HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2016-05-23 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Comm unity Affairs &
Parks Committee
O De'Sean Quinn, Chair
O Kathy Hougardy
O Thomas McLeod
AGENDA
Distribution:
Recommended Action
D. Quinn
C. O'Flaherty
K. Hougardy
R. Turpin
T. McLeod
L. Humphrey
J. Duffle
R. Eaton
D. Robertson
J. Hight
Mayor Ekberg
R. Bianchi
D. Cline
M. Bradshaw
MONDAY, MAY 23, 2016 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(formerly known as CR #3) at east entrance of City Hall
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. A contract amendment with B -Force Security for
a. Forward to 6/6 Consent
Pg.1
Tukwila parks.
Agenda.
Robert Eaton, Parks & Recreation Manager
b. An amendment to the contract with 41-eaf
b. Forward to 6/13 C.O.W.
Pg.5
Inspection Services.
and 6/20 Regular Mtg.
Jerry Hight, Building Official
Consent Agenda.
c. An update on the SeeClickFix "Tukwila Works"
c. Committee consideration.
Pg.11
tool.
Rachel Bianchi, Communications and
Government Relations Manager
d. An update on the Housing Options Program.
d. Committee consideration.
Pg.15
Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner
e. Community Affairs and Parks Committee Work
e. Committee consideration.
Pg.27
Plan.
Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, June 13, 2016
SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 - 433 -1800 (TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Rick Still, Director Parks & Recreation
BY: Robert Eaton, Parks & Recreation Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 18, 2016
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment to Extend Park Security Services through 2016
ISSUE
Need to extend current Parks Security Services contract through end of 2016.
BACKGROUND
Parks Maintenance contracts with B -Force Protection for Park Security Services and the current
contract is set to expire June 30, 2016 and needs to be extended through the end of 2016.
DISCUSSION
The contract amendment is to extend the existing contract from July 1, 2016 through December
31, 2016 for $11,100 which will put the total contract amount over $40,000 therefore requiring
Council approval. The contract began in 2014 and has been amended each year to extend
services.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The additional six months of services costs $11,100 and is in the budget. The new contract total
will be $44,400.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the June 6, 2016
Regular Meeting to approve the Mayor to sign the contract amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
Contract Amendment
2
City of Tukwila Agreement Number:
• 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
Amendment #2
Between the City of Tukwila and B -Force Protection
That portion of Contract No.14 -203 between the City of Tukwila and B -Force Protection is
amended as follows:
Sections:
2. Compensation and Method of Payment. The City shall pay the Contractor for services
rendered according to the rate and method set forth on Exhibit A attached here to and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total amount to be paid shall not exceed
$44,400.00 (22,200.00 per year).
4. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect commencing
January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2016 unless written notice to terminate the
Agreement is given to the Contractor (as outlined in number 10) in the original contract
All other provisions of the contract shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated this day of
CITY OF TUKWILA
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
CA: 2012
CONTRACTOR
Printed Name/Title:
, 2016.
Page 1 of 1
3
El
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Community Affairs and Parks
FROM:
Jack Pace, Director of the Department of Community Development
BY:
Jerry E Hight, Building Official
CC:
Mayor Ekberg
DATE:
May 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
41-eaf Inspections Services Contract Amendment
ISSUE
Should council approve amending the current contract (15 -123) with 41-eaf inspections services to
provide building inspection coverage?
BACKGROUND
We have sustained the building inspection schedule in the past with the use of third party inspections
services of 41-eaf Inc. With the two vacant building inspector positions and the current level of building
development there is a need to continue 41-eaf inspections services in order to maintain customer
service times response times.
DISCUSSION
The existing $100,000.00 41-eaf contract has previously been charged approximately $95,000.00 and
will need to be amended to continue to provide building inspection services, and inspector vacation
backup. Extensive recruitment and marketing have failed to fill our two current vacant building
inspector positions [Jim Dunaway retired in December of 2014, Carol Martin left in January 2015].
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Inspection service costs through the end of the contract on December 31, 2016 will require a contract
amendment for an additional $120,000.00. The original $100,000 contract will not exceed $220,000
based on this amendment. The salaries from the two vacant building inspection positions will fund
this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the $120,000 amendment to the 41-eaf Inspection Service
contract and forward onto the June 13, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting and the subsequent
June 20, 2016 Regular Meeting Consent agenda.
ATTACHMENTS
41-eaf Inspections Service contract amendment
5
Amendment #1
Between the City of Tukwila and 41-eaf Inc.
That portion of Contract No.15 -123 between the City of Tukwila and 41-eaf Inc. is amended
as follows:
Section 2:
2. Compensation and Method of Payment.
rendered according to the rate and method
incorporated herein by this reference. The
$220,000.00 at a rate of $70.00 per hour.
The City shall pay the Contractor for services
set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and
total amount to be paid shall not exceed
All other provisions of the contract shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated this day of , 2016.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Mayor, Allan Ekberg, Mayor
CA: 2012
CONTRACTOR
Printed Name Gene Barry
Title: 41-eaf Inc. Vice President
Page 1 of 1
7
E-11
CITY OF TUKWILA
EXHIBIT `B" TO BUILDING SERVICES CONTRACT
Inspection Services
Commercial Building Inspector (Building Inspector II) .......... ............................$70 /hour
Overtime........................................................ ..........................$1.5X hourly rate
Consultant's Building Inspector will be billed to the City at the Commercial Building Inspector
(Inspector 11) rate of $70 /hr. 4LEAF's Project Manager will work with the City for reviewing
and approving inspection staff assigned to the City.
• Review by Engineer must be authorized in advance via email by City of Tukwila.
• Overtime must be authorized by the City of Tukwila via email prior to being incurred.
• Commercial Building Inspector rates apply for commercial building, plumbing and
mechanical inspections, and inspections of multi- family residential (more than two
dwelling units per building).
• Residential Building Inspector rates apply for residential building, plumbing and
mechanical inspections.
• Inspections services will be charged based on the actual inspection, not the staff assigned
by the consultant. For example, if consultant sends a senior combination inspector to
conduct a residential building inspection, consultant will charge the City the residential
inspector rate.
• Rates are inclusive of "tools of the trade" such as forms, telephones and consumables.
• All invoicing to be done monthly. Invoices must be itemized and include contract
number.
• Staff Augmentation work (excluding plan review) is subject to 2 -hour minimum charges
unless stated otherwise. Services billed in 2 -hour increments.
• All billable expenses will be charged at cost plus 20 %.
• Mileage will be billed at the IRS allowable rate plus 20 %.
• All requests should be made directly to 4LEAF's Project Manager.
4LEAF's designated Project Manager for this contract is:
Ed O'Reilly
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600, Tacoma WA, 98402
eoreilly @41eafinc.com
Phone: (253) 203 -3336
Fax: (253) 203 -3101
X
I
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager
Mayor Ekberg
May 18, 2016
Information Awareness - Follow Up on SeeClickFix — Tukwila Works
ISSUE
On March 28, staff presented to the committee regarding bringing online SeeClickFix, an app
and web -based tool that will augment the City's efforts to respond to issues raised by the
community. The Committee had some questions and concerns and asked staff to return with
additional information.
BACKGROUND
SeeClickFix is an app and web -based tool that allows residents and other stakeholders to
provide information directly and quickly to the government on specific issues. Staff have
adopted Tukwila Works as the City name for this effort; from now on SeeClickFiX will be
referred to as Tukwila Works.
In Tukwila, we have identified the following issues to roll out the effort with, keeping the list small
enough for staff to address but hitting on the key issues we know are of interest in our
community. These include:
• Animal Control
• Camping
• Code Enforcement
• Garbage /Debris
• Graffiti
• Illegal Parking
• Overgrown Brush/Trees
• Potholes
• Rental Property Concern
• Speeding or Traffic Complaints
• Stormwater /Sewer Issue
• Traffic Signal/Traffic Sign Issue
• Tukwila Parks Issue
• Other
Tukwila Works is intended to be conducted as a one -year pilot project to see whether this
technology is embraced and used by the community, and whether it is worth the investment of
$12,000 annually. The intention is to review the data collected over this next year and make a
determination as to whether to move forward with the technology beyond this initial pilot year.
Staff intends to brief the Community Affairs and Parks Committee with the results of this review.
Staff wishes to address the following specific concerns raised by Committee members at the
last meeting:
Prioritization of technology over other methods of issue reporting — The City has never
contemplated making everyone who wishes to report an issue use this technology. The usual
ways to report an issue — phone, email, in person, etc. will still remain a very important way for
residents to communicate with City staff; those usual ways were presented in April's Tukwila
Reporter. Tukwila Works is being approached as a way to augment these efforts, and provide a
centralized place for all issues reported to the City to be logged and accessed (with one
exception discussed below).
11
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
City staff who are notified of an issue via phone, email or in person, would then log the issue
into Tukwila Works, and work with the person reporting the issue to identify the manner in which
they would want to receive the follow up information. Residents who are not interested in using
the technology can continue to interact with City staff as they do now. Current methods on
response prioritization will not change. When projects must be prioritized over one another, the
method of reporting will not be taken into account. Rather, issues of safety, number of people
impacted, etc. will be the deciding factor.
Question on response times — The expectation is that every issue — regardless as to how it is
received by City staff — be acknowledged by staff within three business days. This is what we
strive for now following our City value of Responsiveness. This does not mean resolved, but
that the person reporting the issue knows that someone has been assigned the issue. Via
Tukwila Works, this would happen with an email. If someone is reporting an issue in another
format, their three -day acknowledgement would happen via that format of communication.
Concern about Code Enforcement — While Code Enforcement reports will come through Tukwila
Works, Code Enforcement staff will not enter all of their cases into this system. TracklT is and
will remain the primary system for tracking Code Enforcement cases. If a Code Enforcement
report comes through Tukwila Works that is deemed worthy of creating an official Code
Enforcement case, it will be entered into TracklT.
Via Tukwila Works, the person who reports a code enforcement issue and other viewers will
only see the following generic message:
Your request has been received and has been assigned to the Tukwila Code
Enforcement Division. You can check on the status of your issue via our mobile app or
on the City's Website at www.TukwilaWA.gov/TukwilaWorks. We will send you an
update when you request has been resolved.
Code Enforcement cases often take a significant amount of time to resolve due to legal
issues around property rights. There are many steps in the process that require specific
documentation, timelines and communications. Because of this, as well as privacy
concerns, if you would like an update on this case's status, please contact Code
Enforcement via phone at (206) 431 -3671. Tukwila Works will not be updated with the
various steps taken to resolve this issue, but once the case is closed you will be notified
directly with specific information on the resolution.
Thank you again for using Tukwila Works to help to make our community a better place
by notifying City staff of this issue.
Regards,
Tukwila Code Enforcement Division
P.S. Please consider signing up for the E- Hazelnut Newsletter, a monthly publication
delivered directly to your email inbox. To do so, visit www.TukwilaWa.gov and scroll
down.
When the actual case is closed, Code Enforcement staff will close the case in Tukwila Works
and include narrative in the notification that has to do with the disposition of the case. By doing
this we preserve privacy issues for our residents. Again, Code Enforcement cases that come to
the City via other communications channels — phone, email, in- person, etc. — will NOT be
entered into Tukwila Works.
WA2016 Info MemosTinal SCF Memo with AE edits incorporated rb.docx
12
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Concerns about harassmentivigilantism — Tukwila Works has automated processes in place to
ensure that offensive content cannot be published. Specific algorithms don't allow certain words
to be included in posts, and terms of use are specific to what is appropriate and not to post.
Additionally, a poster can be "flagged" for inappropriate use, including for excessive reporting,
which then puts them into a moderated posting function whereby their posts cannot be seen
until SeeClickFix staff reviews and deems them publishable under the terms of use. If Tukwila
staff sees a questionable item, they can have the item "flagged" as well.
Concern about workload — Staff have spoken with other cities using this technology, as well as
SeeClickFix company representatives specifically on this issue. It is a common concern raised
by cities new to this technology. However, all have assured us that while there may be an initial
blip of work, the technology actually allows for greater staff efficiencies by having a centralized
location for all issues. Indeed, response from City staff has been very positive, with some of our
high - volume issue takers, such as the Public Works front counter, who see this as enhancing
their work with members of the community.
Concern regarding the TracklT Citizen's Response Module (CRM) — Committee members
raised concerns that the City had already invested in a similar technology that was supposed to
provide online reporting options that would integrate with other data in TracklT. The CRM was a
free module provided to Tukwila when the City purchased the other functions; no money was
spent. The CRM has no phone app or robust web interface for public use and thus did not meet
our goal of enhancing outreach to residents.
Concern that the technology may not be appropriate for smaller cities — SeeClickFix serves
hundreds of communities around the United States and in other countries, and includes every
size community. Below are some cities that use the technology that range in size, as well as
the two other cities in Washington that use SeeClickFix.
Yellowknife Canada — 19,000
Shoreline, WA — 55,000
Bainbridge Island, WA —23,000
Northfield NJ — 9,000 — 9,000
Stockbridge, GA — 25,000
Randolph, MA — 32,000
Clovis, NM — 39,000
Bexley — 13,000
Roll out plan — City Staff is internally testing the application to learn the system. Roll out the
technology is targeted for June 1, beginning with announcements on the website, social media,
special edition of the E- Hazelnut and flyers in various public locations, such as at community
events, as well as in June's Tukwila Reporter. We would expect City leaders and staff to utilize
the tool too, to be reporters as well. After providing usage information to the council, it is
anticipated that the fall edition of the Hazelnut would include an article on Tukwila Works and
the community's use and response.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking to answer the Committee's questions and receive input on the roll out of Tukwila
Works.
WA2016 Info MemosTinal SCF Memo with AE edits incorporated rb.docx
13
14
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Affairs and Parks
CC: Mayor Ekberg
FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director
BY: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner
Laura Benjamin, Assistant Planner
DATE: May 23, 2016
SUBJECT: Evaluation and Reinstatement of the Housing Options Program
ISSUE
Should Tukwila increase the types of housing allowed and if so, how and where?
BACKGROUND
In 2005 the City created a housing demonstration program in order to provide opportunity for
innovative housing designs. Housing stock in the city is dominated by detached single family
homes and "garden- style" apartments of 20 -100 units. (Attachment A)
The program adopted by the City created a three year timeframe for up to three demonstration
projects that met specific criteria. Four projects applied and three were approved in 2008. A
summary of the four applications received in 2008 and one newly proposed project is provided
as Attachment B.
The newly proposed project, the Riverton Compact Homes development is listed in row 1 a
under the Housing Type /Option category in the Housing in Tukwila — Current & Potential Efforts
matrix which was presented to CAP at the April 25, 2016 meeting.
DISCUSSION
A Housing Options program evaluation element was specified (TMC 18.120.080) after
completion and occupancy of the housing approved. This is supported by the Housing Element
of the Comprehensive Plan that provides direction for the City to evaluate and reinstate the
Housing Options program based upon lessons learned. None of the Housing Options program
projects were constructed; however, there are some lessons learned as a result of the first
phase in the program. Based on these lessons some aspects of the Housing Program should be
revised.
The time limit on the program proved ineffective as the housing market crashed before any of
the selected projects could be constructed. Given the volatility of the housing market and the
City's lack of control over market factors, a longer time limit or no limit is recommended.
The housing density and unit size equivalencies, which had no performance standards, could be
linked to performance criteria with a cap on the percentage increase. i.e., more units can be
built if the units meet design, sustainability, and affordability standards.
The primary goals of the Housing Options program were to increase the choice of housing
styles, provide a better infill into the City's existing lot and street arrangements, and improve the
character and quality of neighborhoods. Under the Housing Options program, the type of review 15
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
for the proposed developments was based upon the type and size of project proposed, for
example the development could be reviewed as a short plat or a full subdivision with associated
design review.
There are additional ways to write regulations to achieve these goals. Attachment C provides an
overview of the regulatory processes for the now sunset Housing Options program and
alternatives. The Options program created a separate process whereas there are existing
processes within the Zoning Code that could be used. They are:
• The Planned Residential Development (PRD) process in the existing Tukwila Zoning
Code, allows greater flexibility in site design. PRDs can encourage a unified plan that
provides a more complete and integrated package, such as a cluster of smaller lots in
conjunction with common open space with recreational amenities and a protected
natural area. With some modifications, it could be an effective mechanism for review
and decision - making; or
• A zoning overlay creates a special zoning district, placed over specific geographic areas
of an existing zone and that modifies the underlying regulations, such as height, density
or use. The City currently utilizes overlays, such as the Urban Renewal Overlay in the
several zoning districts in the TIB corridor, and the Tukwila Valley South Overlay in
Tukwila South, to provide flexibility in specified geographic areas. This would be a tool if
there are some LDR districts where the Housing Options program shouldn't be used.
The code update process will include outreach to residents and numerous opportunities for
public input at community meetings, open houses, and public hearings. A draft outreach plan is
included as Attachment D.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Outreach costs would include mailings, meeting refreshments, handouts, and overtime.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide direction on the Housing Options program reinstatement with modifications
and the draft outreach plan. Forward to Planning Commission for their review.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary of Housing Types in Tukwila
B. Summary of Housing Options Applications
C. Overview of Regulatory Processes
D. Draft Outreach Plan
16
Attachment A
HOUSING IN TUKWILA
Housing Stock
The majority of residents live in two bedroom single - family homes or apartments in large multi - family developments.
Type
# of Units
% of Total Housing Stock
Single - Family
3,254
42
Multi- Family (including condos)
4,207
55
Mobile Home
233
3
Source, King County Assessor, 2013
The majority of Tukwila residents rent.
Type
# of Units
% of Total Housing Stock
Owner - Occupied
3,335
43
Rental
4,420
57
Total
7,755
Affordable Housing
Source: King County Assessor, 2014
Housing Affordability at Various Incomes
Income
Annual Income
Affordable Monthly
% of
% of
King County
Bracket
Rent /Home Purchase Cost*
Residents
Affordable
Affordable Housing
Housing
Target ( %)
Units
Less than 30%
$19,990 or less
$500 rent/ $94,400 to own
20
3.5
12
AMI
31 -50% AMI
$19,991-
$670 rent /$157,300 to own
17
26
12
$33,100
51 -80% AMI
$33,101-
$1,070 rent /$232,700 to own
22
38
16
$52,939
81 -100% AMI
$52,940-
$1,500 rent/ $314,700 to own
19
22.5
NA
$66,174
101% + AMI
$66,175+
$1,800+ rent /$361,900+ to
22
10
NA
own
Source: American Community Survey, 2008 -2012; King County, 2008
* Housing is considered affordable when residents pay no more than 30% of their total income on housing costs such as rent or mortgage
payments, and utilities.
Housing Condition
• Most existing single - family homes were built before 1970 and the majority of multi - family homes were
constructed between the 1960s- 1980s.
• Aging housing stock typically requires more money for maintenance, which can be difficult for residents who
are already burdened by other economic stressors.
Affordable Housing
• While Tukwila continues to have affordable units for those at 50 -80% area median income (AMI), more and
more households are struggling to meet their housing costs.
• Nearly 40% of residents are cost burdened, paying more than one -half of their income on housing.
• In particular, households who make 30% or less of the AMI face the greatest struggle to find affordable
housing and are often on the brink of homelessness.
5/17/2016
\ \dcdstore \DCD Common$ \Long Range Projects \Cottages \Code Update \CAP 5.23.16 \A_Housing Types Summary.docx
17
Housing Options
• Over 9% of homes are overcrowded, indicating a need for more "family sized" housing, with three or more
bedrooms.
• This range of housing options does not accommodate residents in all stages of life, including young adults,
multigenerational families, older adults hoping to "age in place," and older adults looking to downsize.
5/17/2016
\ \dcdstore \DCD Common$ \Long Range Projects \Cottages \Code Update \CAP 5.23.16 \A_Housing Types Summary.dou
i
Attachment B - Summary of Housing Options Applications
The goals of the Housing Options
1. Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through projects that are compatible with existing single - family developments;
2. Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes;
3. Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas;
4. Develop high - quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and
5. Provide a greater variety of housing types that respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small fami ies, single- person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods.
Housing
Type
Project
Size
Unit Size
Equivalent
Units
Height /#
Stories
Common Open
Space
Building
Coverage
Parking
Districts
Distance
Between
Structures
Ownership Structure
Notes
Original
Housing
Options
Program
Standards
Cottages;
Minimum of
8 units;
maximum
of 36 units
For cottages
— Maximum
of 12 per
cluster
Minimum
of 800 sf;
Maximum
of 1000 sf
1 dwelling
unit per 3250
net sf
18'; 25' if
roof
slopes
6:12
Units within 60 ft
of space, abutted
by units on at
least two sides;
TMC Recreation
Space
Requirements for
projects of 20
units or more
35%
1.5 stalls per unit; 2
stalls for units >1,000
sf
LDR, MDR, HDR;
At least 1,500 feet
from another
Housing Option
Development
10'
Subdivision or
Condominium
3 projects to be selected as pilot
demonstration program
Compact
single family;
duplexes
designed to
look like
single - family;
Or a
combination
of all above
Maximum
of 1500 sf
1 dwelling
unit per 4875
net sf
Duwamish
Neighborhood
Cottages
(Duwamish)
Cottages
8
1000 sf
1 per 3752 sf
1.5 Stories
Met Code; 7,000
sq. ft.
24.5%
8 stalls in garages;
5 surfaced
LDR
10'
Subdivision
16 neighbors signed petition in
support; Concerns about river
bank stabilization; Selected
Live Above
Carriage Units
1
720 sf
Riverton Park
Cottages
(Thorndyke)
Cottages
8
900 sf
1 per 4458 sf
1.5 Stories
Met Code
30.75%
2 per unit — 18
surface, 20 in garages
LDR
10'
Subdivision
Community meeting space; use
Built Green sustainable building
standards;
Not Selected
Compact
Single - Family
Homes
8
1200 sf
Live Above
Carriage Units
2
800 sf
Cooke
Commons
(Riverton)
Cottages
1
1000 sf
1 per 4474 sf
1.5 Stories
Location did not
meet Code
22%
2 per unit;
Unscreened location
did not meet Code
LDR
10'
Subdivision
Selected
Compact
Single Family
Homes
8
1500 sf
E Marginal
Way Cottages
(Riverton)
Compact
Single - Family
Homes
16
1100 sf
1 per 4933 sf
No
Elevations
Provided
Common green,
retain existing
Madrona grove —
sf not specified
Not
Specified
2 per unit, 47 on site
including street
spaces
LDR
10'
Not Specified
Focus on environmentally and
socially conscious design; Selected
Duplexes
2
1500 sf
Riverton Park
CURRENT
PROPOSAL
(Cascade
View)
Compact
Single - Family
Homes
31
1650 sf
1 per 4875 sf
2 Stories
Common greens,
community
gardening spaces
Not
Specified
68 off - street spaces —
garage, open stalls,
and driveway; 22
reserved street
parking
LDR
10'
Subdivision, Owner-
Occupied with HOA
Will meet King County's Built
Green sustain ability standards
Live Above
Carriage Units
3
720 sf
N
O
Attachment C: Overview of Public Review Processes
Page 1 of 2
Development of 9 Lots or Less
Development of 10+ Lots
Advantages /Disadvantages
Original
Housing
Options
Program
Type of Application
• Pilot Program Selection application (A)*
• Short Plat (A)
• Design Review (A)
Type of Application
• Pilot Program Selection application (A)*
• Subdivision (CC)
• Design Review (CC)
• SEPA (A)
Advantages
• Numerous opportunities for public involvement at various stages of
review process
• For 10+ Lots — Concurrent review of subdivision and design review
streamlines the permitting process
Type of Public Notice
• Notice of Application to agencies and
Type of Public Notice
Disadvantages
applicant
• Notice of Application to agencies, applicant and property owners and tenants w /in 500'
• Posting property
• Pilot program selection process lengthens permitting process/ may be
seen as a disincentive for developers
Type of Meetings
• Permit approvals expired when ordinance sunset
• Initial Community Meeting
Type of Meetings
• Initial Community Meeting
Appeal Process
• Informational Meeting for Subdivision
• Hearing Examiner
• Public Hearing
Appeal Process
• Superior Court
Planned
Type of Application
Type of Application
Advantages
Residential
• Short Plat (A)
• Subdivision (CC)
• Opportunities for resident involvement at various stages of review
Development
• Design Review (A)
• Design Review (CC)
process
(PRD)
• PRD (A)
• SEPA (A)
• For 10+ Lots — Concurrent review of subdivision, design review, and
PRD streamlines the permitting process
Type of Public Notice
Type of Public Notice
• Notice of Application to agencies, applicant
• Notice of Application to agencies, applicant and property owners and tenants w /in 500'
Disadvantages
and property owners and tenant w /in 500'
• Posting property
• Posting property
• Does not limit geographic area /number of developments in a
neighborhood
Type of Meetings
Type of Meetings
• Initial Community Meeting
• Initial Community Meeting
• Informational Meeting for Subdivision
• Public Hearing
Appeal Process
Hearing Examiner
Appeal Process
• Superior Court
Page 1 of 2
N
N
Attachment C: Overview of Public Review Processes
*(A) — Type 2 — Administrative Decision
(CC) —Type 5 — Council Decision
* *Council review of Subdivision, Design Review, and PRD can be done concurrently
Please note: Zoning Code updates require a five meeting process: CAP 4 Planning Commission Public Hearing /Recommendation 4 CAP 4 Council Public Hearing /Discussion (COW) 4 Council Action (Regular Meeting)
Page 2 of 2
Development of 9 Lots or Less
Development of 10+ Lots
Advantages /Disadvantages
Zoning
Type of Application
Type of Application
Advantages
Overlay
• Short Plat (A)
• Subdivision (CC)
• Design Review (CC)
• Limited to specific geographic areas where the zoning overlay is
applied
Type of Public Notice
• SEPA (A)
• Notice of Application to agencies and
Disadvantages
applicant
Type of Public Notice
• Limited to specific geographic areas where zoning overlay is applied
• Notice of Application to agencies, applicant and property owners and tenant w /in 500'
• Limited opportunities for public involvement for developments less
Type of Meetings
• Posting property
than 9 lots
• None
Type of Meetings
Appeal Process
• Informational Meeting for Subdivision
• Hearing Examiner
• Public Hearing
Appeal Process
• Superior Court
*(A) — Type 2 — Administrative Decision
(CC) —Type 5 — Council Decision
* *Council review of Subdivision, Design Review, and PRD can be done concurrently
Please note: Zoning Code updates require a five meeting process: CAP 4 Planning Commission Public Hearing /Recommendation 4 CAP 4 Council Public Hearing /Discussion (COW) 4 Council Action (Regular Meeting)
Page 2 of 2
24
Attachment D: Housing Options Draft Outreach Plan
Date
Tactic
Task
Notes
June
Web page
Explain concept show
creation
pictures, include
schedule
July
Powerpoint
Overview of concept;
presentation
type of homes;
variations and process
July
Online open
Opportunity to
house
provide feedback
electronically
July
Tukwila
Reporter article
July /August
Pop -Ups
Have staff and a
Engage residents at
display at Tukwila
popular community
Community Center;
destinations
and Foster Library
during peak periods
August
Postcard
Mailed to all residents
Advertise that staff is
in LDR
available for meeting,
or presentations to
groups and date of PC
hearing
August
E- hazelnut
(Distributed last
Monday of each
month)
August
TukTV
Interview Community
Trust
September
Planning
Work Session /Public
Commission
Hearing
September
Planning
Discussion /Decision
Commission
October
CAP
Planning Commission
Recommendation/
Ordinance Briefing
COW
Public Hearing
City Council
Ordinance Decision
25
26
Community Affairs and Parks Committee - 2016 Work Plan
Description
Dept
p
Action
(A) ,or
(A)
Briefing
(B)
Status/Notes
City Support for Veterans (Incl. parks discounts per 2014
Council request, Veterans Day event at TCC)
1 -4
P &R
Other
B
Housing Options Matrix
2 -4
DCD
A, B
4/25 CAP — periodic review and direction
Landlord /Tenant Issues; Open Space for multifamily
2 -4
Council,
P &R
A
4/11 CAP forum
Healthy Tukwila — Fit City
2 -3
P &R
B
REACH Agreement (beyond July 2016)
2 -3
P &R
A
Proactive Code Enforcement Update
2 -3
DCD
B
Foster Golf Links Golf Carts — Annual Purchase Approval
1
P &R
A
Complete
Foster Golf Links — Greens Fees
1
P &R
A
Complete
Wireless Communication Regulations Update
1
DCD
A
Complete
Housing Options Program Briefing*
2
DCD
B
Recreation Registration Software Update
2
P &R
B
Duwamish Hill Preserve Construction — Contract Closeout *
2
P &R
A
Foster Golf Links Restaurant Concessionaire Agreement
2
P &R
A
Complete
Park sign inventory
2
P &R
B
Housekeeping Code Amendments
2
DCD
A
Complete
SEPA Ordinance
2
DCD
A
Complete
Tree Ordinance Update
2
DCD
A
Complete (ordinance in 2017)
Residential Infill Standards *
2
DCD
Schedule after Housing Options
Building Codes
2
DCD
A
June
Facilities Plan Community Outreach
2
Comm
B
Complete
City Customer Service — Tukwila Works
2
Comm
A
1% Art Policy Implementation
3
P &R
A
Ailey Camp Update *
_ 3
P &R
B
Green Tukwila /Forterra 20 -year Plan
3
P &R
A
TIB Comp Plan Implementation
3
DCD
A
Trakit Briefing on e- Filing
3
DCD
B
Update on vehicle parking ordinance implementation
4
DCD
B
City of Tukwila
Updated 5/18/16
Community Affairs and Parks Committee - 2016 Work Plan
DCD Fee Resolution
DCD
A
Administrative Items
North Wind Weir property Transfer (from King County)
P &R
A
Duwamish Hill Preserve Grant Acceptance
2
P &R
A
Complete
Starfire Sports Agreement (tentative)
3
P &R
A
Foster Golf Links Pond Liner — Purchase Approval or Design /Bid
2 -3
P &R
A
CDBG Application for Minor Home Repair
2
HS
A
Complete
Park Security Contract Award
2
P &R
A
Parcels /Properties Official Naming
3
P &R
A
Parking 1
TIBAC request relating to business license /trash (pending Committee direct on)
Orilla Road Annexation (pending King County action)
Vacant home registry program review (pending Committee direction)
Review sidewalk requirements in Subdivision Code (joint with DCD /PW, not currently scheduled)
Standard Reports /Briefings
Frequency;
Dept.
Events Calendar
Annual
Parks
Parks Department Report
Annual
Parks
Teens for Tukwila
Multiple
Parks
*asterisks indicate potential offsite meeting topics
City of Tukwila
Updated 5/18/16