton creek. The hole is approximately 6' deep, and there is an
exposed sewer pipe and gas main visible that requires immediate repair. This resolution
will declare an emergency and allow staff to immediately enter into a construction
contract (waiving the competitive bidding requirement) per RCW 39.04.280.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
e. Contract with IL L. Alia Company for 35th Avenue South emergency erosion
repair
Councilmember Carter indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee
meeting on February 12, 2007. The committee members were unanimous in
recommending approval.
The sink hole discovered by city crews on 35th Avenue South as described in Item d
above requires immediate repair. The small works roster was used to solicit bids, and
three quotes were received with the lowest quote from R. L. Alia Company in the amount
of $41,458.24. This contractor is currently working on other projects in the City and has a
good reputation.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
f. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, provided a briefing on the review process for two proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments. This issue will be forwarded to the regular council
meeting on March 5, 2007 for a public meeting. The Council will then decide which items
to forward to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation.
The following four criteria are utilized in reviewing and evaluating Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not
adequately addressed, is there a need for it?
2. Impacts
3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need?
What other options are there for meeting the identified public need?
4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what
result can be expected and why?
Proposed amendments received from the public and the City are reviewed and adopted
once each year unless there is an emergency. Two applications were submitted by the
December 31, 2006 deadline as follows:
1. Transit Center - Modify Wording. Applicant: Tukwila Department of Community
Development. The proposal seeks to modify an existing policy to incorporate
current information. The current policy states that a future Transit Center should
be sited on Andover Park East between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard;
the proposed wording allows somewhat greater flexibility in selecting a location
for the future Transit Center. The amendment was requested by the City Attorney
and developed in conjunction with the City Attorney and the Public Works
Department.
2. Bonsai Northwest - Regional Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density
Residential (LDR) at South 144th and 51st Avenue South. Applicant: John Muth.
The applicant seeks to redesignate approximately .63 acres of a 1.35 acre site from
commercial (RCC) to single - family residential (LDR). The property is vacant
nursery property adjacent to and associated with the Bonsai Northwest nursery
property.
Councilmember Hernandez conveyed that in the past it was considered unacceptable to
drive by properties under consideration and asked for clarification on this issue.
Jack Pace, Community Development Deputy Director, indicated this is a legislative matter
and not a quasi-judicial issue, and driving by the site would be acceptable.
Ms. Fox asked that the Councilmembers bring their notebooks to the March 5, 2007
meeting when this issue will be back before the Council.
REPORTS
a. Mayor
8:36 p.m. (occurred after Council reports)
Mayor Mullet reported that a solution to securing funding for undergrounding on Tukwila
International Boulevard has not been found. It may be determined that the City will go out
to bid for the entire project and include the undergrounding portion as an additive
alternate.
The Mayor reminded the Council of the impending visit from the citizens of Miyoshi,
Japan. There will be a Sister City business meeting on February 19, 2007 at Gordy's
restaurant to discuss the future of the exchange program. There will also be a presentation
honoring the visitors at the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting. Any speeches should
be provided ahead of time to Bev Willison in the Mayor's Office, so they can be translated
into Japanese. A short reception with refreshments will be a part of the meeting as well.
Mayor Mullet also conveyed there will be a visit from Russian citizens in late March,
2007. They are interested in learning about retail development matters and will be
involved in eight days of intense seminar related activities. The Tukwila Rotary Club is
overseeing the event, and host families are still needed for some of the visitors.
The Mayor will be attending the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) event this
week in Olympia involving interaction with Tukwila's legislators and senators.
b. Council
8:17 p.m.
Councilmember Hernandez attended the February 6, 2007 Government Affairs Committee
meeting. Jim Morrow, Tukwila Public Works Director, gave a presentation on emergency
management that was very well received, and he was invited back. Ms. Hernandez also
attended the February 7, 2007 AWC Workshop on "Leading High Impact Change - The
Art of Effective Influencing." She also attended the February 9, 2007 Chamber of
Commerce luncheon meeting.
Councilmember Carter also attended the February 7, 2007 AWC Workshop and the
February 8, 2007 Transportation Policy Board meeting. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) corridor study was a topic at the meeting, and the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) website has additional information on the issue. Ms. Carter also attended the
Destination 2030 workgroup meeting on February 8, 2007. An issue of discussion was
Senate Bill 5803 involving transportation issues that was found to be contradictory and
poorly written. Another bill may be written to clarify the issues and provide better
alternatives. Councilmember Carter will also be attending the Association of Washington
Cities (AWC) event this week in Olympia involving interaction with Tukwila's legislators
and senators.
Councilmember Haggerton attended the February 6, 2007 Government Affairs Committee
meeting and commented on the positive response to Mr. Morrow's presentation. He also
attended the February 8, 2007 event celebrating the 10th birthday of the Tukwila
Community Center. He conveyed that the Tukwila American Legion Post is seeking
suggestions on ways to improve the Veterans' Memorial at the Community Center. Mr.
Haggerton met with members of the School District on February 12, 2007 regarding
upcoming telecommunications issues.
Councilmember Linder also attended the February 7, 2007 AWC Workshop on "Leading
High Impact Change - The Art of Effective Influencing."
Council President Griffin reported that Diane Jenkins, Council Assistant, has resigned
with her last day being February 22, 2007. Efforts are being made to advertise the position
as soon as possible. Council President Griffin conveyed that due to the issues relative to
work hours and comp time accumulation, it has been suggested the position be upgraded
to Legislative Analyst. The broadness of the classification would allow the functions
previously agreed upon by the Council to be included under "Essential Duties,"
"Minimum Qualifications," and "Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities." Council consensus
existed to upgrade the position to Legislative Analyst.
Discussion ensued among the Councilmembers regarding the hiring process and it was
determined that the Council would be provided a copy of the advertisement prior to
publication; review of the full application packets would be available to the
Councilmembers through the Personnel Division; staff from the Mayor's Office, Personnel
Division, and the Council President would interview 5 to 7 applicants; and the top 2 to 3
finalists would be interviewed by the full Council for a final decision.
Comments were exchanged regarding the need for further discussion about the fine points
of the necessary job duties. Council President Griffin indicated there would be time for
additional discussion between now and the time the position is filled.
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, indicated the hiring process typically takes
approximately six weeks. She also relayed that the Personnel Division will be contacted
regarding hiring a temporary staff person until the process is complete.
c. Staff
There was no report.
d. City Attorney
The City Attorney was not present.
e. Intergovernmental
There was no report.
MISCELLANEOUS
There were no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
9:07 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GRIFFIN DECLARED THE COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURNED.
Return to Home
TO: File
FROM: Cyndy Knighton
DATE: October 22, 2004
RE: TUC Transit Center Location
Coordination with Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Project
This memo summarizes the discussion and thought processes behind decisions made surrounding
the location of a future transit center on Andover Park East near Baker Boulevard as related to
the 700,000sf expansion of the Mall.
As part of the Mall's expansion, a parking variance is being requested for up to 10% of the
required parking. This equates to an approximately 700 parking stall reduction. As part of the
negotiations with granting this reduction, improvements to transit facilities are being requested
by the City. •
King County Metro was invited to share their needs and preferences. Metro staff expressed a
strong preference for far -side stops. Further, Metro staff preferred keeping the existing location
of the transit stop (Andover Park E, south of Baker Boulevard, west side of the street only) for
the long term. This benefits their lay-over site on Tukwila Parkway between Andover Park E
and Andover Park W. Metro is supportive of a stop on the east side of Andover Park W, again,
preferring a far -side location to that of a near -side one.
�Il• The property on the east side of Andover Park W, immediately north of Baker Boulevard
(commonly called the Fatigue site) is under new ownership and redevelopment is expected at any
tirne. With this site 'in play,' obtaining ROW for street widening as well as additional ROW or
easements for transit irriprovements becomes easier. The property immediately south of Baker
Boulevard, known as the Acura Dealership, is not expected to be redeveloped in the near or mid
term.
The 1 -405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit project recently presented findings
surrounding the expected needs and service information for the BRT portion. Those findings
showed the Southcenter area, in particular the Mall, as the terminus of one route. The nature of
BRT is more similar to rail and therefore facility needs are closer to those of a rail (light or
heavy) station than of traditional bus transit. To wit, the future BRT stop is envisioned to be a
strong focal point, with stops across from each other. In this instance, the stops are configured in
a northbound near -side, southbound far -side configuration on Andover Park W, south of Baker
Boulevard. BRT is a long -range plan at this time, but consideration was given to find ways to
accommodate, if possible. The BRT report showed a potential need for 3 "bays" at the stops.
However, city staff, on the recommendation of the consultant preparing the forthcoming Transit
Network Plan, is comfortable in future transit volumes being accommodated by 2 "bays" if a
comparable northbound stop is in place.
Staff put on the table the possibility of creating a strong transit focal point, much like the needs
for BRT, using the transit station for "place making." This idea blended well with the Tukwila
Urban Center plan and the Transit Plan. The consultant preparing the Transit Plan weighed in on
this issue and communications to that effect are attached. Three possible options were discussed:
1) creating the focal point on the south side of Baker $oulevard utilizing the existing stops and
TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER SITE PLAN
SOUTHBOUND STO
b
L P -
NORTHBOUND STOP
BAKER BLVD.
Features
Pedestrian lighting
Streetlights
Shelter lighting
Translucent canopies
Individual seating
Route markers
Bicycle racks
Low level screen planting
Tactile warning strip at curb edge
Emergency call box
Security cameras
Textured crosswalk
Intersection improvements
Plaza art
BAKER BOULEVARD STOP
TRANSIT CENTER SITE PLAN