Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Reg 2024-10-21 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
Monday, Tukwila City ••• • REGULAR Council Agenda • MEETING •• • 4 1. '[C1 4 --4 ( ° Nvl Thomas McLeod, Mayor Councilmembers: + De'Sean Quinn •:. Tosh Sharp Marty Wine, CityAdministrator •:. Armen Papyan •:. Jovita McConnell Mohamed Abdi, Council President + Dennis Martinez + Hannah Hedrick • N-SITE PRESENCE: TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD ' EMOTE PARTICIPATION FOR THE PUBLIC: 1-253-292-9750, ACCESS CODE: 670077847# Click here to: Join icrosoft Teams eeting For Technical Support: 1-206-433-7155 October 21, 2024; 7:00 PM • Ord #2738 • Res #2103 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / ROLL CALL 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The City of Tukwila is located on the ancestral lands of the Coast Salish people. We acknowledge their continuing connections to land, waters and culture. We pay our respects to their elders past, present and emerging. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS including comment on items both on and not on the meeting agenda Those wishing to provide public comments may verbally address the City Council on -site at Tukwila City Hall or via phone or Microsoft Teams for up to 5 inutes items both on and not on the meeting agenda. To provide comment via phone or icroso Tea s, please email citycouncil@tukwilawa.gov with your name and topic by 5:00 PM on the meeting both for date. Please clearly indicate that your message is for public comment during the meeting, and you will receive further instructions. 4. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes: 10/7/24 (Regular Mtg.) b. Approval of Vouchers c. Ordinances implementing the provisions of Senate Bill 5290: [Reviewed and forwarded to consent by the Committee of the Whole on 08/12/241 (1) An ordinance amending Ordinance Nos. 2293 §13 and 2676 §1, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 8.22.120; Amending Ordinance No. 2547 §12, as codified at TMC Section 8.45.070; To remove ambiguities, codify internal policies, and reflect changes in State law. (2) An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2171 §1 (part), as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 16.04.040; Amending Ordinance Nos. 2171 §1 (part), 2648 §4, 2673 §1, and 2702 §4, as codified at TMC Section 16.04.250; To remove ambiguities, codify internal policies and reflect changes in State law. (3) An ordinance repealing various ordinances as codified in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Title 17, "Subdivisions and plats"; Reenacting Title 17; To remove ambiguities, improve clarity, codify internal policies, and reflect changes in State law. (4) An ordinance repealing various ordinances as codified in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Title 18, "Zoning"; Reenacting Title 18; To remove ambiguities, improve clarity, codify internal policies, and reflect changes in State law. (continued...) Pg.1 pg.3 Pg.9 Pg.13 Pg.51 REGULAR MEETING October 21L2024 Page 2 4. CONSENT AGENDA (S) An ordinance repealing various ordinances as codified in Tukwila Pg,63 (cont..) Municipal Code (TMC) Title 19, "Sign and Visual Communication Code"; Reenacting Title 19; To remove ambiguities, improve clarity, codify internal policies, and reflect changes in State law. (6) Anordinance amending Ordinance Nos. 1331 §19, 1344§10, 1770 U»9^111 §84, and 2374 §1, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code (TM[) Section 21.04.210; To remove ambiguities, codify internal policies and reflect changes inState law. d. A reSO|ut|OD amending Resolution NO. 2058; Updating certain parts Of the Land Use Fee Schedule to reflect changes to the U»g.115 Tukvv||O Municipal Code as d result Ofchanges in State |dvv. [Reviewed and forwarded bnconsent bvthe Committee ufthe Whole on &8112/34./ e. Authorize the Mayor to S|gD O contract with Karen S. Lentz PLLC, for prosecution services, iDthe amount Of$14,45O.00per month for 2025 and $14,900.00 per DlODth for 2026. U»g,123 [Reviewed and forwarded to consent by the Community Services anal Safety Committee on 10/14124 / f. Authorize the Mayor to sign O contract with Kir5heDbdunl &(SOSS, Inc. P.S. fOr2O2S - 2026 public defense services, in the amount U»g.137 Of$32,6OO.00 per month. /Reviewoedand/onoe/de/bnoonasntbvbhe(I7nnrru/nYySsnvcesand Safety Committee un 10/14124 / g. Authorize the Mayor to S|gD a CODtrOCt with Ogden Murphy U»g.157 Wallace, PLL[, for [|tv Attorney Services, in the ODlOuDt Of $36,400.00 per nlODth for 2025 and $38,220.00 per nlODth for 2026. [Reviewed and forwarded bnconsent bvthe Community Services and Safety Committee un 10/14124 / h. Authorize the Mayor to S|gD O Memorandum Of Understanding expressing support to establish the Kent Valley Air and Space U»g^173 Manufacturing Roundtable. [Reviewed and forwarded toconsent bvthe Planning and Community Development Committee on 10114124.] S. PUBLIC HEARING AOuaS|-]udiC|a| hearing 03consider a nlOtiOD tOapprove Ordeny dD U»g^181 O[diDODCe rezoning property at 6250 South 151st Street from LOvv Density Residential (LDR) 03 Medium Density Residential (MDR), 03 include the OSSOC|Oted Comprehensive P|OD and Zoning Map changes, at the request Of HdDS KOrve Of DMP Incorporated OD behalf Ofthe applicant, Schneider Homes. To provide public hearing comments, please email citycouncil@tukwilawa.gov, provide your first and last name, and reference the public hearing topic in the subject line, by5:00p.mn.onOctober 21, 2034. Once you have signed up byemail, your name will becalled upon during the meeting tnspeak for uptnS minutes, Call 1'253'292'9750, ACCESS [ODE 670077847# or Join Microsoft Teams Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on October 21, 2024 to access the meeting. You may also attend the public hearing in person and provide your comments on -site. REGULAR MEETING October 21L2024 Page 3 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. Site -Specific Rezone (1) Amotion to read the ordinance bvtitle only (2)Amotion toapprove ordeny anordinance rezoning property at62SO South 1S1stStreet from Low Density Residential /LDQ\ to Medium Density Residential (MOR),toinclude the associated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes, atthe request ofHans KorveofOMP Incorporated onbehalf ofthe applicant, Schneider Homes. b. Continued Discussion OOthe 2025-2026 Biennial Budget: (1) Overview ofDepartments from 28/24<24CC\NKMtq.) (2) Property Tax 8,Levies 101 (]) 6-year Capital Improvement Program /[%P\ Pg.181 Pg~419 Pg~445 Pg.463 7. NEW BUSINESS Update OD Asylum Seeker Response and Authorization to Enter into Grant Agreements with VVaShiDgU]O State Department OfCommerce and King County. (1) Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement agreement with the Department ofCommerce inthe amount of$2,500,0O0,to beused for the City'sasylum seeker response. (2) Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement with King County inthe amount of$2,UUU,UUU,tobaused for the City's asylum seeker and homelessness response, with the final scope to be negotiated by the Mayor, with a final form approved by the City Attorney. Pg.489 & REUnORTS d. Mayor b. City Council C. Staff— City Administrator Report Pg~525 S. MISCELLANEOUS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION 11. ADJOURNMENT This CLOSED SESSIONc- agenda is available atwww.tukwi|a,e.gm^ {vuhvvQa Council and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. meetings are audio and video taped. Available atwww.tuh"vi!awa.pvx} ���� xfyou are inneed pftranslation prioterp�tatipnservices ata Council meeting, ���� please contact uaat2m6'4o3'1mmmbv12:mmp.mm.onthe meeting date. WELCOME TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Tukwila City Council encourages community participation in the local government process and welcomes attendance and public comment at its meetings. MEETING SCHEDULE Regular Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month. The City Council takes formal action in the form of motions, resolutions and ordinances at Regular Meetings. Committee of the Whole Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. The City Council considers current issues, discusses policy matters in detail, and coordinates the work of the Council at Committee of the Whole meetings. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are given the opportunity to address the Council for up to 5 minutes on items both on and not on the meeting agenda during Public Comments. The City Council will also accept comments on an agenda item when the item is presented in the agenda, but speakers are limited to commenting once per item each meeting. When recognized by the Presiding Officer, please go to the podium if on -site or turn on your microphone if attending virtually and state your name clearly for the record. The City Council appreciates hearing from you but may not respond or answer questions during the meeting. Members of the City Council or City staff may follow up with you following the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. The City Council Rules of Procedure provide the following guidelines for Public Hearings: 1. City staff will provide a report summarizing and providing context to the issue at hand. 2. City staff shall speak first and be allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 3. The applicant is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 4. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 5. After City staff and the applicant have used their speaking time, the Council may ask further clarifying questions of the speakers. 6. Members of the public who wish to address the Council on the hearing topic may speak for 5 minutes each. 7. Speakers are asked to sign in on forms provided by the City Clerk. 8. The Council may ask clarifying questions of speakers and the speakers may respond. 9. Speakers should address their comments to the City Council. 10. If a large number of people wish to speak to the issue, the Council may limit the total amount of comment time dedicated to the Public Hearing. 11. Once the Presiding Officer closes the public hearing, no further comments will be accepted, and the issue is open for Councilmember discussion. 12. Any hearing being held or ordered to be held by the City Council may be continued in the manner as set forth by RCW 42.30.100. For more information about the City Council, including its complete Rules of Procedure, please visit: tt s:// .tu ila aov/e a ents/city-council/ COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared ly Mayor's review Council review 08/12/24 IG 10/21/24 IG ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 4.C. STAFF SPONSOR: ISAAC GLOOR ORIGINAL_ AGENDA DATE: 08/12/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Permitting Process Improvements CATEGORY W, Discussion Mtn Date Motion Resolution Mtg Date Mfg Date Ordinance Mtg Date 9/16 Bid Award Mtg Date Public Hearing Mtg Date Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ® DCD ❑ Panance ❑Pare ❑ PAR ❑ Police ❑ PLY/ SPONSOR'S SUMMARY Amendments to Tukwila Municipal Code Titles 8, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are needed to consolidate and simplify permit procedures and comply with recently passed Washington State legislation SB 5290 and HB 1293. REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance M Planning & Community Dev. ❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. DATE: 6/10 ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: MARTINEZ RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN Department of Community Development COMMII°IEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: TG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 08/12/24 Forwarded to Regular Meeting Consent Agenda 10/21/24 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/21/24 Final Ordinance amending Title 8 Final Ordinance amending Title 16 Final Ordinance Repealing & Reenacting Title 17 and Exhibits Ordinance Repealing & Reenacting Title 18 (Exhibit B: Draft and Final Form) Final Ordinance Repealing & Reenacting Title 19 and Exhibits Final Ordinance amending Title 2 1 2 of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2293 §13 AND 2676 §1, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) SECTION 8.22.120; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2547 §12, AS CODIFIED AT TMC SECTION 8.45.070; TO REMOVE AMBIGUITIES, CODIFY INTERNAL POLICIES, AND REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5290 ("SB 5290"), which made changes to the land use permitting process; and WHEREAS, certain sections of Chapter 8 of the Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC") need to be updated and brought into compliance with SB 5290; and WHEREAS, there are also certain ambiguities and policies in the TMC that need to be revised and updated; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein further the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Tukwila. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals and incorporates them herein as support for these amendments. Section 2. TMC Section 8.22.120 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2293 §13 and 2676 §1, as codified at TMC Section 8.22.120, "Variances," is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Any person who owns or operates a sound -producing source may apply for a variance. B. Applications for Noise Variances for 30 days or less shall be processed as Type 1 decisions, subject to the provisions found at TMC Chapter 18.104. 2024 Legislation: Title 8 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page 1 of 5 3 C. Applications for Noise Variances in excess of 30 days shall be processed as Type 3 decisions, subject to the provisions found at TMC Chapter 18.104. D. No variance in the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized by the administrator unless the administrator finds that all of the following facts and conditions exist: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the appellant's property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same noise control district; 2. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial personal or property right of the appellant, such right being possessed by the owners of other properties in the same noise control district; 3. The authorization of such variance does not endanger public health or safety of named persons in the same or adjacent noise control districts; 4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general policy and purpose of this act as set forth in TMC Section 8.22.010. E. In authorizing a variance, the administrator may attach thereto such conditions regarding noise level, duration, type and other considerations as the administrator may deem necessary to carry out the policy and purpose of this chapter. The variance permit shall enumerate the conditions of the variance, including but not limited to: 1. Specific dates and times for which the variance is valid; 2. Additional mitigation measures or public notice requirements as determined by the administrator. 3. If the notice of application is for a sound generating event that does not start within thirty days of the notice, the applicant shall provide written notice to all residents within 500 feet of the project including all residents of multi -family complexes. Written notice shall be provided between ten and thirty days of the onset of activity and shall enumerate the anticipated work schedule for the length of the project. An affidavit of distribution shall be provided to the City. F. In establishing conditions on granting a variance, the administrator shall consider: 1. Whether the public health, safety or welfare is impacted; 2. The social and economic value of the activity for which the variance is sought; 3. The ability of the applicant to apply best practical noise control measures; 4. Physical conditions that create a significant financial hardship in complying with the provisions of this chapter; and 5. Any comments received during public notice or public meeting, if provided, and comment or lack of comment received during similar noise generating events in the past. 2024 Legislation: Title 8 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 4 Page 2 of 5 G. The variance permit may be revoked by the administrator and the issuance of future variance permits withheld, if there is: 1. Violation of one or more conditions of the variance permit; 2. Material misrepresentation of fact in the variance application; or 3. Material change in any of the circumstances relied upon by the administrator in granting the variance. Section 3. TMC Section 8.45.070 Amended. Ordinance No. 2547 §12, as codified at TMC Section 8.45.070, "Notice of Violation and Order," is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Notice of Violation and Order: For all other civil violations of the Tukwila Municipal Code, upon the Code Enforcement Officer determining that a violation of the TMC exists, the Code Enforcement Officer may serve a Notice of Violation and Order upon the person(s) responsible for the condition. The Notice of Violation and Order shall contain the following information: 1. A citation to the standard, code provision or requirement violated, along with a description of the specific violation present; 2. The corrective action, if any, that is necessary to comply with the standard, code provision or requirement; 3. The date by which the corrective action(s) shall be completed by the person(s) responsible ("compliance date"); and 4. An explanation of the appeal process and the specific information required to file an appeal. B. Service of a Notice of Violation and Order: Service of a notice of violation and order issued pursuant to this chapter shall be made using one of the following methods: 1. Personal service is accomplished by (a) handing the document to the person subject thereto or (b) leaving it at their last known dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or (c) leaving it at their office or place of employment with a person in charge thereof. Personal service is complete immediately upon completion of the action specified above. 2. Service by posting is accomplished by affixing a copy of the document in a conspicuous place on the subject property or structure, or as near to the affected property or structure as feasible, with at least one copy of such document placed at an entryway to the property or structure if an entryway exists. Service by posting is complete immediately upon completion of the action specified above. 3. Service by mail is accomplished by placing the document in first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the person to whom the document is directed. The last known address shall be any of the following: (a) address provided to the City by the person to whom the document is directed; (b) the address on file with the City at the time the document is mailed; (c) the address of the property where the violation is occurring; or 2024 Legislation: Title 8 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page 3 of 5 5 (d) the address shown on the official property tax information website for King County, Washington State Department of Licensing, or Washington Secretary of State Office. Service by mail shall be deemed complete two days following the date of mailing. 4. Overnight service is accomplished by placing the document, delivery prepaid, with an overnight service bearing a delivery address listed in subsection (B)(3) of this section. Overnight service shall be deemed complete the following day. 5. Service by publication is accomplished by publishing the document pursuant to RCW 4.28.100 and 4.28.110, as now or hereafter amended. Service by publication shall be deemed complete upon final publication as set forth in RCW 4.28.110. C. Proof of Service: Proof of service may be made by written affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury by the person effecting service, declaring the time, date and manner thereof. If service is made solely by posting or publication, proof of service shall include a statement as to what steps were used in attempting to serve personally or by mail. The City shall take and retain a photograph of the document if service is made by posting. No additional proof of service beyond the requirements in this chapter shall be required by the hearing examiner or other entity. Any failure of the person to whom a document is directed to observe a document served by posting or publication shall not invalidate service nor the document so served. D. AMENDMENT: A Notice of Violation and Order may be amended at any time in order to: 1. Correct clerical errors; or 2. Cite additional authority for a stated violation. E. ORDER BECOMES FINAL UNLESS APPEALED: Unless an appeal is filed with the Code Enforcement Officer for hearing before the Hearing Examiner in accordance with TMC Section 8.45.110, the Notice of Violation and Order shall become the final administrative order of the Code Enforcement Officer. F. RECORDING: A copy of the notice may be filed and recorded with the King County Recorder. Section 4. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. 2024 Legislation: Title 8 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 6 Page 4 of 5 Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, City Clerk Thomas McLeod, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney 2024 Legislation: Title 8 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page5of5 7 8 Cityof Tukvimla Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2171 §1 (PART), AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) SECTION 16.04.040; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2171 §1 (PART), 2648 §4, 2673 §1, AND 2702 §4, AS CODIFIED AT TMC SECTION 16.04.250; TO REMOVE AMBIGUITIES, CODIFY INTERNAL POLICIES AND REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5290 ("SB 5290"), which made changes to the land use permitting process; and WHEREAS, certain sections of Chapter 16 of the Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC") need to be updated and brought into compliance with SB 5290; and WHEREAS, there are also certain ambiguities and policies in the TMC that need to be revised and updated; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein further the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Tukwila. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals and incorporates them herein as support for these amendments. Section 2. TMC Section 16.04.040 Amended. Ordinance No. 2171 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 16.04.040, "Compliance with Other Regulations as Prerequisite for Building Permits," is hereby revised to read as follows: 16.04.040 Compliance with Other Regulations as Prerequisite for Building Permits 2024 Legislation: Title 16 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff. I. Gloor Page 1 of 4 9 A. No building permit shall be issued if the construction authorized by the permit will violate any existing applicable law or City ordinance. B. No building permits shall be issued prior to the approval of any land use permits required for the project. Land use permit requirements can be found in TMC Title 18. Section 3. TMC Section 16.04.250 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2171 §1 (part), 2648 §4, 2673 §1, and 2702 §4, as codified at TMC Section 16.04.250, "Procedures Applicable to All Construction Permits," is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.04.250 Procedures Applicable to All Development Permits A. Fees: Permit and plan review fees applicable to all development permits shall be in accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. B. Application Requirements: Applications for development permits shall be processed as Type 1 decisions, subject to the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.104. If any section of TMC Chapter 18.104 conflicts with the provisions of TMC Section 16.04.250, the provisions of this code section shall prevail. C. Inspections: Work covered without inspection or work not ready at the time of inspection may be charged a re -inspection fee at the hourly rate in accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Neither the Building Official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection. D. Work without Permits: Any person who commences work before obtaining the necessary permits required by the Washington State adopted codes and Tukwila Municipal Code to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure; or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system; or to cause any such work to be performed on a building or structure before obtaining the necessary permits shall be charged double the fee established in accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. E. Fee Refunds: The Building Official may refund any permit fee paid by the original permit applicant that was erroneously paid or collected. The Building Official may also authorize the refund of not more than 80% of the permit fee when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with the code. Where a plan review fee has been collected, no refund will be authorized once it has been determined that the application is complete, and the plan review process has commenced. Refund of any permit fee paid shall be requested by the original permit applicant in writing and not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. F. Owner -occupied residential remodel permits: Owner -occupied residential remodel permits for projects not exceeding $20,000.00 in valuation are eligible for a flat fee per the following: 1. The flat fee includes all permit and other associated fees in accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. 2024 Legislation: Title 16 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 10 Page 2 of 4 2. The valuation will be cumulative during a rolling one-year period. 3. All requirements for submittal documents and inspections are as required for a new house under this section; only the fee is reduced. 4. Projects that exceed the $20,000.00 limit will be subject to the standard permit fees in accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. G. Appeals: All references to Board of Appeals are amended as follows: Any person, firm or corporation may register an appeal of a decision or determination of the Building Official provided that such appeal is made in writing within 14 calendar days after such person, firm or corporation shall have been notified of the Building Official's decision. Any person, firm or corporation shall be permitted to appeal a decision of the Building Official to the Tukwila Hearing Examiner when it is claimed that any one of the following conditions exists. 1. The true intent of the code or ordinance has been incorrectly interpreted. 2. The provisions of the code or ordinance do not fully apply. 3. The decision is unreasonable or arbitrary as it applies to alternatives or new materials. 4. Notice of Appeal procedures shall be in accordance with TMC Section 18.116.030. H. Violations: Whenever the authority having jurisdiction determines there are violations of this code, a Notice of Violation shall be issued to confirm such findings. Any Notice of Violation issued pursuant to this code shall be served upon the owner, operator, occupant or other person responsible for the condition or violation, either by personal service or mail, or by delivering the same to and leaving it with some person of responsibility upon the premises. For unattended or abandoned locations, a copy of such Notice of Violation shall be posted on the premises in a conspicuous place, at or near the entrance to such premises, and the Notice of Violation shall be mailed by registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the last known address of the owner, occupant or both. I. Penalties: Any person, firm or corporation who shall willfully violate or fails to comply with a Notice of Violation is liable for the monetary penalties prescribed in TMC Section 8.45.120.A.2. Section 4. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. 2024 Legislation: Title 16 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page 3 of 4 11 Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, City Clerk Thomas McLeod, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number: 2024 Legislation: Title 16 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 12 Page 4 of 4 Ci of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING VARIOUS ORDINANCES AS CODIFIED IN TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TITLE 17, "SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS"; REENACTING TITLE 17; TO REMOVE AMBIGUITIES, IMPROVE CLARITY, CODIFY INTERNAL POLICIES, AND REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5290 ("SB 5290"), which made changes to the land use permitting process; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update language in the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), Title 17, "Subdivisions and Plats," in alignment with current practices, to improve clarity, and to bring the TMC into compliance with SB 5290 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein further the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Tukwila. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals and incorporates them herein as support for these amendments. Section 2. Repealer. All ordinances as codified in Title 17, "Subdivisons and Plats," and as referenced in Exhibit A, are hereby repealed, thereby eliminating Title 17 in its entirety. Section 3. TMC Title 17 Reenacted. TMC Title 17 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: TITLE 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS Chapters: 17.04 General Provisions 17.08 Boundary Line Adjustments and Lot Consolidations 17.12 Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions 2024 Legislation: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 7/29/24 Staff: 1. Gloor Page 1 of 2 13 17.14 Detailed Procedures for Long Subdivisions 17.16 Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plans (BSIPs) 17.20 Design and Improvement Standards for the Subdivision of Land 17.24 Procedures for Public Improvements 17.28 Penalties, Severability, Liability Section 4. Chapters Established. All chapters of TMC Title 17 are hereby established to read as referenced in Exhibit B. Section 5. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, City Clerk Thomas McLeod, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney Exhibit A: Repealers Exhibit B: Reenacted Title 17, "Subdivisions and Plats" 2024 Legislation: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 7/29/24 Staff: I. Gloor 14 Page 2of2 EXHIBIT A: REPEALERS Chapters Ordinance(s) Repealed 17.04 General Provisions 1833 §1 (part) 17.08 Boundary Line Adjustments and Lot Consolidations 1833 §1 (part); 2649 §2; 2677 §1 17.12 Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions 1833 §1 (part); 2199 §1 & §2; 2649 §3 17.14 Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions 1833 §1 (part); 2124 §1 & §2; 2199 §3 & §4; 2649 §4, §5, §6 & §7; 2716 §2 17.16 Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plan (BSIP) 17.20 Design and Improvement Standards for the Subdivision of Land 17.24 Procedures for Public Improvements 17.28 Exceptions, Penalties, Severability Liability ............. ....... ..... ........... 1833 §1 (part); 2236 §1, §2, §3 & §4 §5, & §6; 2251 §2 1833 §1 (part); 1971 §21; 2649 §8 1833 §1 (part); 2124 §3 (part); 2649 §9 & §10 1833 §1 (part); 1838 §16; 2124 §4 . ... .. 2549 §20 & §21 15 Chapters: 17.04 17.08 17.12 17.14 17.16 17.20 17.24 17.28 Sections: 17.04.010 17.04.020 17.04.030 17.04.040 17.04.050 17.04.060 17.04.070 17.04.010 Title TITLE 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS General Provisions Boundary Line Adjustments and Lot Consolidations Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions Detailed Procedures for Long Subdivisions Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plans (BSIPs) Design and Improvement Standards for the Subdivision of Land Procedures for Public Improvements Penalties, Severability, Liability CHAPTER 17.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS Title Purpose Scope and Exceptions Definitions Dedications Survey Content Notification of Other Agencies A. This code shall be known as the "City of Tukwila Subdivision Code." 17.04.020 Purpose A. The purpose of this code is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City, insuring that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be insured; that the character of the developing area is safeguarded and promoted; that proper provisions for all public facilities including circulation, utilities, open space, and services shall be made; and that the goals and policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan are furthered through the subdivision of land. 17.04.030 Scope and Exceptions A. Scope: 1. The subdivision of land within the City of Tukwila shall comply with Chapter 58.17 RCW. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 16 Page 1 of 34 2. Where this code imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this code shall prevail. B. Exceptions: 1. This ordinance shall not apply to divisions and activities described as inapplicable in RCW 58.17.040; provided that boundary line adjustments and lot consolidations are subject to the provisions contained in TMC Chapter 17.08; provided further that binding site improvement plans are subject to the provisions contained in TMC Chapter 17.16. 17.04.040 Definitions A. The definitions of the Zoning Code, TMC Chapter 18.06, are hereby adopted by reference. 17.04.050 Dedications A. Act of Dedication: The intention to dedicate real property to the public shall be evidenced by showing the dedication on the plat prepared for approval. All dedications, including easements, rights -of -way and real property shall be clearly and precisely indicated on the face of the plat. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the plat, approval of the plat for recording shall constitute acceptance of the dedications. B. Public Streets: All streets and parcels of land shown on the final plat and intended for public use shall be offered for dedication for public use, except the approving entity may allow the conveyance of certain public improvements to be conveyed to a homeowner's association or similar non-profit corporation. C. Certificate: If the subdivision includes a dedication, the final plat shall include a certificate of dedication or reference to a separate written instrument which dedicates all required streets and other areas to the public. The certificate or instrument of dedication shall be signed and acknowledged before a notary public by every person having any ownership interest in the lands divided and recorded as part of the final plat. D. Title Report: Every proposed final plat containing a dedication must be accompanied by a title report confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on the plat is in the name of the owners signing the certificate of dedication. 17.04.060 Survey Content A. Information: All surveys submitted for boundary line adjustments, lot consolidations, short subdivisions, subdivisions, binding site improvement plans, or any other permits, shall include the following information: 1. The name of the plat, City of Tukwila file number, graphic scale and north arrow. The survey shall be done to a scale of one inch equals 100 feet unless otherwise approved by the Department, and shall be drawn with black drawing ink in record of survey format. 2. Existing features such as rivers, streets, railroads and structures. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 2 of 34 17 3. The lines and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways, parks, playgrounds, and easements adjacent to the final plat, subdivision or dedication, including municipal boundaries, township lines, and section lines. 4. In the event the plat constitutes a replat, the lots, blocks, streets, etc., of the previous plat shall be shown by dotted lines in their proper positions in relation to the new arrangement of the plat, the new plat being shown in solid lines so as to avoid ambiguity. 5. Legal description of the subdivision boundaries. 6. A complete survey of the section or sections in which the plat or replat is located, if necessary, including: a. All stakes, monuments or other evidence found on the ground and used to determine the boundaries of the subdivision. Location and monuments found or reset with respect to any established centerline of streets adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision. All other monuments found or established in making the survey of this subdivision or required to be installed by provisions of this title. b. City or County boundary lines when crossing or adjacent to the subdivision. c. The location and width of streets and easements intersecting the boundary of the tract. d. Tract, block and lot boundary lines and street rights -of -way and centerlines, with dimensions, bearings, radii, arcs and central angles, points of curvature and tangent bearings. Tract boundaries, lot boundaries and street bearings shall be shown to the nearest second with basis of bearings. All distances shall be shown to the nearest one -hundredth foot. e. The width and location of existing and proposed easements and rights - of -way. 7. Lot and block numbers beginning with the number one (1) and numbered consecutively without omission or duplication. 8. Tracts to be dedicated to any public or private purpose shall be distinguished from lots intended for general development with notes stating their purpose and any limitations. B. Statements: The plat shall include the following statements: 1. A statement to be signed by the Director of Public Works approving the survey data, the layout of the streets, alleys and other rights -of -way, design of bridges, sewage and water systems, drainage systems and other structures. 2. A certificate bearing the printed names of all persons having an interest in the subdivided land, signed by the persons and acknowledged by them before a notary public, consenting to the subdivision of the land and reciting a dedication by them of all land shown on the plat to be dedicated for public uses, and a waiver by them and their successors of all claims for damages against any governmental authority arising from the construction and maintenance of public facilities and public property within the subdivision. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 18 Page 3 of 34 3. A certificate with the seal of and signature of the surveyor responsible for the survey and final plat with the following statement: "l, , registered as a land surveyor by the State of Washington, certify that this plat is based on an actual survey of the land described herein, conducted by me or under my supervision; that the distances, courses and angles are shown thereon correctly; and that monuments other than those monuments approved for setting at a later date, have been set and lot corners staked on the ground as depicted on the plat" 4. Certification from the King County Treasurer that all taxes and assessments for which the property may be liable have been duly paid, satisfied or discharged as of the date of certification. 5. Certification of examination and approval by the County Assessor. 6. Recording Certificate for completion by the King County Department of Executive Services. 7. Certification of Examination and Approval by the Seattle -King County Health Department when the lot(s) are served by septic system(s). 8. City of Tukwila Finance Director Certificate that states there are no delinquent special assessments, and that all special assessments on any of the property that is dedicated as streets, alleys or for other public use are paid in full at the date of certification. 9. Certification by the Director of Public Works that the applicant has complied with one of the following: a. All improvements have been installed in accordance with the requirements of this title and with the preliminary plat approval, and that original and reproducible records in a format approved by Public Works and meeting current Public Works drawing standards for road, utility and drainage construction plans certified by the designing engineer as being "as constructed" have been submitted for city records. b. An agreement and bond or other financial security have been executed in accordance with TMC 17.24.030 sufficient to assure completion of required improvements and construction plans. 10.Certificate of dedication pursuant to TMC 17.04.050C. 11. or short subdivisions, binding site improvement plans, boundary line adjustments, and lot consolidations, a certificate of approval to be signed by the Director of the Department of Community Development, the Director of the Public Works Department, and the Fire Marshal. 12. For long subdivisions, a certificate of approval to be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 4 of 34 19 17.04.070 Notification of Other Agencies A. Notice of the filing of an application for a preliminary subdivision within 1,000 feet of the municipal boundaries, or which contemplates the use of special use districts or other city's or town's utilities, shall be given to the appropriate special districts, county, city or town authorities. Notice of the filing of an application for a preliminary subdivision located adjacent to the right-of-way of a State highway shall be given to the State Department of Highways. In addition, notice of all applications for preliminary subdivisions shall be submitted to the appropriate school district. All such notices shall include the hour, location, and purpose of the hearing and a description of the property to be divided. CHAPTER 17.08 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND LOT CONSOLIDATIONS Sections: 17.08.010 Purpose 17.08.020 Scope 17.08.030 Decision Process 17.08.040 Preliminary Applications 17.08.050 Expiration of Preliminary Approval 17.08.060 Final Applications 17.08.010 Purpose A. It is the intent to provide an efficient and timely process that allows consistent review; to ensure such actions do not create non -conformities with zoning and other city regulations; to provide a permanent record of boundary line adjustments and lot consolidations; and to ensure appropriate provisions are made for access and utility easements; in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.040(6). 17.08.020 Scope A. This chapter applies to all boundary line adjustments and lot consolidations which are otherwise exempt from RCW 58.17.040(6), Subdivision Regulations. 17.08.030 Decision Process A. Applications for boundary line adjustments and lot consolidations shall be processed as Type 1 decisions, subject to the provisions of TMC 18.104. 17.08.040 Preliminary Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for preliminary boundary line adjustments and lot consolidations shall meet the permit submittal requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. B. Criteria for Boundary Line Adjustment or Lot Consolidation Approval:In order to approve a boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation, the Short Subdivision Committee shall determine the project complies with the following criteria: Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 20 Page 5 of 34 1. No additional lots, sites, parcels, tracts or divisions are created. 2. The adjustment will not create non -conforming lots with respect to zoning dimension and area standards, zoning setbacks and lot area coverage standards. The adjustment shall not result in the creation of lots with split zoning. 3. The degree of non-conformance on existing non -conforming lots with respect to zoning dimension and area standards, zoning setbacks and floor area ratio are not increased. 4. All lots have legal access to a public road. Existing required private access road improvements and easements are not diminished below subdivision ordinance standards for lots that are served by a private access road. 5. Existing easements for utilities are appropriate for their intended function, or they are extended, moved or otherwise altered to an appropriate location. 6. The adjustment does not create any non -conformities with respect to the Uniform Building Code or any other locally administered regulation. C. Minor and Major Modifications to a Preliminary Approval: 1. Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after a preliminary approval decision has been issued may be approved by the Director as a Type 1 decision, based on review and recommendations of the Short Subdivision Committee. The Director may include conditions as part of an approval of a minor modification to ensure conformance with the criteria below. Minor modifications are those which: a. Do not increase or decrease the number of lots beyond the number previously approved. b. Do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location of stormwater systems or roadways in the project by 10% or more. c. May realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway access point to an exterior street. d. Do not alter the exterior boundaries of the project. e. Are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation to violate any applicable City policy or regulation. f. Are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that a minor modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the revisions are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC 17.08.030.D.a- e. 2. Major modifications are those which, as determined by the Director, are not minor modifications as defined in this code, or either add property or lots or substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised plan(s) shall be processed as a new application. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 6 of 34 21 17.08.050 Expiration of Preliminary Approval A. The preliminary boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation application shall expire if it has not been recorded within one (1) year from the date of approval. B. Where all conditions of approval of the preliminary boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation have been satisfied, and all required documents have been submitted within the one (1) year filing period, the Director may grant a single extension of up to one hundred eighty (180) days for the processing and recording of the final boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation. 17.08.060 Final Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for final boundary line adjustments and lot consolidations shall meet the permit submittal requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. B. Review Procedures: Upon receiving approval from the City, the applicant will be responsible for picking up the documents from the Department and recording them with King County Department of Executive Services. A notification of recording that includes the filed recording number must be provided to the Department in order to deem the application finaled. C. Criteria for Approval: To grant final approval of a boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation, the Director must determine that it meets the following decision criteria: 1. All requirements for boundary line adjustments or lot consolidations as set forth in the Subdivision Code are met. 2. All terms of the preliminary boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation approval have been met. 3. The requirements of all applicable state laws and any City ordinances have been met. 4. All required improvements have been installed in accordance with City standards or an improvement agreement with financial guarantee pursuant to TMC 17.24.030 has been entered into by the applicant and accepted by the City. 5. The boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation is technically correct and accurate as certified by the land surveyor responsible for the plat. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 22 Page 7 of 34 CHAPTER 17.12 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR SHORT SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 17.12.010 Scope 17.12.020 Decision Process 17.12.030 Preliminary Applications 17.12.040 Expiration of Preliminary Approval 17.12.050 Final Applications 17.12.060 Limitations on Further Subdivision 17.12.070 Contiguous Short Subdivisions 17.12.080 Unit Lot Short Subdivisions 17.12.010 Scope A. Any land being divided into nine (9) or fewer parcels, Tots, unit Tots, tracts or sites for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than twenty (20) acres in size, shall meet the requirements of this chapter. 17.12.020Decision Process A. Applications for short subdivisions shall be processed as Type 2 decisions, subject to the provisions of TMC 18.104. 17.12.030Preliminary Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for preliminary short subdivisions shall meet the permit submittal requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. B. Review Procedures: 1. Referral to Other Departments: Upon receipt of an application for a short subdivision, the Director shall route the application to each member of the Short Subdivision Committee and any other department or agency deemed necessary. 2. Short Subdivision Committee Decision: The Short Subdivision Committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application. No formal meeting of the Committee is required so long as the Chair obtains the recommendations and consent of the other members of the Committee before issuing a decision. C. Criteria for Preliminary Short Subdivision Approval: The Short Subdivision Committee shall base its decision on an application on the following criteria: 1. The proposed Short Subdivision is in conformance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and any other such adopted plans. 2. Appropriate provisions have been made for water, storm drainage, erosion control and sanitary sewage disposal for the short plat that are consistent with current standards and plans. 3. Appropriate provisions have been made for road, utilities and other improvements that are consistent with current standards and plans. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 8 of 34 23 4. Appropriate provisions have been made for dedications, easements and reservations. 5. The design, shape and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate to the proposed use for which the lots are intended and are compatible with the area in which they are located. 6. Appropriate provisions for the maintenance of commonly owned private facilities have been made. 7. The short subdivision complies with the relevant requirements of the Tukwila Subdivision Ordinance. 8. The short subdivision complies with the requirements of the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance and other relevant local regulations. D. Minor and Major Modifications to a Preliminary Short Subdivision Approval: 1. Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after a preliminary approval decision has been issued may be approved by the Director as a Type 2 decision, based on review and recommendations of the Short Subdivision Committee. The Director may include conditions as part of an approval of a minor modification to ensure conformance with the criteria below. Minor modifications are those which: a. Do not increase or decrease the number of lots beyond the number previously approved. b. Do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location of stormwater systems or roadways in the project by 10% or more. c. May realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway access point to an exterior street. d. Do not alter the exterior boundaries of the project. e. Are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the short plat to violate any applicable City policy or regulation. f. Are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that a minor modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the revisions are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC 17.12.020.D.a - e. 2. Major modifications are those which, as determined by the Director, are not minor modifications as defined in this code, or either add property or lots or substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised plan(s) shall be processed as a new application. 17.12.040 Expiration of Preliminary Approval A. If the preliminary short subdivision is not recorded within three (3) years of the date of preliminary short subdivision approval, the preliminary short subdivision application shall become null and void. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 24 Page 9 of 34 B. Where all conditions of approval of the preliminary short subdivision have been satisfied, and all required documents have been submitted within the three (3) year filing period, the Director may grant a single extension of up to one hundred eighty (180) days for the processing and recording of the final short subdivision. 17.12.050 Final Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for final short subdivisions shall meet the permit submittal requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. B. Final Approval Review Procedures: 1. The Short Subdivision Committee may grant final approval of the short subdivision when they find the criteria listed in TMC 17.12.030C have been met. No formal meeting of the Committee is required so long as the Chair obtains the recommendations and consent of the other members of the Committee before issuing a decision. 2. Upon final approval of the short subdivision, the applicant shall record the plat and all other relevant documents with the King County Department of Executive Services. The applicant is responsible for paying the recording fee(s). Upon completion of recording, the applicant shall provide the Department with a copy of the recorded documents. The short plat shall not be considered final until these documents have been provided to the Department. C. Criteria For Approval: To grant final approval of a short subdivision, the Short Subdivision Committee must determine that it meets the following decision criteria: 1. All requirements for short subdivisions as set forth in the Subdivision Code are met. 2. All terms of the preliminary short subdivision approval have been met. 3. The requirements of RCW 58.17, other applicable state laws, and any other applicable City ordinances have been met. 4. All required improvements have been installed in accordance with City standards or an improvement agreement with financial guarantee pursuant to TMC 17.24.030 has been entered into by the applicant and accepted by the City. 5. The subdivision is technically correct and accurate as certified by the land surveyor responsible for the plat. 17.12.060 Limitations on Further Subdivision A. Any land subdivided under the requirements of this chapter shall not be further divided for a period of five (5) years without following the procedures for subdivision, except when the short plat contains fewer lots than allowed for a short subdivision, in which case an additional short subdivision may be approved if the total number of lots within the boundaries of the original short subdivision does not exceed nine (9). 17.12.070 Contiguous Short Subdivisions A. No application for a short subdivision shall be approved if the land being divided is held in common ownership with a contiguous parcel which has been divided in a short Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 10 of 34 25 subdivision within the preceding five (5) years and the total number of lots created in both short subdivisions would exceed nine (9). When the total number of lots exceeds four (4) but is less than ten (10), the paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be provided per TMC 17.20.030C.6.c(1). 17.12.080 Unit Lot Short Subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single-family, or zero -lot -line units may be subdivided into individual unit Tots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit that it serves. B. Subsequent divisions of the land, or additions or modifications to the structure(s), may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Executive Services. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Executive Services. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot, shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Executive Services. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final short subdivision approval, provided: 1. The proposed short subdivision has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the applicant from, nor impair City enforcement of, conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued, until final short plat approval is granted. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 11 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 26 CHAPTER 17.14 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR LONG SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 17.14.010 Scope 17.14.020 Decision Process 17.14.030 Preliminary Applications 17.14.040 Expiration of Preliminary Approval 17.14.050 Final Applications 17.14.060 Phasing 17.14.070 Expiration Unit Lot Long Subdivisions 17.14.010 Scope A. Any land being divided into ten (10) or more parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale or gift, any one of which is less than twenty (20) acres in size, or any land which has been divided under the short subdivision procedures within five (5) years and is not eligible for further short subdivisions, pursuant to TMC 17.12.010, shall conform to the procedures and requirements of this chapter. 17.14.020 Decision Process A. Preliminary Long Subdivisions: Applications for preliminary long subdivisions shall be processed as Type 3 decisions subject to the provisions of TMC 18.104. B. Final Long Subdivisions:Applications for final long subdivisions shall be processed as Type 2 decisions subject to the provisions of TMC 18.104. 17.14.030 Preliminary Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for preliminary long subdivisions shall meet the permit submittal requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. B. Review Procedures: 1. Referral to Other Offices: Upon receipt of a complete preliminary long subdivision application, the Director shall transmit a notice of application and the preliminary long subdivision application materials to each of the following offices, where appropriate: Public Works, Building Division, Fire Department, Police Department, King County Health Department, the appropriate school district, and each public utility agency serving the area in which the property proposed for long subdivision is located. 2. Departmental Review: The other interested departments and agencies shall review the preliminary long subdivision and may submit to the Department written comments with respect to the preliminary long subdivision decision criteria. 3. Public Notice and Public Hearing. The process for public notice, hearings, decisions and appeals shall be as provided for Type 3 decisions (or Type 4 decisions if the plat is combined with an associated design review) as identified in TMC Title 18, "Zoning Code." Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 12 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 27 C. Criteria for Preliminary Long Subdivision Approval: The decision -maker shall base its decision on an application for preliminary long subdivision on the following criteria: 1. The proposed long subdivision is in conformance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and any other City adopted plans. 2. Appropriate provisions have been made for water, storm drainage, erosion control and sanitary sewage disposal for the long subdivision that are consistent with current standards and plans. 3. Appropriate provisions have been made for road, utilities and other improvements that are consistent with current standards and plans. 4. Appropriate provisions have been made for dedications, easements and reservations. 5. The design, shape and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate to the proposed use for which the lots are intended and are compatible with the area in which they are located. 6. The proposed long subdivision complies with the relevant requirements of the Tukwila Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and all other relevant local regulations. 7. Appropriate provisions for maintenance of privately owned common facilities have been made. 8. The proposed long subdivision complies with RCW 58.17.110. D. Minor and Major Modifications to an Approved Preliminary Long Subdivision: 1. Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after a preliminary approval decision has been issued may be approved by the Director as a Type 2 decision, based on review and recommendations of City departments including Public Works, Fire, Building, and Planning. The Director may include conditions as part of an approval of a minor modification to ensure conformance with the criteria below. Minor modifications are those which: a. Do not increase or decrease the number of lots beyond the number previously approved. b. Do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location of stormwater systems or roadways in the long subdivision by 10% or more. c. May realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway access point to an exterior street from the plat. d. Do not alter the exterior boundaries of the long subdivision. e. Are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the long subdivision to violate any applicable City policy or regulation. f. Are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that a minor modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 28 Page 13 of 34 revisions are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC 17.14.020.E.a- e. 2. Major modifications are those which, as determined by the Director, are not minor modifications as defined in this code, or either add property or Tots or substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised plan(s) shall be processed as a new application. 17.14.040 Expiration of Preliminary Approval A. The preliminary long subdivision application shall expire unless a complete application for final long subdivision meeting all requirements of this chapter is submitted to the Director within five (5) years of the date of preliminary long subdivision approval; provided that the Director may extend a preliminary long subdivision pursuant to this section. B. Time Limitations: Extension(s) shall be requested in writing and are subject to the criteria set forth in TMC 17.14.050.C. The extension(s) shall be subject to the following time limitations: 1. Preliminary long subdivisions less than 100 acres that receive approval after the effective date of this ordinance shall expire within five (5) years from the date of the preliminary approval; provided that the applicant has the option of requesting a single 1- year extension, for a maximum of six (6) years from the date of the preliminary approval to the date of recording of the final phase. 2. Preliminary long subdivisions greater than 100 acres and that received approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall expire within five (5) years from the date of the preliminary long subdivision approval; provided that the applicant has the option of requesting up to three (3) extensions as follows: the first extension may be for three (3) years, and each subsequent extension for not exceeding two (2) years each. This allows for a maximum of twelve (12) years between the date of the preliminary approval and the date of recording of the final phase. C. Criteria for Granting Extensions: The following criteria shall be used to review an extension request for a preliminary long subdivision: 1. A written request for extension is filed at least 30 days before the expiration of the preliminary long subdivision; and 2. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions that are not the result of voluntary actions of the applicant necessitate the extension of the preliminary long subdivision; and 3. Conditions within the subject property or immediately adjacent to the subject property have not changed substantially since the preliminary long subdivision was first approved; and 4. An extension of the preliminary long subdivision will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property or to the community as a whole; and Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 14 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 29 5. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to meet the time limit imposed; and 6. The preliminary long subdivision complies with applicable City code provisions in effect on the date the application for extension was made. D. Process for Granting Extensions: Applicant shall request the extension in writing prior to the expiration of the preliminary long subdivision approval. The request shall include discussion of how it complies with the criteria listed under TMC 17.40.050.C. The Director shall review and approve requests for an extension of a preliminary long subdivision. The Director shall provide 14-day notice to all parties of record for the preliminary long subdivision approval prior to making the decision on the extension. The Director's decision will also be provided to all parties of record. 17.14.050 Final Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for final long subdivisions shall meet the permit submittal requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. B. Review Procedures: 1. Referral to Other Departments and Agencies: The Director shall distribute the final long subdivision application to all departments and agencies who received the preliminary long subdivision, and to any other departments, special purpose districts and other governmental agencies deemed necessary. 2. Departmental Approval: The other interested departments and agencies shall review the final long subdivision and may submit to the Department written comments with respect to the final long subdivision decision criteria. If the final long subdivision is in order, the Director of Public Works shall sign the appropriate certificates on the face of the plat. 3. Filing Final Long Subdivision: a. Before the final long subdivision is submitted to the Director, it shall be signed by the Director of the Finance Department and the Director of the Department of Public Works. Upon approval by the Director, it shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. b. The applicant shall file the final long subdivision with the King County Department of Executive Services. The long subdivision will be considered complete when a copy of the recorded documents is returned to the Director. C. Criteria for Final Long Subdivision Approval: In approving the final long subdivision, the Director shall find: 1. That the proposed final long subdivision bears the required certificates and statements of approval. 2. That a title insurance report furnished by the applicant confirms the title of the land, and the proposed long subdivision is vested in the name of the owner(s) whose signature(s) appears on the plat certificate. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 30 Page 15 of 34 3. That the facilities and improvements required to be provided by the applicant have been completed or, alternatively, that the applicant has submitted with the proposed final long subdivision a performance bond or other security in conformance with TMC 17.24.030. 4. That the long subdivision is certified as accurate by the land surveyor responsible for the long subdivision. 5. That the long subdivision is in conformance with the approved preliminary long subdivision. 6. That the long subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW and other applicable state and local laws which were in effect at the time of preliminary long subdivision approval. 17.14.060 Phasing A. Approval of Phasing Plan: The applicant may develop and record the long subdivision in phases. Any phasing proposal shall be submitted for Hearing Examiner review at the time at which a preliminary long subdivision is submitted. Approval of the phasing plan shall be based upon making the following findings: 1. The phasing plan includes all land contained within the approved preliminary long subdivision, including areas where off -site improvements are being made. 2. The sequence and timing of development is identified on a map. 3. Each phase shall consist of a contiguous group of lots that meets all pertinent development standards on its own. The phase cannot rely on future phases for meeting any City codes. 4. Each phase provides adequate circulation and utilities. Public Works has determined that all street and other public improvements, including but not limited to drainage and erosion control improvements, are assured. Deferment of improvements may be allowed pursuant to TMC Chapter 17.24. 5. The first phase submitted for final long subdivision approval must be recorded within five (5) years of the date of preliminary plat approval, unless an extension is granted pursuant to TMC 17.14.050.B, TMC 17.14.050.0 and TMC 17.14.050.D. 17.14.070 Unit Lot Long Subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single-family, accessory dwelling units, or zero -lot line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent subdivision actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 16 of 34 31 C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Executive Services. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Executive Services. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot, shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Executive Services. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed long subdivision has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the applicant from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of, long subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued, until final long subdivision approval is granted. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 17 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 32 CHAPTER 17.16 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS (BSIPS) Sections: 17.16.010 Purpose 17.16.020 Applicability 17.16.030 Decision Process 17.16.040 Preliminary Applications 17.16.050 Expiration of Preliminary Approval 17.16.060 Final Applications 17.16.070 Improvements 17.16.080 Alterations and Vacations 17.16.010 Purpose A. This chapter is established to: 1. Provide an optional process for land under single ownership to be divided for the purpose of sale or lease; 2. Accommodate the division of land for the purpose of sale or lease of property within an integrated commercial or industrial center, which allows certain zoning standards (minimum parking, setbacks, landscaping, lot area and lot dimension) on the individual lots to be modified provided the standards for the entire center are met; 3. Facilitate alternative ownership options by allowing BSIPs in conjunction with a condominium process for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes (RCW 64.34); 4. Allow phased infrastructure improvements for large tracts of land. 17.16.020 Applicability A. Eligibility: A BSIP application may be submitted for a project located on any land zoned multi -family, commercial, or industrial, consistent with the terms of this chapter. B. Construction Authorization Through Other Permits: A BSIP creates or alters existing lot lines. A BSIP does not authorize construction. Construction is permitted upon approval of construction and building permits that implement the BSIP. 17.16.030 Decision Process A. Applications for BSIPs shall be processed as Type 2 decisions subject to the provisions of TMC 18.104. 17.16.040 Preliminary Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for preliminary BSIPs shall meet the permit submittal requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 18 of 34 33 B. Review Procedures: Applications for preliminary BSIPs shall be reviewed in the same manner prescribed in TMC 17.12.030(B) for preliminary short subdivisions. C. Approval Criteria: 1. Prior to approval of any BSIP, the Short Subdivision Committee shall ensure that the following improvements are provided to sufficiently service the anticipated uses throughout the proposed plan and the decision criteria that follow are met: a. Adequate water supply. b. Adequate sewage disposal. c. Appropriate storm drainage improvements. d. Adequate fire hydrants. e. Appropriate access to all anticipated uses within the plan. f. Provision for all appropriate deed, dedication, and/or easements. g. Monumentation of all exterior tract corners. 2. Legal Lots: a. Residential BSIPs shall consist of one or more contiguous legally - created lots and each lot shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the applicable zone or overlay district. b. If the site will contain commercial or industrial uses, or mixed -use commercial and residential uses, the lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the zoning district or meet the definition of "integrated site" in TMC 18.06, such that when taken as a whole and not considering interior lot lines, the integrated site meets all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. 3. Appropriate easements and maintenance agreements for shared facilities, including but not limited to, circulation, parking, utilities and landscaping, have been provided. 4. Modifications to the minimum zoning standards for individual lots located within the integrated site -- including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lot area and lot dimension -- are not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, do not adversely affect the rest of the integrated site or other properties in the vicinity, and do not impede planned street, trail or pedestrian networks for the neighborhood or district. 5. Common improvements necessary to serve any particular phase of development must be sufficient for meeting the zoning and subdivision requirements for that phase. 6. Access to the integrated site meets the subdivision ordinance standards. Access within the site provides for safe and efficient circulation and meets Fire Department access requirements. 7. The circulation system incorporates appropriate provisions for safe pedestrian activity to the site from the street and from building to building within the site. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 34 Page 19 of 34 8. The sign regulations shall be applied to the integrated site as a whole. For example, the number of freestanding signs allowed is based on one (1) site within the BSIP. Individual ownerships within the integrated site are not considered to be separate sites in determining the number of freestanding signs allowed. 9. The requirements of the Washington State Building Code are met. 10. Future Development: The BSIP shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded BSIP. 11. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the BSIP. 12. Additional Approval Criteria for BSIPs Proposing Condominium Ownership: Condominium developments are eligible for BSIP approval when the purpose of such approval is to divide the property so a portion of the parcel or tract can be subjected to either RCW Chapter 64.32 or 64.34. A BSIP can only be approved when the development has already been constructed or when the approval has been obtained and a building permit for an entire development or a portion of a development is issued. 13. Additional Approval Criteria for Phased Development: If the applicant chooses to develop the property in a phased development, the applicant must execute a development agreement with the City pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 if one is not already in place. This agreement shall govern, at a minimum, the use and development of the property subject to the BSIP, including: a. vesting applicable to subsequent permits; b. the manner in which each phase of the development will proceed to ensure that the roads and utilities necessary to serve each phase of the development are constructed prior to the development of each phase; c. expiration of the agreement and all provisions therein. 14. Consistency: The BSIP shall be consistent with any City approved master plans and development agreements. 17.16.050 Expiration of Preliminary Approval A. If the BSIP is not recorded within three (3) years of the date of the preliminary BSIP, the BSIP shall become null and void. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration date, the Short Subdivision Committee may grant one (1) extension of not more than one (1) year. B. Where all conditions of approval of the BSIP have been satisfied, and all required documents have been submitted within the three (3) year filing period, the Director may grant a single extension of up to one hundred eighty (180) days for the processing and recording of the final BSIP. 17.16.060 Final Applications A. Application Requirements: Applications for final BSIPs shall meet the permit requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 20 of 34 35 B. Final Approval Review Procedures: 1. The Short Subdivision Committee may grant final approval of the BSIP when they find that the survey, plan and other documents for recording are consistent with the preliminary approval. No formal meeting of the Committee is required so long as the Chair obtains the recommendations and consent of the other members of the Committee before issuing a decision. 2. Upon final approval of the BSIP, the applicant shall record the plat and all other relevant documents with the King County Department of Executive Services. The applicant is responsible for paying the recording fee(s). Upon completion of recording, the applicant shall provide the Department with a copy of the recorded documents. The BSIP shall not be considered final until these documents have been provided to the Department. C. Binding Effect: Approved BSIPs shall be binding and shall be enforceable by the City. All provisions, conditions and requirements of the BSIP shall be legally enforceable on the purchaser or on any person acquiring a lease or other ownership interest of any lot, tract, or parcel created pursuant to the BSIP. 17.16.070 Improvements A. Improvements: The following requirements shall be met for each BSIP prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction within a BSIP. 1. Improvements Required: Consistent with TMC 17.20, and subject to any applicable development agreement, the following tangible improvements shall be provided, either by actual construction or a construction schedule approved by the City and bonded by the applicant, before a BSIP may be recorded: a. grading and paving of streets and alleys; b. installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, street lights, water mains and street name signs; together with all related appurtenances to the specifications and standards of this code, approved by the Short Subdivision Committee, and in accordance with other standards of the City. A separate construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated engineering plans prepared per the City Drafting Standards. 2. Modifications: Proposals that contain commercial uses, industrial uses, or mixed -uses (commercial and residential), and that meet the definition of "integrated site" in TMC 18.06, are not required to submit a modification request. B. Phasing of Improvements: To satisfy improvement requirements, the Short Subdivision Committee is authorized to impose conditions and limitations on the BSIP. If the Short Subdivision Committee determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare, the Committee may allow requirements to be satisfied prior to: 1. Issuing the first building permit for the site; or 2. Prior to issuing the first building permit for any phase; or Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 21 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 36 3. Prior to issuing a specific building's certificate of occupancy; or 4. In accordance with an approved phasing plan; or 5. In accordance with plans established by a development agreement or as otherwise permitted or required by the TMC. 17.16.070 Alterations and Vacations A. Alteration: Alteration of an approved BSIP, excluding standard easements for utilities and lot line adjustments, shall be accomplished following the same procedures required for a new BSIP application as set forth in this chapter; provided, that only owners of lots within the BSIP that are directly affected by the proposed alteration shall be required to authorize application for the alteration. If a property subject to a BSIP approval is the subject of a development agreement, the alteration of the approved BSIP shall not require an amendment to the development agreement or approval by the City Council and, after approval and recording, shall automatically be incorporated within the development agreement unless otherwise provided in the development agreement. B. Vacation: Vacation of a recorded BSIP shall be accomplished by following the same procedures required for a new BSIP application as set forth in this chapter. If a portion of a BSIP is vacated, the property subject to the vacation shall constitute one lot, and the balance of the approved BSIP shall remain as approved. Any non -conformities created by such a vacation must be remedied prior to final approval of the vacation. If a BSIP property subject to a BSIP approval is the subject of a development agreement, the vacation of the approved BSIP, whether total or partial, shall not require an amendment to the development agreement or approval by the City Council and, after approval and recording shall automatically be incorporated within the development agreement unless otherwise provided in the development agreement. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 22 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 37 CHAPTER 17.20 DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sections: 17.20.010 17.20.020 17.20.030 Applicability Improvements, Supervision, Inspections and Permits Required General Standards 17.20.010 Applicability A. The standards contained in this chapter are to be used as the basic standards for addressing the approval criteria for subdivisions, short plats, boundary line adjustments, lot consolidations, and BSIPs. The decision making entity may require additional standards be met if it is determined necessary to meet the approval criteria for a particular application. 17.20.020 Improvements, Supervision, Inspections and Permits Required A. Required Improvements: Every applicant may be required to grade and pave streets and alleys, install curbs and gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, fire hydrants, street lights and name signs, together with all appurtenances in accordance with specifications and standards of this code, approved by the Public Works Department, and in accordance with other standards of the City. B. Supervision and Inspection: A licensed engineer or engineering firm, acceptable to the Department of Public Works, shall be responsible for the supervision and inspection of all subdivision improvements. All improvements shall be certified in writing as completed in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the Department of Public Works. C. Permits: Prior to proceeding with any subdivision improvements, the applicant shall obtain those permits from the City as are necessary. The applicant is also responsible for complying with all applicable permit requirements of other Federal, State and local agencies. 17.20.030 General Standards A. Environmental Considerations: 1. Critical Areas: a. Land that contains a critical area or its buffer as defined in TMC Title 18, or is subject to the flood zone control ordinance as defined in TMC 16.52, shall be subdivided to reflect the standards and requirements of TMC 18.45 (Environmentally Critical Areas), and/or TMC 18.46 (PRD - Planned Residential Development), and/or TMC 16.52 (Flood Plain Management). b. No lot shall be created that does not contain an adequate building site, given the environmental considerations of the lot and current development standards. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 38 Page 23 of 34 2. Trees: In addition to meeting the requirements of TMC 18.54 (Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations), every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and vegetation, and integrate them into the subdivision's design. B. Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plans: 1. Buffer Between Uses: Where single-family residential subdivisions are proposed adjacent to multi -family, commercial, or industrial land use districts, and where natural separation does not exist, adequate landscape buffer strips and/or solid fences for screening shall be provided. 2. Conformity with existing plans: The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to and complement City ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans. 3. Other City Regulations: All subdivisions shall comply with all adopted City regulations. In the event of a conflict, the more restrictive regulation shall apply. 4. Accessory Structures: If a subdivision, short subdivision, or boundary line adjustment in a residential zone would result in an accessory structure remaining alone on a lot, the structure must be demolished before preliminary approval, or the owner must provide a bond or other financial guarantee acceptable to the Director in the amount of 150% of the cost of demolition and assurance that the accessory structure will be demolished if a primary use is not established on the lot within 12 months of final approval. C. Utilities. 1. Generally: All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground and, if located within a critical area, shall be designed to meet the standards of the critical areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works; such installation shall be completed and approved prior to application of any surface materials. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Public Works Department. 2. Sanitary Sewers: Sanitary sewers shall be provided to each lot at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Septic systems may be installed when approved by the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health and when the existing sewer system will not be available to the lot within the life of the preliminary approval. 3. Storm Drainage: The storm drainage collection system shall meet the requirements of the City's stormwater ordinance standards (TMC Chapter 14.28). 4. Water System: Each lot within a proposed subdivision shall be served by a water distribution system designed and installed in accordance with City standards. Locations of fire hydrants and flow rates shall be in accordance with City standards and the Uniform Fire Code. D. Blocks: Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 24 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 39 1. Length: Residential blocks should not be less than 300 feet nor more than 1,000 feet in length, (600 - 2,000 feet for commercial and industrial areas). Where circumstances warrant for the purpose of implementing the Comprehensive Plan, the Director may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet nor more than 15 feet in width, either by dedication or easement, to extend entirely across the width of the block to connect public rights -of -way. 2. Width: Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the Director may approve a single tier. 3. Pedestrian Considerations: Blocks, roads, and pedestrian improvements, shall be designed to provide a safe and convenient pedestrian network. E. Lots: 1. Arrangement: Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each proposed lot shall have access to a public street. New flag lots shall not be permitted. Access requirements may be met by establishing common drive easements. 2. Lot Design: The lot area, width, shape, and orientation, shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision, for the type of development and land use contemplated, and shall conform with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Corner Lots: Corner lots may be required to be designed with additional width to allow for the additional side yard requirements. F. Landscaping: 1. Each lot within a new subdivision or short plat of five (5) lots or greater shall be landscaped with at least one (1) tree in the front yard to create a uniform streetscape. 2. Landscaping shall conform with Public Works standards. G. Street Signs: The applicant shall be responsible for the initial cost of any street name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, that Public Works finds necessary for the subdivision. H. Lighting: Street lighting shall conform to the Department of Public Works standards unless the Director of Public Works requires alternative fixtures, poles, and/or spacing to contribute to an overall design concept of the subdivision. I. Monumentation: 1. Imprinted Monument: All monuments set in subdivisions shall be at least 1/2 inch x 24-inch steel bar or rod, or equivalent, with durable cap imprinted with the license number of the land surveyor setting the monument. 2. Centerline Monument: After paving, except as provided in TMC 17.20.030.J.5, monuments shall be driven flush with the finished road surface at the following intersections: a. Centerline intersections. b. Points of intersection of curves if placement falls within the paved area; otherwise, at the beginnings and endings of curves. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 40 Page 25 of 34 c. Intersections of the plat boundaries and street center lines. 3. Property Line Monumentation: All front corners, rear corners, and beginnings and endings of curbs shall be set with monuments, except as provided in TMC 17.20.030.J.5. In cases where street curbs are concentric and/or parallel with front right- of-way lines, front property line monumentation may be provided by brass screws or concrete nails at the intersections of curb lines and the projections of side property lines. If curb monumentation is used, it shall be noted on the plat, and also that such monumentation is good for projection of line only and not for distance. 4. Post-Monumentation: All monuments for exterior boundaries of the subdivision shall be set and referenced on the plat prior to plat recording. Interior monuments need not be set prior to recording if the developer certifies that the interior monuments shall be set within 90 days of final subdivision construction inspection by the Department of Public Works, and if the developer guarantees such interior monumentation. 5. Post-Monumentation Bonds: In lieu of setting interior monuments prior to final plat recording as provided in TMC 17.20.030.J.3, the Director of Public Works may accept a bond in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the Director, or other secure method as the Director of Public Works may require, providing for and securing the actual setting of the interior monuments.J. Streets: 1. Extension: Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works and authorized by the Director in approval of the plat. Where appropriate, streets shall be extended to the boundaries of the subdivision to ensure access to neighboring properties. The City's goal is to have an integrated system of local streets whenever practical. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective. However, in critical areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the standards and procedures of TMC 18.45. Dedication of additional right-of-way may be required for a short plat when it is necessary to meet the minimum street width standards or when lack of such dedication would cause or contribute to an unsafe road or intersection. 2. Names: All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval by the Department of Community Development. 3. Intersections: Any intersection of public streets, whatever the classification, shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset insofar as practical. 4. Street layout: Street layout shall provide for the most advantageous development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where critical areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights -of -way in TMC 18.45 shall be followed. 5. Private Access Roads: a. Private access roads shall only be authorized when they meet the following criteria: Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 26 of 34 41 (1) Allowing private access roads in the area being subdivided will not adversely affect future circulation in neighboring parcels of property; and (2) Adequate and reasonable provisions are made for the future maintenance and repair of the proposed private access roads; and (3) The proposed private access roads can accommodate potential full (future) development on the lots created; and (4) For residential subdivisions, the proposed private access roads do not serve more than four (4) lots nor are more than 200 feet in length. Those access roads 150 feet or greater in length shall have a turnaround built to Fire Department standards; or (5) For commercial and industrial subdivisions, when private access roads are authorized, there shall be a minimum easement width of 40 feet. With the exception of minimum easement widths, private access roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Department of Public Works standards, and zoning setbacks shall be required as though the easement were a public right-of-way. b. The minimum total width of the easement or tract, and the minimum width of the roadway pavement for private access roads shall be as shown in the following table. The minimum width shall be used unless the City Engineer demonstrates a wider width is needed due to site circumstances, including but not limited to topography, traffic volume, street patterns, on -street parking, lot patterns, land use and bike and transit facilities, that justify an increase in width. Type of Private Access Road Total Width Roadway Pavement Width Residential 20 feet 20 feet Commercial 40 feet 28 feet 6. Public Roads: a. Roads that do not meet the criteria found at TMC 17.20.030(C)(5) shall be designated as public roads. b. The minimum total width of the right-of-way and the minimum width of the roadway pavement for public roads shall be based as shown in the following table. The minimum width shall be used unless the City Engineer demonstrates a wider width is needed due to site circumstances, including but not limited to topography, traffic volume, street patterns, on -street parking, lot patterns, land use and bike and transit facilities, that justify an increase in width. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Page 27 of 34 Version: 10/17/24 42 Type of Road Principal Arterial Total Right -of -Way Width 80 - 100 feet Roadway Pavement Width 48 - 84 feet Minor Arterial Collector Arterial 60 - 80 feet 60 - 80 feet 36 - 64 feet 24 - 48 feet Access Road Cul-De-Sac Roadway Turnaround Alley 50 - 60 feet 40 feet 92 feet (dia.) 20 feet 28 - 36 feet 26 feet 81 feet (dia.) 15 feet c. Design: The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works: (1) Cul-de-sacs: Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted unless there is no reasonable alternative or the cul-de-sac is shown on an officially adopted street plan. When permitted, they shall not exceed a length of 600 feet unless the City determines that adequate alternative emergency access will be provided. (2) Street Grades: Street grades shall not exceed 15%. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18%, for not more than 200 feet when: (a) Exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; (b) The greater grade would minimize disturbance of critical slopes; (c) The Fire Marshal grants approval of the grade transition; and (d) Tangents, horizontal curves, vertical curves, and right-of-way improvements conform to Department of Public Works standards. d. Full Width Improvement: (1) When interior to a subdivision of five (5) or more lots, all publicly owned streets shall be designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below: (a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of Public Works standards. (b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of Public Works standards. (c) Shall have permanent concrete curbs and gutters according to Department of Public Works standards. (d) Shall have storm drains consisting of the proper size pipe and catch basins; sizes to be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the public hearing for the preliminary subdivision. (e) Shall have sidewalks provided at a minimum width as specified in TMC 11.12. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 28 of 34 43 (2) When interior to a subdivision of four (4) or fewer lots, all public roads and all privately owned roads that have the potential to serve five (5) or more lots shall be designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below: (a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of Public Works standards. (b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of Public Works standards. (c) Shall provide storm drainage to be approved by the Department of Public Works. (d) Shall provide sidewalk right-of-way or easements at a minimum width as specified in TMC 11.12. (e) Shall construct or provide L.I.D. no -protest agreements for permanent concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks according to Department of Public Works standards. (f) Shall be dedicated to the City or subject to a binding agreement for future dedication. (3) All privately owned roads that will serve four (4) or fewer dwellings shall be designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below: (a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of Public Works standards. (b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of Public Works standards. (c) Shall provide storm drainage to be approved by the Department of Public Works. e. Half Width Improvement: (1) Streets abutting the perimeter of a subdivision of five (5) or more lots shall provide the full improvements on the half of the street adjacent to the site, provided additional paving may be required to ensure safe and efficient roads exist to serve the subdivision; provided further that there are no physical obstructions to completing the other half of the roadway; and that there is a minimum of 20 feet of paving. (2) If the future grade or alignment of the adjacent public street is unknown and it is not feasible to establish the grade in a reasonable period or the immediate improvement of the street would result in a short, isolated segment of improved street and similar street improvements in the vicinity are unlikely to occur within six years, the City may approve a delay of improvements. The owner(s) must agree to enter into a binding L.I.D. no -protest agreement to further improve the street to full public street standards in the future; however adjacent streets must still be improved to the minimum level necessary, in the judgment of the City Engineer, to safely accommodate traffic generated by the proposed subdivision or short plat. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 44 Page 29 of 34 (3) Streets abutting the perimeter of a subdivision of four (4) or fewer lots shall provide L.I.D. no -protest agreements for construction of frontal improvements on the half of the street adjacent to the site, provided that there is a minimum of 20 feet of paving. CHAPTER 17.24 PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Sections: 17.24.010 Purpose 17.24.020 Plans and Permits Required for Public Improvements 17.24.030 Process for Installing Public Improvements 17.24.040 Improvement Agreements and Financial Guarantees 17.24.010 Purpose A. It is the intent to have all infrastructure improvements required by a subdivision, BSIP, boundary line adjustment, or lot consolidation, completed prior to final approval of the proposed land action. The City realizes that there may be instances where the completion of the improvement may not be the best course of action, including, but not limited to: final lift for the roadway, completing sidewalks while development construction is ongoing, minor punch list items, etc. In those instances, the Director of Public Works may accept a bond or other financial security in lieu of the completion of the infrastructure improvements. 17.24.020 Plans and Permits Required for Public Improvements A. Approval of a preliminary subdivision, BSIP, boundary line adjustment, or lot consolidation, shall constitute approval for the applicant to develop construction plans and specifications, for all facilities and improvements, in substantial conformance to the preliminary approval, design standards, and any special conditions required by the Short Subdivision Committee or Hearing Examiner; to obtain permits and complete installation for said improvements; and to prepare a final plat, plans, surveys and other documents for recording. B. Prior to installing improvements, the applicant shall apply for all required permits for those improvements. The applications shall include development plans as specified on the application form. [Note: See TMC 11.08 and 11.12 for additional guidance on standards and permit requirements for improvements in the public right-of-way.] 17.24.030 Process for Installing Public Improvements A. All required and not -required improvements installed by shall conform to the requirements of this title and improvement standards, specifications, inspections and procedures as set forth by the Department of Public Works, and shall be installed in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Work shall not be commenced until plans have been checked for adequacy and approved by the Department of Public Works to the extent necessary for the evaluation of the subdivision or short plat proposal. Plans shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 30 of 34 45 2. Work shall not commence until the Department of Public Works has been notified in advance and, if work has been discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the Department of Public Works has been notified. 3. Public improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Director of Public Works may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arise during construction to warrant the change. 4. All underground utilities, sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in the streets by the developer of the subdivision or short plat shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of streets. Stubs for service connections and underground utilities and sanitary sewers shall be placed to a length obviating the necessity for disturbing the street improvements when surface connections are made. 5. Plans showing all improvements as built shall be filed with the City upon completion of the improvements. 17.24.040 Improvement Agreements and Financial Guarantees A. Required Improvements: Before any final subdivision, BSIP, boundary line adjustment, or lot consolidation is approved, the applicant shall install all required improvements and replace or repair any such improvements which are damaged in the development of the subdivision. In lieu of the completion of the actual construction of all required improvements (public and private), the Director of Public Works may accept a bond in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the Director of Public Works, or other secure method, providing for and securing to the City the actual construction and installation of all required improvements. This is in addition to the requirements of TMC 11.08 requiring a performance bond for all work being done in the public right-of-way. If the Director of Public Works accepts a bond for the completion of the work, the applicant shall execute and file with the City an agreement guaranteeing completion of such improvements together with any needed replacement or repair. The agreement shall: 1. Specify the period of time within which all work required shall be completed. The time for completion shall not exceed one year from the date of final approval of the subdivision. The agreement may provide for reasonable extensions of time for completion of work. Extensions must be requested, approved by the Director of Public Works, and properly secured in advance of the required initial completion date. 2. Require notice by the applicant to the Director of Public Works promptly upon completion of all required improvements. 3. Provide for notice of approval or disapproval by the Director of Public Works of the improvement within a reasonable time after receiving notice of completion. 4. Require financial security to be provided by the applicant pursuant to TMC 17.24.030.C. 5. Provide that, if the applicant fails to complete all required work within the period specified, the City may take steps to demand performance of the developer's obligation within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days from the date of demand. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 46 Page 31 of 34 6. Provide that, if the required improvements are not completed within that time, the City may take action to require the applicant to forfeit the financial security. 7. Provide that the City shall be entitled to recover all costs of such action including reasonable attorney's fees. 8. Provide that, following recovery of the proceeds of the financial security, those proceeds shall be used to complete the required improvements and pay the costs incurred. 9. Provide that, should the proceeds of the financial security be insufficient for completion of the work and payment of the costs, the City shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the applicant. B. Maintenance Agreement: Regardless of whether all required improvements are completed prior to final approval of any subdivision of land, as a condition of such approval the applicant shall execute an agreement to assure successful operation of said improvements. [Note: See TMC 11.08.110 for details.] The agreement shall: 1. Require the applicant to post a bond or other financial security to secure successful operation of all required improvements and full performance of the developer's maintenance obligation. Such financial security shall be effective for a two-year period following approval of installation of all required improvements. 2. Require the applicant to perform maintenance functions on drainage improvements for a period of time not to exceed two years from approval of their com- pletion or final plat approval, whichever is later. Such maintenance functions shall be specified by the Director of Public Works, and shall be reasonably related to the burdens that the subdivision will impose on drainage facilities during the time maintenance is required. The City may agree to accept and perform maintenance of the improvements, in which case the applicant's obligation to perform maintenance functions shall terminate. 3. Not relieve the applicant of liability for the defective condition of any required improvements discovered following the effective term of the security given. 4. Provide a waiver by the applicant of all claims for damages against any governmental authority, which may occur to the adjacent land as a result of construction, drainage, and maintenance of the streets and other improvements. C. Performance Bond: To assure full performance of the agreements required herein, the applicant shall provide one or more of the following in a form approved by the City Attorney: 1. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Washington. 2. An irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution stating that the money is held for the purpose of development of the stated project. 3. An assignment of account with a financial institution which holds the money in an account until such time the City signs a written release. The assignment of account will allow the City to withdraw the funds in the event the provisions of the agreement are not met. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 32 of 34 47 4. A cash deposit made with the City of Tukwila. D. Amount of Financial Security: The financial security provided shall be 150% of the estimated cost of the improvements to be completed and all related engineering and incidental expenses, final survey monumentation and preparation of records in a format approved by Public Works and meeting current Public Works drawing standards of the "as -built" improvements. The applicant shall provide an estimate of these costs for acceptance by the Director of Public Works. E. Defective Work: The acceptance of improvements by the City shall not prevent the City from making a claim against the applicant for any defective work if such is discovered within two years after the date of completion of the work. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 48 Page 33 of 34 CHAPTER 17.28 PENALTIES, SEVERABILITY, LIABILITY Sections: 17.28.010 Sale, Lease or Transfer of Land in Violation of this Chapter 17.28.020 Penalties 17.28.030 City Not Liable 17.28.040 Severability 17.28.010 Sale, Lease or Transfer of Land in Violation of this Chapter A. Any person, firm, corporation, association, or any agent of any person, firm, corporation, or association who violates any provision of RCW 58.17 or TMC Title 17, "Subdivisions and Plats", relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease, or transfer of any lot, tract, or parcel of land, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor; and each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot, tract, or parcel of land in violation of any provision of RCW 58.17 or TMC Title 17, "Subdivisions and Plats", shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. 17.28.020 Penalties A. Any other violation of any provision, or failure to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter, shall be subject to enforcement and penalties as prescribed in TMC 8.45 and the issuance of a Notice of Violation in accordance with TMC 8.45.070. 17.28.030 City Not Liable A. This code shall not be construed to relieve from or lessen the responsibility of any person owning any land or building, constructing or modifying any subdivisions in the City for damages to anyone injured or damaged either in person or property by any defect therein; nor shall the City or any agent thereof be held as assuming such liability by reason of any preliminary or final approval or by issuance of any permits or certificates authorized herein. 17.28.040 Severability A. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code. Exhibit B: Title 17 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Page 34 of 34 49 50 Citv of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING VARIOUS ORDINANCES AS CODIFIED IN TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TITLE 18, "ZONING"; REENACTING TITLE 18; TO REMOVE AMBIGUITIES, IMPROVE CLARITY, CODIFY INTERNAL POLICIES, AND REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5290 ("SB 5290"), which made changes to the land use permitting process; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update language in the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), Title 18, "Zoning," in alignment with current practices, to improve clarity, and to bring the TMC into compliance with SB 5290; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein further the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Tukwila; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals and incorporates them herein as support for these amendments. Section 2. Repealer. All ordinances as codified in Title 18, "Zoning," and as referenced in Exhibit A, are hereby repealed, thereby eliminating Title 18 in its entirety. Section 3. TMC Title 18 Reenacted. TMC Title 18 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 2024 Legislation: Title 18 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff: 1. Gloor Page 1 of 5 51 TITLE 18 ZONING Chapters: 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established - Map 18.09 Land Uses Allowed by District 18.10 Low Density Residential 18.12 Medium Density Residential 18.14 High Density Residential 18.16 Mixed Use Office 18.18 Office 18.20 Residential Commercial Center 18.22 Neighborhood Commercial Center 18.24 Regional Commercial 18.26 Regional Commercial Mixed Use 18.28 Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) District 18.30 Commercial/Light Industrial 18.32 Light Industrial 18.34 Heavy Industrial 18.36 Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light 18.38 Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy 18.40 Tukwila Valley South 18.41 Tukwila South Overlay District 18.42 Public Recreation Overlay District 18.43 Urban Renewal Overlay District 18.44 Shoreline Overlay 18.45 Environmentally Critical Areas 18.46 PRD - Planned Residential Development 18.50 Supplemental Development Standards 18.52 Landscape Requirements 18.54 Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations 18.56 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.58 Wireless Communication Facilities 18.60 Design Review 18.64 Conditional Use Permits 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan 18.82 Amendments to Development Regulations 18.84 Amendments to the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps 18.86 Development Agreements 18.88 Application Fees 18.96 Administration and Enforcement 18.104 Permit Application Types and Procedures 18.108 Decision Processes 2024 Legislation: Title 18 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 52 Page 2 of 5 18.112 Public Hearing Processes 18.116 Appeal Processes Figures and Tables: Figure 1 Shoreline Use Matrix Figure 2 Sample Residential Sensitive Area Site Plan Submittal Figure 3 Building Height Exception Areas Figure 4 Location and Measurement, Yards on Lots Figure 5 Multi -Family Design Guideline Figure 6 Off -Street Parking Area Dimensions Figure 7 Required Number of Parking Spaces for Automobiles and Bicycles Figure 8 Parking for the Handicapped Figure 9 Commercial Redevelopment Areas in the Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor Figure 10 City of Tukwila Zoning Map Figure 11 Eligible Parcels for Location of Secure Community Transition Facility Figure 12 MIC/H Parcels Ineligible for Stand-alone Office Uses Figure 13 Housing Options Program Standards Figure 14 Tukwila Neighborhoods Figure 15 Tukwila International Blvd. Urban Renewal Overlay District Figures 18-16 through 18-59 and Tables 18-1 through 18-5 are associated with TMC 18.28, Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) District Figure 16 Map of Districts Figure 17 Block Face Length Figure 18 Corridor Definition of Terms Figure 19 Corridor Type Map Figure 20 Walkable Corridor Standards Figure 21 Pedestrian Walkway Corridor Standards Figure 22 Tukwila Pond Esplanade Standards Figure 23 Neighborhood Corridor Standards Figure 24 Urban Corridor Standards Figure 25 Commercial Corridor Standards Figure 26 Freeway Frontage Corridor Standards Figure 27 Workplace Corridor Standards Figure 28 Examples of Public Frontages Figure 29 Example of Building Oriented to the Street Figure 30 Example of Features on a Building Oriented to Street Figure 31 Examples of Building Orientation to Streets/Open Space Treatments Figure 32 Frontage Building Coverage Figure 33 Example of Exceeding Maximum Building Setbacks to Provide Pedestrian Space Figure 34 Surface Parking - Front Figure 35 Street Front Parking Examples Figure 36 Surface Parking - Side Figure 37 Surface Parking - Rear Figure 38 Example of Vertical Modulation and Horizontal Modulation Figure 39 Facade Articulation Example for a Mixed -Use Building Figure 40 Example of Articulating the Facade of a Residential Building 2024 Legislation: Title 18 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page3of5 53 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Figure 58 Figure 59 Figure 60 Tables: Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Major Vertical Modulation Example Ground Level Transparency Requirements Examples of Percentage of Transparency Between 2-10' Along the Length of a Building Facade Display Window Example Encroachment Provisions for Building Overhangs or Weather Protection Features Illustration of the Various Side and Rear Yard Treatment Standards and Options Example of a Single Tree Planted with No Other Materials and Little Room for Viability. Using Evergreen Landscaping to Screen Utilities Examples of Landscaped Tree Wells Examples of Pedestrian Spaces Examples of Pedestrian Passages Common Open Space Examples Rooftop Garden Examples of Driveway Level with the Height of the Sidewalk Example of Not Enough Room on Site to Exit Loading Area, Resulting in Disruption of Traffic Movements Parking Lot Walkway Standards and Example Example of Good Internal Pedestrian Circulation Internal Walkway Standards and an Example Along Retail or Mixed -Use Buildings Critical Area Tracts in Tukwila South Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) Study Area Summary of Applicable Review Process and Standards/Guidelines Tukwila Urban Center - Land Uses Allowed by District District Standards Provision of Open Space Provision of Parking Table 18-6 is associated with TMC 18.09, land uses allowed by district Table 6 Land Uses Allowed by District Section 4. Chapters Established. All chapters and figures of TMC Title 18 are hereby established to read as referenced in Exhibit B. Section 5. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or 2024 Legislation: Title 18 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 54 Page 4 of 5 unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, City Clerk Thomas McLeod, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney Exhibit A: Repealers Exhibit B: Reenacted Title 18, "Zoning" 2024 Legislation: Title 18 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page5of5 55 EXHIBIT A: REPEALERS Chapters Ordinance(s) Repealed 18.02 Title 1758 §1 (part) 18.04 General Provisions 1758 §1 (part) 18.06 Definitions 1758 §1 (part); 1768 §1 (part); 1834 §1; 1834 §2 (part); 1834 §3 & 4; 1865 §1, 2, & 3; 1971 §1,2,&3; 1974 §1, 2, 6, & 11; 1976 §3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16; 1986 §3 & 4; 1989 §1; 1991 §1 & 2; 2021 §1 2075 §1 (part); 2084 §1; 2097 §1, 3, 4, 5, & 6; 2098 §1; 2135 §2 (part); 2176 §1; 2199 §5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10; 2235 §1 (part); 2235 §2 (part); 2235 §3 (part); 2235 §4 (part); 2251 §3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10; 2287 §2, 3, 4, & 5; 2324 §1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10; 2347 §1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, & 46; 2353 §2; 2368 §2 & 3; 2407 §2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7; 2479 §2, 3, 4, 5, & 6; 2500 §1 & 2; 2518 §3, 4, 5, & 6; 2523 §1 & 2; 2569 §1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, & 34; 2581 §1; 2625 §1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12; 2627 §1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6; 2658 §2, 3, 4, & 5; 2678 §1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8; 2716 §3 & 4; 2718 §3 18.08 Districts Established - Map 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §23; 1796 §3 (part); 2235 §5 (part); 2257 §3 18.09 Land Uses Allowed by District 2500 §3 18.10 Low Density Residential 1758 §1 (part); 1865 §4; 1865 §7; 1971 §4 & 6; 2251 §13; 2257 §4 & 5; 2368 §5; 2500 §4; 2518 §7; 2581 §2; 2678 §23 18.12 Medium Density Residential 1758 §1 (part); 1865 §8 & 11; 1976 §23; 2005 §1; 2199 §12; 2251 §16; 2257 §6; 2368 §7; 2500 §5; 2525 §2; 2581 §3; 2678 §24 56 1814 High R�a�gnt�d 1758 �1 h�e�\� 183O&1 &3� 1R8� @1�& 1�� ___� ^ `,_,. ^ . ^ . 1970Q27;2005§2;2199§14;2257 §7(oorU; 2300GA;25OO8G;252��3;2580�2��581�4; ^` "- ^- ^_. ^, 1810 Mixed Use Office 1758@1 h�a�\� 183OQ4&7' 18�5G1�� ^ `,_`. ^ . ^ . 1072G1� 18�8830� 2O0�83� 22�1 82�� ^ . ^- . ^-. ^__. 2308§11; 2500§7'2581§5; 2078§28 1818 Office 1758@1 /oa�\� 187�&3� 1S70@35' �OO5�4; ^ `,_,. ^_. ^_. ^, 2300G13; 2500§8;2581§6;2670827 10.20 Residential Commercial 1��0G1/o��\�18�2�3;19�8�3S�20O�8G; � ^ `'-,. ^- ^ . ^- 2308�15'�5OO�g��518&8'�581&7' ^ . ^-. ^_ ^�. 10.22 Neighborhood 1��881(nm�)�1�30�1O8'13�18G5���&2�� _" " `'_,. ^ . ^-_ . 187284;1976G42. '�OO5&H'��08�17�. ^, ^_^- ^ 2500§10'2257Q8(oart)'2581§8; 2078§29 10.24 Regional �omnn)enjo| 1��8�1 /om�\� 1885��G 30 &31� 10y2�5; -" ^ `'_`. ^_-' . . ^_ 1978G�5;�UO����2�08&�1�25O0811� ^ _ ^�. ^_ . " . 10.26 Regional Cnmnenjo| Mixed Use 1750§1 /nod`\; 1830§10& 19; 187286_; 1970G����UO5�8;2308�24;�5U0812� ^ . ^- ^_, " . 18.28 Tukwila Urban Center O�JC\District 2443§2. 3.4. 5,0.7.8.S. 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19.20.21.22.23.24.25.20. 27.28.29; 2500G14k2518§0; 2540§22; 10.30 Corn ht|ndun[ha 1�50�1/n�d\�18�288;200��10�2308831� -_-_'_" � " `--,. ^- ^ . ^- . 2500G15;2078&32 18.32 L���|ndua1ha 1758G1/oa�\�187��g��OO5G11��3�8�34; _~ � ^ `,_,. ^-. ^ . ^-, 2500G10; 2078&33 10.34 Heavy 1�58�1/n�d\1�83G1&2�18�2�10� --' � " `-_`. ^ . ^ . 2005§12; 2308§30; 2500Q17; 2078§34 18.30 Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light 1758@1/nart\;1872 §11;2005Q13; 2335§5; 2300G3Q���OO�10�20�8�3� ^--. ^ . ^'' 18.38 Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy 1758@1 (part); 1872 §12; 2005Q14; 2335§9; 2308�4O'�5OO�19��S78&3R ^ -. ^ . ^-- 1040 Tukwila Valley South 175881 /nad\;183O§27;1072§13(197S§00; 2005§15; 2368§44;2500§20 2678§37 57 18,41 Tukwila South Overlay District 1758 §1 (part); 2235 §1 (part) & 10 (part); 2500 §21; 2580 §3 & 4; 2661 §1, 2, & 3; 2678 §10 18.42 Public Recreation Overlay District 1758 §1 (part); 2500 §2; 2020 §1 18.43 Urban Renewal Overlay District 2257 §9 (part) 18.44 Shoreline Overlay 2627 §11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, & 29 18.45 Environmentally Critical Areas 2625 §21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, & 45 18.46 PRD - Planned Residential Development 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §27, 29, 30, & 31; 2097 §18, 19, & 20; 2235 §11 18.50 Supplemental Development Standards 1758 §1 (part); 1815 §2; 1830 §28; 1872 §14 (part); 1971 §18; 1989 §9; 2066 §1; 2076 §1; 2098 §2 & 3; 2176 §2; 2186 §1; 2199 §15, 16, & 17; 2235 §12; 2251 §60; 2324 §12; 2368 §51 & 52; 2407 §10; 2479 §8; 2500 §23; 2518 §10; 2524 §2, 3, 4, & 5; 2549 §24; 2580 §5; 2581 §9, 10, & 11; 2658 §7, 8, & 9; 2661 §4; 2678 §13, 14, & 15; 2716 §5; 2718 §4 18.52 Landscape Requirements 1872 §14 (part); 1971 §19; 2235 §13; 2251 §61, 62, & 65; 2368 §53; 2442 §1; 2518 §11; 2523 §6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16; 2580 §6; 2625 §46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55; 2627 §30; 2661 §5; 2678 §16 18.54 Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §32; 2570 §2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, & 22; 2625 §57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65; 2678 §17, 18, & 19 18.56 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations1758 §1 (part); 1770 §33; 1795 §2 (part); 1795 §3 (part); 1976 §62; 2199 §19; 2251 §66 & 67; 2324 §13; 2368 §54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, & 60 2442 §3; 2500 §24; 2518 §13 & 14; 2589 §2 & 3; 2718 §2 58 18,58 Wireless Communication Facilities 2135 §1 (part); 2251 §68, 69, & 70; 2660 §6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32; 2678 §20 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §35; 1865 §49, 50, 51, 53, & 54; 1986 §16; 2005 § 16, 17, & 18; 2118 §1; 2199 §20; 2235 §15, 16, 17, & 18; 2251 §73; 2257 §11 & 12; 2368 §61 & 62; 2442 §4 & 5; 2580 §7 & 8; 2627 §31 18.64 Conditional Use Permits 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §36, 38, 39, & 40; 2500 §25, 26, 27, 28, 29, & 30 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 1758 §1 (part); 1769 §4 (part); 1770 §41, 44, 45, & 46; 1816 §2; 1865 §55; 1991 §11 & 12; 2368 §63 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 1819 §1 (part); 1872 §15; 1989 §10; 2005 §19; 2097 §21; 2153 §1; 2500 §31; 2518 §15; 2625 §66; 2678 §21; 2718 §5 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 1819 §1 (part); 1872 §15; 1989 §10; 2005 §19; 2097 §21; 2153 §1; 2500 §31; 2518 §15; 2625 §66; 2678 §21; 2718 §5 18.72 Variances 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §48; 1796 §3 (part); 2500 §32 18.80 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §52, 54, & 55; 1856 §1 & 2; 2071 §1; 2368 §64 & 66; 2717 §2, 4, 5, 6, & 7 18.82 Amendments to Development Regulations ....2717 §9, 10, 11, & 12 18.84 Requests for Changes in Zoning 2116 §1 (part); 2368 §67, 68, & 69; 2717 §13 & 14 18.86 Development Agreements 2378 §2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 18.88 Application Fees 1758 §1 (part); 1834 §6; 1971 §20; 1994 §1; 2520 §3 18.90 Appeals 1758 §1 (part); 1770 §62; 1796 §3 (part); 2120 §3 18.96 Administration and Enforcement 1758 §1 (part); 2117 §1; 2251 §74; 2549 §25 18.100 Standards for approval of permits 1769 §1 (part); 2500 §33 & 34 59 18.104 Permit Application Types and Procedures 1768 §2 (part); 1834 §8; 1991 §13 & 14; 2097 §23; 2119 §1; 2135 §19 & 20; 2235 §19; 2251 §75, 76, 77, 78, 79, & 80; 2368 §70 & 71; 2442 §6; 2627 §32; 2649 §11; 2678 §22; 2718 §6 18.108 Decision Processes 1768 §3 (part); 1796 §3 (part); 1847 §3; 2119 §2 18.112 Public Hearing Processes 1768 §4 (part) 18.116 Appeal Processes 1768 §5 (part); 1847 §4; 2120 §4 18.120 Housing Options Program 2103 §1 (part); 2103 §3; 2368 §72 60 EXHIBIT B: REENACTED TITLE 18 "ZONING" 61 See Link to Draft Title 18, Exhibit B in the Digital Records Center See Link to Final Title 18, Exhibit B in the Digital Records Center 62 Ci of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING VARIOUS ORDINANCES AS CODIFIED IN TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TITLE 19, "SIGN AND VISUAL COMMUNICATION CODE"; REENACTING TITLE 19; TO REMOVE AMBIGUITIES, IMPROVE CLARITY, CODIFY INTERNAL POLICIES, AND REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature recently adopted Senate Bill 5290 ("SB 5290"), which made changes to the land use permitting process; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update language in the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), Title 19, "Sign and Visual Communication Code," in alignment with current practices, to improve clarity, and to bring the TMC into compliance with SB 5290; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein further the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Tukwila. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals and incorporates them herein as support for these amendments. Section 2. Repealer. All ordinances as codifed in Title 19, "Sign and Visual Communication Code," and as referenced in Exhibit A, are hereby repealed, thereby eliminating Title 19 in its entirety. Section 3. TMC Title 19 Reenacted. TMC Title 19 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 2024 Legislation: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff I. Gloor Page 1 of 3 63 TITLE 19 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS Chapters: 19.04 General Provisions 19.08 Definitions 19.12 Permits 19.16 Construction, Maintenance and Removal of Signs 19.20 Permanent Signs 19.22 Tukwila Urban Center Opt -Out Provision 19.24 Temporary Signs 19.32 Master Sign Program 19.36 Non -Conforming Provisions 19.37 Non -Confirming Signs in Annexation Areas 19.38 Billboards Figures (located at back of this section) Figure 1 Billboard Receiving Area — North of Boeing Access Road (for illustrative purposes only) Figure 2 Billboard Receiving Area — North of 180th Street (for illustrative purposes only) Figure 3 Sign Height Figure 4 Sign Sight Distance Triangle Section 4. Chapters Established. All chapters and figures of TMC Title 19 are hereby established to read as referenced in Exhibit B. Section 5. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. 2024 Legislation: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 64 Page 2 of 3 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, City Clerk Thomas McLeod, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney Exhibit A: Repealers Exhibit B: Reenacted Title 19, "Sign and Visual Communication Code" 2024 Legislation: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page3of3 65 EXHIBIT A: REPEALERS Chapters Ordinance(s) Repealed 19.04 General Provisions 2303 §1 (part) 19.08 Definitions 2303 §2 (part); 2375 §1; 2375 §2; 2375 §3; 2375 §4; 2679 §1 19.12 Permits 2303 §3 (part); 2375 §5; 2469 §1; ............. ....... ... ............. ... ............. ... 2501 §1; 2501 §2; 2501 §3; 2549 §26; 2549 §27 19.16 Construction, Maintenance and Removal of Signs 2303 §4 (part) 19.20 Permanent Signs 2305 §5 (part); 2375 §6, §7, §8, & §9; 2409 §1; 2501 §4 & §5, 2679 §2, §3 & §4 19.22 Tukwila Urban Center Opt -Out Provisions..... ........... ....... ......... ... ........... ... 19.24 Temporary Signs 19.28 Variances 19.32 Master Sign Program ......... ........... ... ........ 19.36 Non -Conforming Provisions 19.37 Non -Conforming Provisions in Annexation Areas 19.38 Billboards 2303 §6 (part) 2303 §7 (part); 2501 §6 & §7; 2549 §28 2303 §8 (part) 2303 §9 (part); 2375 §10; 2501 §8; 2679 §5 2303 §10 (part); 2444 §1 & §2 2375 §11 (part) 2303 §11 (part); 2501 §9 66 EXHIBIT B: REENACTED TITLE 19 "SIGN AND VISUAL COMMUNICATION CODE" 67 TITLE 19 SIGN AND VISUAL COMMUNICATION CODE Chapters: 19.04 General Provisions 19.08 Definitions 19.12 Permits 19.16 Construction, Maintenance and Removal of Signs 19.20 Permanent Signs 19.22 Tukwila Urban Center Opt -Out Provision 19.24 Temporary Signs 19.32 Master Sign Program 19.36 Non -Conforming Provisions 19.37 Non -Conforming Signs in Annexation Areas 19.38 Billboards Figures (located at back of this section): Figure 1 Billboard Receiving Area — North of Boeing Access Road (for illustrative purposes only) Figure 2 Billboard Receiving Area — North of 180th Street (for illustrative purposes only) Figure 3 Sign Height Figure 4 Sign Sight Distance Triangle Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 1 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 68 CHAPTER 19.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 19.04.010 Title 19.04.020 Intent 19.04.030 Liability for Damages 19.04.040 Severability Clause 19.04.050 Third Party Review and Inspections 19.04.060 Substitution 19.04.070 Conflict with Other Adopted Environmental Regulations 19.04.010 Title This title shall be hereinafter known as the "Tukwila Sign and Visual Communication Code." It may be cited as such and will be hereinafter referred to as the "Sign Code." 19.04.020 Intent The purpose of this code is to enhance the City's aesthetic character; to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and to increase the effectiveness of visual communication in the City by providing opportunities for Tukwila businesses, residents and property owners to display signage. The regulations for signs have the following specific objectives: 1. To have signs that attract and invite rather than demand the public's attention along the City's streetscapes. 2. To have streets that appear orderly and safe, because clutter is minimized. 3. To have signs that enhance the visual environment of the City, because they are in harmony with building architecture and landscape design. 4. To allow business identification that is not unduly hindered by regulatory standards. 5. To ensure typical communication and civic discussion is fostered in the City's residential neighborhoods. 6. To allow signs that utilize high quality construction materials, fine architectural detailing, harmonious proportionality, and that serve a multi -modal environment. 19.04.030 Liability for Damages Nothing in this code shall relieve any person, corporation, firm or entity from responsibility for damages to any other person suffering physical injury or damage to property as a result of the installation, display, maintenance or removal of any sign authorized under this code. The City and its employees, agents and officials shall assume no liability for such injury or damage resulting from the authorization of any permit or inspection implementing the provisions of this code. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 2 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 69 19.04.040 Severability Clause If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this code or its application to any person or situation should be held invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this code or its application to any other person or situation. 19.04.050Third Party Review and Inspections A. In the event an application to install a sign requires a level of expert review the City cannot complete in house, the City shall have the right to have a third party assist in the review. In such cases where a third party review is required, the applicant shall reimburse the City for the full cost of the third party review. B. If the installation of a sign requires inspection services that due to complexity or specialty cannot be completed by City staff, the applicant shall be responsible for coordinating and paying a private firm to complete such inspections. Copies of any inspection reports shall be submitted to the City in order to demonstrate the inspections have been completed. 19.04.060 Substitution Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, noncommercial copy may be substituted for commercial copy on any lawful sign structure. 19.04.070Conflict with Other Adopted Environmental Regulations Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to allow a violation of the City's Sensitive Area Regulations or Shoreline Regulations. In cases of conflict between the Sign Code and the City's adopted Sensitive Area Regulations and/or Shoreline Regulations, the requirements of the Sensitive Area Regulations and/or Shoreline Regulations shall prevail. CHAPTER 19.08 DEFINITIONS Sections: 19.08.010 Generally 19.08.020 Abandoned Sign 19.08.030 Awning 19.08.040 Awning/Canopy Side Sign 19.08.050 Awning/Canopy Sign, Under 19.08.055 Awning Face Sign 19.08.060 Billboard 19.08.065 Building -Mounted Sign 19.08.067 Billboard Receiving Areas 19.08.069 Billboard Sending Areas 19.08.070 Cabinet Sign 19.08.072 Canopy 19.08.074 Canopy Edge Sign Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 3 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 70 19.08.076 Channel Letters 19.08.080 Commercial Real Estate Signs 19.08.082 Commercial Zones 19.08.084 Corner Projecting Sign 19.08.090 Department 19.08.091 Digital Billboard 19.08.092 Director 19.08.094 Dynamic Sign 19.08.100 Electronic Sign 19.08.110 Exposed Building Face 19.08.120 Flush Mounted Building Sign 19.08.130 Freestanding Sign 19.08.140 Freeway Interchange Sign 19.08.142 Fuel Canopy 19.08.144 GBCI 19.08.145 Height, Freestanding Sign 19.08.150 Industrial Zone 19.08.155 Institutional Use 19.08.160 Landmark Business 19.08.162 LEED 19.08.165 Master Sign Program 19.08.170 Monument Sign 19.08.180 Multi -Family Complex 19.08.183 Mural 19.08.185 Off -Premise Signage 19.08.190 Parking Structure Incentive Sign 19.08.195 Permanent Sign 19.08.200 Pole Banner 19.08.210 Portable Sign 19.08.215 Projecting Sign 19.08.220 Premises 19.08.225 Residential Zone 19.08.230 Sight Distance Triangle 19.08.235 Sign 19.08.240 Sign Area 19.08.245 Standard Billboard 19.08.247 Tukwila Urban Center 19.08.250 Temporary Sign 19.08.260 Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor 19.08.265 Window Sign 19.08.270 Window Sign, Temporary 19.08.280 Wireless Communications Facility 19.08.010 Generally As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this section, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated by the context in which the term is Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 4 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 71 used. Terms not defined herein shall be interpreted using the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most reasonable application. 19.08.020 Abandoned Sign Abandoned Sign means any sign that advertises a business, lessor, owner, product, service or activity that has not been located on the premises where the sign is displayed for 60 days or more or a sign cabinet where the face has been broken or missing for 30 days or more. 19.08.030 Awning Awning means a fabric -covered structure mounted on the face of a building above a window, entrance or storefront opening, providing weather protection. 19.08.040 Awning/Canopy Side Sign Awning/Canopy Side Sign means a sign applied to or mounted on the side of an awning or canopy, contained completely within the end area and oriented perpendicular to the building wall surface. 19.08.050 Awning/Canopy Sign, Under Awning/Canopy Sign, Under means a sign suspended from an awning, canopy or arcade, but does not extend beyond the horizontal limits of the awning, canopy or arcade structure. 19.08.055 Awning Face Sign Awning Face Sign means a sign applied to the main face of an awning, including sloped and vertical surfaces. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 5 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 72 19.08.060 Billboard Billboard means an off -premise, freestanding sign or visual communication device that has a sign area of at least 150 square feet in message area per face. Freeway interchange signs are not included in this definition. 19.08.065 Building -Mounted Sign Building -Mounted Sign means a sign permanently attached to a building and includes flush -mounted signs, awning signs, projecting signs, etc. 19.08.067 Billboard Receiving Areas Billboard Receiving Areas are those areas of the City along South 180th Street zoned as Commercial/Light Industrial; those properties south of South 180th Street along West Valley Highway zoned as Commercial/Light Industrial; all properties located along Boeing Access Road; those properties along East Marginal Way, north of Boeing Access Road; and all properties located along Airport Way, north of Boeing Access Road, for which permits for new billboards may be issued if the criteria of this title are satisfied. Attachments A and B, codified in Title 19 as Figures 19-1 and 19-2, are hereby amended. These maps show the billboard receiving areas listed with this definition and are for illustrative purposes only. 19.08.069 Billboard Sending Areas Billboard Sending Areas are those areas of the City that are not designated as billboard receiving areas from which billboards existing as of the time of the enactment of these regulations, must be removed before a permit for a new billboard may be issued by the City. 19.08.070 Cabinet Sign Cabinet Sign means a geometrically -shaped sign with a translucent face, backlit by an internal light source. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 6 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 73 19.08.072 Canopy Canopy means a rigid structure projecting from the face of a building above a window, entrance or storefront opening, providing weather protection. 19.08.074 Canopy Edge Sign Canopy Edge Sign means a sign mounted along or above the edge of a canopy and oriented parallel to the building wall. 19.08.076 Channel Letters Channel Letters mean three-dimensional, individually -cut letters or figures affixed to a structure. 19.08.080 Commercial Real Estate Signs Commercial Real Estate Signs are signs located in commercial and industrial zones are used to denote a property, building or tenant space available for sale, lease or rental. 19.08.082 Commercial Zones Commercial Zones means any area of the City zoned 0, MUO, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C/LI, TVS or TSO. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 7 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 74 19.08.084 Corner Projecting Sign Corner Projecting Sign means a tall, vertically -oriented sign that projects from a building corner and is structurally integrated into the building. 19.08.090 Department Department means the Department of Community Development or subsequent organizational successor. 19.08.091 Digital Billboard Digital Billboard means an off -premise sign using digital technology that produces static images which are changed remotely. Digital billboards may not scroll, flash or feature motion pictures. A digital billboard may be internally or externally illuminated. Digital billboards shall contain static messages only and shall not meet the definition of a dynamic sign except that the static image may change every ten seconds. Each static message shall not include flashing, scintillating lighting or the varying of light color or intensity. 19.08.092 Director Director means the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. 19.08.094 Dynamic Sign Dynamic Sign is any sign or part of a sign that appears to move or change due to any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or in any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components, including a display that includes any rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or displays in which the display or sign appears to move more frequently than once every 24 hours. 19.08.100 Electronic Sign Electronic Sign means a sign containing a display that can be changed by electrical, electronic or computerized process. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 8 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 75 19.08.110 Exposed Building Face Exposed Building Face means that portion of the building exterior wall fronting a tenant space as seen in elevation together with one-half the vertical distance between eaves and ridge of a pitched roof above it, used for sign area calculation purposes. 19.08.120 Flush Mounted Building Sign Flush Mounted Building Sign means a sign located on and parallel to a building wall. 19.08.130 Freestanding Sign Freestanding Sign means a sign supported by one or more uprights, poles or braces installed on a permanent foundation, not attached to a building or other structure. 19.08.140 Freeway Interchange Sign Freeway Interchange Sign means a freestanding sign at least 100 feet in height, for a business located within a radius of 1,000 feet from a freeway entry/exit point or industrial zone, but not separated by a physical barrier from the entry/exit intersection. The freeway interchange sign is primarily oriented to the passing motorists on the adjacent freeway. 19.08.142 Fuel Canopy Fuel Canopy is a structure designed to provide weather protection to motorists in order for them to fill vehicles with gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, propane, electricity or other similar compounds that allow for the powering of vehicles. The following components must be in place beneath the structure in order for this definition to apply to a structure: 1) There must be at least two fuel dispensing devices; and 2) Customers must have the ability to pay electronically. 19.08.144 GBCI GBCI means the Green Building Certification Institute or successor entity. 19.08.145 Height, Freestanding Sign Height, Freestanding Sign means the distance measured vertically from the lowest point of elevation of the ground within five feet from said sign to the top of the sign. See Figure 19-3. 19.08.150 Industrial Zone Industrial Zone means any area of the City zoned LI, HI, MIC/L or MIC/H. 19.08.155 Institutional Use Institutional Use means any non-residential use located within a residential zone that provides services to the surrounding neighborhood or residential community. Common institutional uses include, but are not limited to, fire stations, public or private schools, religious institutions, public parks, libraries and other similar type uses. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 9 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 76 19.08.160 Landmark Business Landmark Business is an entity that occupies at least 60,000 square feet of building space on a premise that contains at least five separate businesses or uses. 19.08.162 LEED LEED means the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or successor program, as administered by the United States Green Building Council or successor agency. 19.08.165 Master Sign Program Master Sign Program means a coordinated signage scheme for all signs on a premise that may include deviations from the standard sign requirements. 19.08.170 Monument Sign Monument Sign means a sign supported by at least two posts or columns or with a base that extends at least 75 percent of the sign panel length. Monument signs may also consist of painted text or channel letters mounted on a freestanding seating wall or retaining wall where the total height of the structure meets the limitations of this code. 19.08.180 Multi -Family Complex Multi -Family Complex means any structure or group of structures within a residential zone that contains at least five dwelling units. 19.08.183 Mural An expression of public art painted directly on the exterior of a building or on a backing that is affixed to the building and that has the consent of the property owner. Text or logos related to the businesses located at the site are not considered to be part of a mural and are subject to the regulations set forth in this code. 19.08.185 Off -Premise Signage Off -Premise Signage means a permanent sign not located on the premises of the use or activity to which the sign pertains. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 10 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 77 19.08.190 Parking Structure Incentive Sign Parking Structure Incentive Sign means a flush -mounted building sign permitted on parking structures and intended for periodic changes in copy. 19.08.195 Permanent Sign Permanent Sign means any sign erected without a restriction on the time period allowed for its display as specified in this code. 19.08.200 Pole Banner Pole Banner means a fabric banner sign attached to a street or parking lot light pole. 19.08.210 Portable Sign Portable Sign means a sign not permanently affixed to a structure and is designed for or capable of being relocated, except those signs explicitly designed for people to carry on their persons or those permanently affixed to motor vehicles operating in their normal course of business. 19.08.215 Projecting Sign Projecting Sign means a permanent sign perpendicular to the building facade and suspended from a bracket or armature or cantilevered to the building. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 11 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 78 19.08.220 Premises Premises means one or more contiguous lots of record not separated by right-of- way and owned or managed by the same individual or entity. 19.08.225 Residential Zone Residential Zone means any area of the City zoned LDR, MDR or HDR. 19.08.230 Sight Distance Triangle Sight Distance Triangle. See Figure 19-4 19.08.235 Sign Sign means materials placed or constructed, or light projected, that (a) convey a message or image and (b) are used to inform or attract the attention of the public, but not including any lawful display of merchandise. Some examples of "signs" are materials or lights meeting the definition of the preceding sentence and which are commonly referred to as signs, placards, A -boards, posters, murals, diagrams, banners, flags, or projected slides, images or holograms. The scope of the term "sign" does not depend on the content of the message or image conveyed. 19.08.240 Sign Area Sign Area means the entire area within a continuous perimeter, composed of straight lines or arcs, enclosing all elements of the sign copy, including text, logo and designs, together with any frame or other material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the background against which it is placed. The area of a three-dimensional sign shall be the surface area of a geometric figure such as sphere, rectangle or cylinder that completely contains the sign element. 19.08.245 Standard Billboard Standard Billboard means a billboard of at least 150 square feet in which copy is physically changed and is not considered a digital sign under TMC 19.08.091. 19.08.247 Tukwila Urban Center Tukwila Urban Center is defined as all current and future real properties that are zoned Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) by the City's official Zoning Map kept on file with the Department of Community Development. 19.08.250 Temporary Sign Temporary Sign is a sign that is only permitted to be displayed for a limited period of time specified by this code after which it must be removed. 19.08.260 Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor means that area of the City subject to the City's Tukwila International Boulevard Plan and depicted in Zoning Code Figure 18-9. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 12 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 79 19.08.265 Window Sign Window Sign is a sign applied to a window or mounted or suspended directly behind a window. 19.08.270 Window Sign, Temporary Window Sign, Temporary is a sign applied directly to a window or mounted or suspended directly behind a window and is designed, constructed, and intended for display on real property for not more than 30 days per calendar quarter for any particular sign. 19.08.280 Wireless Communications Facility Wireless Communications Facility means any tower, antennas, ancillary structure or facility, or related equipment or component thereof, used for the transmission of radio frequency signals through electromagnetic energy for the purpose of providing phone, internet, video, information services, specialized mobile radio, paging, wireless digital data transmission, broadband, unlicensed spectrum service utilizing part 15 devices and other similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. CHAPTER 19.12 PERMITS Sections: 19.12.010 Administration 19.12.020 Sign Permits Required 19.12.030 Exceptions - Sign Permits Not Required. 19.12.040 Prohibited Signs and Devices 19.12.050 Process 19.12.060 Sign Code Violations 19.12.010 Administration The Director of Community Development (hereinafter "Director") or their designee shall have the authority to administer this code. The Director may, if needed, develop administrative rules to resolve any conflicts arising out of the administration of the Sign Code. Any rules shall not be in conflict with this code and shall be consistent with TMC 19.04.020, "Intent," and the legislative record used to create this code. Sign permits are issued by the Director unless otherwise noted in this code. The Director may require the assistance of other departments in administering this code. All permits referenced in this Title are subject to the permitting requirements found in TMC 18.104. 19.12.020 Sign Permits Required A. A sign discernible from any public right-of-way, adjacent premise or an adjacent off -site business shall not be erected, re -erected, constructed or altered, including changes to the sign panel, face or copy, without a sign permit, except as provided by this code. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 13 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 80 B. The installation of some signage within the City may require a permit from the Washington State Department of Transportation. It is an applicant's responsibility to obtain all required permits from the appropriate government agency. C. The issuance of a sign permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the City. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the City shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the Director from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. 19.12.030 Exceptions —Sign Permits Not Required The following shall not require issuance of permits by the City. The exception is only from the need to obtain a permit and shall not be construed as relief from compliance with other requirements of this title. The provisions of this section shall be narrowly construed so as to effectuate the purposes of this title, as enumerated in TMC 19.04.020. 1. Repainting of an existing sign when there is no other alteration. This exception shall not be interpreted to allow the changing of copy or face changes on an existing sign. 2. Refacing, panel change or copy change on existing conforming, monument signs that have valid Tukwila sign permits as permitted by TMC 19.20.030 (B)(7), 19.20.040 (6), or 19.32.075. 3. Temporary window signs, subject to the limitations of TMC 19.24.080. 4. Traffic signs and/or markings installed for the purpose of regulating, warning or directing traffic. Signs may be installed within the right-of-way or on private property, with the permission of the property owner. All signs installed under this exception shall meet the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, current edition, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation. 5. Signs typically installed on utilities and wireless communication facilities denoting danger or other safety information, including emergency contact information. 6. Land use notice boards per TMC 18.104.110. 7. Text or graphics on umbrellas located in outdoor seating or plaza areas. 8. Up to four directional signs per premises where there is a need to direct vehicular traffic. Freestanding signs may be up to three feet in height and two square feet per face or a total of four square feet for all faces. Flush -mounted building signs may be up to three square feet in size. 9. The following exceptions are specific to properties developed with residential uses in residential zones: a. Each residential property shall be permitted one 1.5-square-foot, building - mounted plaque; and b. Each residential property shall be permitted four signs that are temporary in nature, for a total sign area of 12 square feet, with no sign larger than 6 square feet. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 14 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 81 10. Display of up to three flags, each on individual flag poles, per premise. Content of the flags is not regulated. 11. Banners within the City's right-of-way, located on City -owned light poles, City - owned street light signal poles, or hanging above the right-of-way when approved by the Director of Public Works or designee. 19.12.040 Prohibited Signs and Devices A sign, sign style or device is prohibited by this code and subject to removal if it is not specifically permitted by this code. This includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: 1. Signs adjacent to State roads that do not comply with Washington State Department of Transportation regulations. 2. Any sign using the word "stop," "look" or "danger" or any other word, symbol, character or color, that might be confusing to traffic or detract from any legal traffic control device. 3. Any sign, symbol, object or device located within City or State rights -of -way or City easement or City -owned property without City and/or State approval. 4. Any sign, symbol, object or device located on a traffic control device, City light pole or other City -owned facility, even if such facility is located on private property, with the exception of TMC 19.12.030.4. 5. Any sign, symbol, object or device that is placed or hung from a tree, bush, shrub or other vegetation. 6. Strings of pennants, banners or streamers, searchlights, clusters of flags, wind - animated objects, balloons and similar devices except as provided under TMC 19.24.060. 7. The use of portable signs or other similar devices, unless permitted under TMC 19.24.070. 8. Dynamic signs, except those types specifically permitted under this code. 9. Abandoned signs. 10. No sign may be placed on any property without the property owner's permission. Private property owners shall be responsible for the removal of signs placed on their property without their permission.19.12.050 Process Sign Permit and Master Sign Program applications are type 1 decisions pursuant to TMC 18.104.010. 19.12.060 Sign Code Violations A. It is the responsibility of a property owner and/or business owner to ensure the provisions of this code are met on any real property they own or control. The City shall issue a warning to any property owner where illegal permanent or temporary signs have been installed or where permanent or temporary signs have been installed without first obtaining a permit. Each day that an unlawful sign remains will be deemed a separate violation. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 15 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 82 B. The City shall have the right to remove any signs illegally placed within the City's right-of-way, easements under City control or property owned and/or controlled by the City. No duty is created to require the City to remove such signs. The City shall retain all signs removed from the City's right-of-way for 10 days. The owner of the signs may retrieve the signs from the City and pay a $50-per-sign fee to the City to recover a portion of the City's cost in removing the illegal signs. Once the 10-day period has expired, the City shall have the right to dispose of the signs. C. Any violation of this code shall be considered a public nuisance and subject to enforcement and penalties as prescribed by TMC 8.45 and the issuance of a Notice of Violation in accordance with TMC 8.45.070. CHAPTER 19.16 CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS Sections: 19.16.010 Construction 19.16.020 Structural Review 19.16.030 Required Inspections for Permanent Signs 19.16.040 Maintenance 19.16.050 Removal of Abandoned Signs 19.16.060 Immediate Removal, Public Safety 19.16.010 Construction A. All signs within the City shall comply with the structural requirements of the Washington State Building Code. B. All signs within the City shall comply with the electrical requirements of the City's adopted Electrical Code. 19.16.020 Structural Review The City's Building Official may require that proposed building -mounted signs that weigh 400 pounds or more, monument signs 50 square feet or more in face area and freestanding signs 15 feet or more in height undergo structural review in order to preserve the public health, safety or welfare. When structural review is required, the applicant shall pay the full amount of the City's cost to conduct such review. Construction details that describe either the proposed foundation (for freestanding signs) or wall brackets (for building -mounted signs) must be submitted with the sign permit application. Structural calculations for the sign shall be prepared by a licensed Washington State structural engineer. 19.16.030 Required Inspections for Permanent Signs A. When a sign triggers structural review, per TMC 19.16.020, the applicant or installer shall contact the City to request a footing inspection before the concrete has been poured or bracket inspection before a building -mounted sign is installed. B. It is the responsibility of the installer to obtain an electrical permit and associated inspections from the City if the sign uses electrical power. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 16 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 83 C. It is the responsibility of the installer to contact the City for a final inspection for all signs when installation is complete 19.16.040 Maintenance All signs, including their support structures, shall be kept in good repair, specifically: 1. Signs shall be regularly painted or appropriately maintained. 2. Damaged signs or support structures shall be replaced in accordance with the original permit unless the sign is non -conforming, per TMC 19.36. 3. All lighting shall be maintained in good working order with no broken or burned - out lamps. Signs do not have to be illuminated at all times; however, if they are illuminated, the entire sign shall be illuminated and there shall be no dark portions of the sign. 4. Electrical and power cords shall not be visible. 5. Cabinet signs with missing sign faces are strictly prohibited within the City. 6. If a building -mounted sign is removed, the building wall shall be restored to a condition to match the remaining wall area. There shall be no evidence that a sign was located on the building. 19.16.050 Removal of Abandoned Signs A. The Director shall order the removal of any sign that is abandoned as defined by TMC 19.08.020. The particular mitigation measures shall be based on the circumstances outlined below: 1. Non -conforming Freestanding Sign. In the event that a non -conforming freestanding sign has been abandoned and the sign is not covered under a grace period found in TMC 19.36, the Director shall order the property owner to remove the sign and sign structure within 45 days of issuance of a Notice and Order from the City. 2. Non -conforming Building -Mounted Sign. In the event that a non- conforming building -mounted sign has been abandoned, the Director shall order the property owner to remove the sign within 45 days of issuance of a Notice and Order from the City. The building wall shall be completely restored, as ordered by the Director. 3. Conforming Freestanding Sign. In the event that a conforming freestanding sign is abandoned, the Director shall order the property owner to install a blank face on the sign within 30 days of issuance of a Notice and Order, until such time as a new tenant obtains a sign permit from the City. 4. Conforming Building -Mounted Sign. In the event that a conforming building -mounted sign is abandoned, the Director shall order the property owner to install a blank face on the sign within 30 days of issuance of a Notice and Order until such time as a new tenant obtains a sign permit from the City. Building -mounted signs utilizing channel letters shall be completely removed and the wall restored within 30 days of issuance of a Notice and Order. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 17 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 84 B. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to provide sufficient evidence that a sign is conforming to the regulations of the City's current Sign Code. 19.16.060 Immediate Removal, Public Safety The Director shall order the immediate removal of any sign or sign support structure that in his/her opinion poses an imminent threat to public safety or damage to adjacent structures. CHAPTER 19.20 PERMANENT SIGNS Sections: 19.20.010 Intent 19.20.020 Application Requirements 19.20.030 Permanent Signs in Residential Zones 19.20.040 Permanent Free -Standing Signage in Commercial/Industrial Zones 19.20.050 Permanent Building -Mounted Signs in Commercial/Industrial Zones 19.20.060 Pole Banners 19.20.070 Dynamic Displays in Commercial/Industrial Zones 19.20.010 Intent A. The number of signs permitted on individual properties varies based on several factors. These factors include, but are not limited to, zoning, type of use and site design. It is the goal of the City to allow a wide range of sign types, while also protecting the aesthetic character of the City's various zoning districts. Signs permitted under this chapter may only list on -premise businesses, products and uses. 19.20.020 Application Requirements A. All applications to install a permanent sign or other visual communication device shall be subject to the application requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. 19.20.030 Permanent Signs in Residential Zones A. Institutional uses and multi -family complexes are allowed one flush -mounted wall sign per building and one freestanding monument -style sign for each public street that provides access to the premise. B. Monument Sign Design Standards: 1. The area of a monument sign is limited to 30 square feet per sign face and a total of 60 square feet for all sides. Monument signs located on a premise with at least one building that is certified as LEED by the GBCI shall be permitted to be 35 square feet per face and a total of 70 square feet for all sides. 2. The sign shall be no taller than five feet. 3. Maximum width of the sign shall not exceed 15 feet. 4. The sign must meet sight distance triangle restrictions. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 18 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 85 5. The sign shall be located in a landscaped area. 6. The sign may only use indirect down lighting methods except for dynamic signs as allowed under TMC 19.20.030.D. The lighting shall have no spillover impact on adjacent properties. 7. A monument sign permitted under this section is permitted to complete refaces, panel changes and copy changes without the need to obtain a new permit, provided ALL of the following criteria are met: a. The monument sign was authorized by the City under a permit issued on or after August 24, 2010. b. The property owner, or authorized agent of the property owner, was the applicant to secure the permit as required under this section. c. The reface or copy change does not include any structural changes to the sign that result in a change of sign or message area, modification in sign height, inclusion of a dynamic sign component, or change in the monument sign's location. C. Flush -Mounted Building Signs (Wall Signs) - Design Standards: 1. The maximum area of any flush -mounted building sign is limited to the calculation from Table 2 in TMC 19.20.050; however, in no case shall the area of a flush - mounted building sign be greater than 50 square feet. 2. Lighting for flush -mounted building signs shall be limited to indirect, concealed and backlit devices. The lighting shall produce no spillover or glare onto adjacent properties. D. Dynamic Signs in Residential Zones: 1. One monument sign per premise, as permitted under TMC 19.20.030.B, may contain a dynamic feature. The following design standards apply to all dynamic signs installed under this section: a. The image of the sign may not change more frequently than once every ten seconds. b. The image must appear and disappear as one image. The image may not appear to flash, undulate, pulse or portray explosions, fireworks, flashes of light, or blinking or chasing lights, or appear to move toward or away from the viewer, to expand, contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, scroll, travel or otherwise portray movement. c. Illumination of the dynamic sign is limited to the hours of 7am to 10pm. d. All signs shall have installed ambient light monitors, and shall at all times allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the electronic sign based on ambient Tight conditions. Maximum brightness levels for electronic signs shall not exceed 3-foot candle above ambient light conditions, measured 100 feet from the face. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 19 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 86 2. Notice of Understanding: The owner of any dynamic sign installed per this subsection must submit a letter to the Director stating that he/she understands and agrees to abide by the above requirements. 19.20.040 Permanent Free -Standing Signage in Commercial/Industrial Zones A. Monument/freestanding signs are permitted within all commercial and industrial zones, subject to the following standards: 1. Design Standards: Each premise is permitted to have one free-standing monument -style sign. Additional monument signs are permitted if the premise contains over 800 feet of linear frontage on City or quasi -public streets, per Table 1 below. Table 1 — Design Standards for Permanent Monument Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones Total ROW of Premise Allowable Sign Message Area Total Allowable Sign Size Maximum Height Number of Signs Less than 400 feet 36 square feet per side/72 square feet total 54 square feet per side/108 square feet total 6 feet One 400-599 feet 50 square feet per side/100 square feet total 70 square feet per side/140 square feet total 7 feet One 600-799 feet 60 square feet per side/120 square feet total 80 square feet per side/160 square feet total 7 feet One 800-999 feet 66 square feet per side/132 square feet total 88 square feet per side/176 square feet total 8 feet Two 1,000 feet and over 72 square feet per side/144 square feet total 96 square feet per side/192 square feet total 8 feet One for every 400 feet of linear street frontage. a. Allowable sign message area is either the face panel of the sign or, for channel letters or signs painted on seating or retaining walls, that portion of the sign devoted to the actual message, logo or business name. b. Total size is the entire area of the sign, including the support structure. c. Monument signs located on a premise with at least one building that is certified as LEED by the GBCI shall be permitted to have a sign message area increase and total size area increase of one percent. 2. Special Corner Properties or Properties with Multiple Street Frontages: A property that borders on more than one public street, but has less than 800 total feet of linear frontage, is permitted to have one monument sign per street frontage if the following criteria are met: a. The property has at least 200 feet of frontage on each public street where a sign will be placed; b. Each public street provides direct access to the property; and c. For each separate street frontage Table 1 shall be used to determine the design standards for any proposed monument sign. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 20 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 87 3. Setback: All monument signs shall be placed at a minimum of five feet from all property lines. No sign taller than three feet shall be placed within the sight distance triangle of an access point, unless it can be demonstrated the sign will not pose a safety issue by reducing visibility. 4. Maximum Width: The maximum permitted width of a monument sign is 15 feet. 5. Address: In order to facilitate emergency response, all new freestanding signs shall have the address number or address number range of the premise listed on the structure. The address shall not be counted toward the allowable sign message area limit. Address numbers must be plainly legible and visible from the street fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1.5 inches. 6. A monument sign permitted under this section is permitted to complete refaces and copy changes without having to obtain a new permit, provided ALL of the following criteria are met: a. The monument sign was authorized by the City under a permit issued on or after August 24, 2010. b. The property owner, or authorized agent of the property owner, was the applicant to secure the permit as required by TMC 19.20.040 (6)(a). c. The reface or copy change does not include any structural changes to the sign that result in a change of sign or message area, modification in sign height, inclusion of a dynamic sign component, or change in the monument sign's location. 19.20.050 Permanent Building -Mounted Signs in Commercial/Industrial Zones A. Flush -Mounted Building Signs (Wall Signs): 1. Each separate tenant suite with an exterior public entrance is permitted to have one flush -mounted building sign per exterior public entrance. Additionally, each multi -tenant premise with one or more buildings totaling 25,000 square feet or more, but that does not qualify for the Master Sign Program and has gone through design review, is allowed one additional flush -mounted building sign of up to 50 square feet for the complex in addition to individual tenant signs. In the MIC/H zone no more than one flush - mounted wall sign shall be permitted per cardinal direction; regardless of the location of public entrances. 2. Buildings where multiple tenants share a common entrance may have one flush -mounted building sign per exterior public entrance. 3. Wall signs may only be placed within the section of exposed building face that qualifies for the placement of the building -mounted sign. 4. The area of the wall sign shall be a percentage of the area of exposed building face where the sign is proposed to be displayed, as calculated per Table 2. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 21 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 88 5. Wall signs may not extend above the top of the parapet or eave of the roof of the wall on which they are located. Table 2 — Allowable Message Area for Permanent Wall Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones Area (LxH) of Exposed Building Face (EBF) in Square Feet Permitted Sign Area 0 - 500 EBF x .05 or 20 square feet 501 - 1,500 (EBF-500) x .04 + 25 square feet 1,501 - 3,000 (EBF-1,500) x .03 + 65 square feet 3,001 - 5,000 (EBF-3,000) x .02 + 110 square feet Over 5,000 (except for buildings within the MIC/H District 150 square feet maximum size permitted The additional sign allowances below shall only apply to buildings located on properties within the MIC/H District. 5,001 - 20,000 (EBF-5,000) x .015 + 150 square feet 20,001 - 50,000 (EBF-20,000) x .015 + 375 square feet 50,001 - 80,000 (EBF-50,000) x .015 + 825 square feet 80,001 - 100,000 (EBF-80,000) x .01 + 1,275 square feet Over 100,000 1,500 square feet maximum size permitted (1) Any flush -mounted (wall) sign affixed to a building certified as LEED by the GBCI shall be permitted an area increase of .5 percent of the permitted sign area from Table 2. (2) A fuel canopy, as defined in this title, is permitted to install one flush -mounted building sign (wall sign) on each separate elevation of the fuel canopy structure. The area of the sign shall not exceed 10 square feet or one-third the area of the surface to which the sign is attached (whichever is less); illumination of the sign is permitted. B. Awning Face Sign: An awning face sign may be substituted for a flush - mounted building sign, allowed under TMC 19.20.050.A, when the following standards are met: 1. The size of the awning face sign may be no larger than the flush -mounted sign that would otherwise be allowed per Table 2. 2. Awning face signs are only permitted on awnings located over a public entrance to a building. The sign area may be distributed among multiple awnings on an exposed building face. 3. The awning face sign may not exceed 30 percent of the total area of the awning on which the sign is located. 4. Only indirect lighting shall be used for awning face signs. 5. The sign may only consist of vinyl or paint applied directly to the awning. 6. In commercial zones awnings may only be constructed of canvas or nylon fabric. C. Projecting Signs: One projecting sign per separate business is permitted in addition to any other type of building -mounted sign when the following standards are met: Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 22 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 89 1. Projecting signs shall only be permitted for tenant spaces that have a direct ground -floor public entrance. 2. No portion of a projecting sign may extend above the lower sill of any second story window on the same exposed building face. 3. No projecting sign may exceed 20 square feet per face or a total of 40 square feet for all faces. 4. Projecting signs may project no more than four feet out from the facade of the building. In no case shall the sign extend beyond the sidewalk which it overhangs. 5. No portion of the projecting sign shall be lower than eight feet above the level of sidewalk or other public right-of-way over which it projects. 6. Projecting signs may utilize rotating mechanical displays. D. Corner Projecting Sign: In order to foster an urban -style environment, a corner projecting sign may be substituted for a projecting sign allowed under TMC 19.20.050.C, when the following standards are met: 1. Signs shall only be permitted in the TUC and NCC zones. 2. Signs are only permitted on the corners of buildings that are built to the minimum zoning setbacks of two public streets or a private street developed to public standards including sidewalks and landscaping. One corner projecting sign is permitted for each corner of a building that meets the above standards. 3. Public entrances must be provided directly from the adjacent public right- of-way into the tenant space in order to qualify for a corner projecting sign. 4. Signs shall be no taller than 25 feet from the bottom -most part of the sign to the tallest part of the sign and may not extend above the wall on which it is mounted. 5. Sign area is limited to 75 square feet per face or a total of 150 square feet for all faces. 6. Signs shall project no more than six feet from the facade of the building. In no case shall the sign extend out beyond the street edge of the sidewalk under the sign. 7. No portion of a sign shall be lower than 12 feet above the level of the sidewalk. 8. Signs may utilize the following dynamic features: neon, chasing lights, flashing lights or rotating mechanical displays. The use of strobe lights, video displays and rotating lights is prohibited. E. Canopy -Edge Sign: A canopy -edge sign may be substituted for a projecting sign, allowed under TMC 19.20.050.C, when the following standards are met: 1. Canopy -edge signs may only be permitted for canopies located above a public entrance to a business. 2. The sign is limited to a single row of individual letters not to exceed 12 inches in height. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 23 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 90 3. The letters may not project beyond the edge of the canopy. 4. The length of the sign may not exceed two-thirds of the canopy length. 5. The letters may be illuminated. F. Pedestrian -Oriented Building -Mounted Signs: The signs listed under this section are allowed in addition to the building -mounted signs permitted under TMC 19.20.050.A through E. 1. Under-Awning/Canopy Sign: a. Under-awning/canopy signs must be located adjacent to a public entrance from a public or private sidewalk into a business. b. No more than one sign shall be permitted per business, per facade. c. No sign may exceed three square feet in size. d. No sign may project farther from the building than its associated awning or canopy. e. No part of the sign may be less than eight feet above the level of the sidewalk or right-of-way over which it projects. 2. Awning/Canopy Side Sign: a. Only awnings/canopies that are over exterior public entrances are permitted signs. b. Only one awning/canopy per facade may have a sign. c. Awning text and graphics may not exceed 12 inches in height with total sign area not to exceed 40 percent of the awning side area. d. Canopy signs are permitted one line of lettering, not to exceed two- thirds the thickness of the canopy or 12 inches, whichever is Tess. e. Signs shall not project beyond the edge of the associated awning or canopy. f. No portion of the sign may be less than eight feet above the sidewalk or other public right-of-way over which it projects. g. Awning signs may only consist of vinyl or paint applied directly to the awning. 3. Permanent Window Signs: a. Permanent window signs are permitted to be placed within ground - floor windows that provide a direct line of sight in and out of an area open to the public. Permanent window signs are not permitted to be placed in windows located along private offices, storage space, display windows, residential units or other areas of the building that are not open to the public. b. Only windows along the same facade as a public entrance to the business are eligible for permanent window signs. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 24 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 91 c. No more than ten percent of the total ground -floor transparent - window area along the exposed building face of a business may be occupied by permanent window signs. Spandrel, opaque and mirrored glass do not qualify for window signage. d. No individual sign may be larger than six square feet. e. In no case shall the total sign area in the window, both of permanent window signs and temporary window signs, exceed 25 percent of the window area. f. The letter height for window signs shall not exceed eight inches. g. The signs may be made of gold or silver leaf, vinyl or paint, applied directly to the glass; etched into the glass; neon mounted or suspended behind the glass; or framed and mounted paper signs. Posters that are not framed are not considered permanent window signs and may only be permitted under TMC 19.24.080, "Temporary Window Signs." h. If the signs are illuminated, only exposed neon tubing is permitted. 4. Incentive Signage. The allowable area of the sign allowed under this provision is 50 percent of that calculated in Table 2, "Allowable Message Area for Permanent Wall Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones." Businesses may be permitted additional flush -mounted building signage on walls fronting their tenant spaces that do not qualify for the signage described in TMC TMC 19.20.050.A, under the following circumstances: a. The business or use may not have any other building -mounted signage oriented in the same direction as the incentive sign. b. Architectural interest must be provided through at least one of the following methods: 1) At least 50 percent of the wall area between the height of two and seven feet must be transparent with either an unobstructed view into the business or use, or a display window with a depth of at least three feet. 2) Architectural detailing consistent with the building design using changes in color, materials, texture and variations in the wall plane. 3) Artwork such as mosaic, mural or sculptural relief over at least 50 percent of the wall surface. 4) One or more trellises covering at least 50 percent of the wall area between the height of two and seven feet, planted with climbing vines and other plant materials in a planting bed at least two feet in width and provided with permanent irrigation. G. Parking Garage Incentives: The City desires to encourage the construction of parking garages and will permit special incentive signs for parking garage structures under the following conditions: 1. Signs may only be flush mounted to the walls of parking structures have two or more above -ground parking levels. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 25 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 92 2. The sign must be designed to allow periodic replacement of the copy. Electronic signs are permitted as long as they are operated in a way that does not meet the definition of dynamic sign. 3. The sign face must be contained within a frame that is architecturally compatible with the building design. 4. Internally -illuminated cabinet signs are not permitted. 5. Each sign may be a maximum of 288 square feet in area. 6. One wall of the parking structure may have signage, including incentive signage and permanent channel letter signs, that does not exceed eight percent of the exposed parking structure face. All other exposed parking structure walls are permitted signage, including incentive signage and permanent channel letter signs, that does not exceed six and one-half percent of the exposed face area. Ventilation openings may be included in the parking structure face area calculation. 7. A maximum of two parking structure incentive signs are allowed per parking structure wall. 19.20.060 Pole Banners A. Pole banners are permitted in the Tukwila Urban Center zone and on properties that contain a Public Recreation Overlay as defined by Title 18 of the TMC. B. Pole banners may only be attached to parking lot light poles on private property. C. Banners may have periodic changes in copy without submittal for a new sign permit. D. The maximum area per banner is 10 square feet, with a limit of 2 banners per pole. E. The lower edge of the banner must be at least 12 feet above grade. F. Annual renewal of the banner permit is required. 19.20.070 Dynamic Displays in Commercial/Industrial Zones A. Dynamic signs are strictly prohibited within commercial and industrial zones, except where specifically allowed for designated sign types. CHAPTER 19.22 TUKWILA URBAN CENTER OPT -OUT PROVISIONS Sections: 19.22.010 Purpose 19.22.020 New Opt -outs Not Permitted 19.22.025 Other Chapters Remain in Force 19.22.027 Application Requirements 19.22.030 Allowable Signage 19.22.035 Dynamic Signs 19.22.040 Right to Opt -Back In Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 26 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 93 19.22.010 Purpose A. The Tukwila Urban Center defined in TMC 19.08.247 is an area of existing development that due to its high traffic counts and auto -oriented property configuration is well served by the historical sign regulations. This chapter established an "opt -out" provision for properties that currently do not have the development pattern that would benefit from the sign regulations found in TMC 19.20. 19.22.020 New Opt -outs Not Permitted A. In order to opt -out of the provisions of this Title, property owners must have submitted a letter to the Director notifying the City of the property owner's intent to opt - out within one year of the effective date of Ordinance No. 2303, passed in 2010. As this date has now passed, no new opt -outs shall be permitted. 19.22.025 Other Chapters Remain in Force A. A decision to opt out as permitted by TMC 19.22.020 is only from TMC 19.20 and all other chapters of this Title shall remain in full force. Properties that have opted out of the requirements of TMC 19.20 are ineligible to participate in the Master Sign Program found in TMC 19.32 unless the property owner chooses to opt back in pursuant to TMC 19.22.040. 19.22.027 Application Requirements A. All applications to install a permanent sign or other visual communication device under this chapter shall be subject to the application requirements found at TMC 18.104. 19.22.030 Allowable Signage A. A premise that has opted out will only be allowed permanent signs under the provisions of this section. 1. Permanent Wall Signs: Each tenant space shall be permitted one permanent wall sign. An additional permanent wall sign is permitted if the tenant is not listed on a freestanding sign on the premises. The following criteria shall be met for all permanent wall signs: a. The area of the wall sign shall be a percentage of the area of exposed building face of the tenant space, as calculated per Table 1. Table 1 — Allowable Message Area for Permanent Wall Signs in the Southcenter Parkway Corridor Area (LxH) of Exposed Building Face (EBF) in Square Feet Permitted Sign Area 0-500 EBF x .05 or 20 square feet 501-1,500 (EBF-500) x .04 + 25 square feet 1,501-3,000 (EBF-1,500) x .03 + 65 square feet Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 94 Page 27 of 43 3,001-5,000 (EBF-3,000) x .02 + 110 square feet Over 5,000 150 square feet maximum size permitted b. The permanent wall sign must be located on the exposed building face of the tenant space that qualifies for the sign. c. Only one permanent wall sign is permitted per tenant space per exposed building face. 2. Freestanding Signs: One freestanding sign shall be permitted for each premise. One additional freestanding sign may be permitted for premises that meet the following conditions: a. The site has at least 400 linear feet of frontage on a public street; b. The site has at least two detached commercial occupied buildings, neither of which is accessory to the other; c. The site is occupied by at least two tenants. 3. Development Standards for Freestanding Signs: The following development standards shall apply to freestanding signs permitted under TMC 19.22.030 (B): a. Area of Sign. Street Frontage Sign Area/Sign Up to 200 feet 50 sq ft. with a total of 100 sq ft. for all sides. 200 to 400 feet. 75 sq. ft. with a total of 150 sq. ft. for all sides. Over 400 feet. 100 sq. ft. with a total of 200 sq ft. for all sides. b. Height: Any permitted freestanding sign shall be not taller than the building it identifies up to a maximum height of 35 feet. c. Setback: All freestanding signs shall be set back from all property lines a distance equal to the height of the sign. d. Address: In order to facilitate emergency response, all new freestanding signs shall have the address number or address number range of the premise listed on the structure. The address shall not be counted toward the allowable sign message area limit. Address numbers must be plainly legible and visible from the street fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1.5 inches. 19.22.035 Dynamic Signs A. Properties that choose to opt out of the provisions of TMC 19.20 are prohibited from having any sign which may be considered a dynamic sign. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 28 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 95 19.22.040 Right to Opt -Back In A. A property owner that previously was approved to opt out may choose to opt back in to the signs permitted under TMC 19.20. A decision to opt back in is permanent and may be made at any time provided the following conditions are met: 1. The property owner provides the Director of Community Development a letter indicating their intent to opt back in to TMC 19.20 with copies to all affected tenants. 2. The letter must identify all signs that do not conform to the requirements of TMC 19.20 and either modify or remove them within 30 days of the date of the letter. 3. If existing signs are to be modified to meet the standards in TMC 19.20, the letter must be accompanied by sign permit applications identifying how they will achieve conformance. CHAPTER 19.24 TEMPORARY SIGNS Sections: 19.24.010 Purpose 19.24.020 Application Requirements 19.24.030 Temporary Signs in Residential Zones 19.24.040 Temporary Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones 19.24.050 General Provisions for all Temporary Signs 19.24.060 Additional Temporary Signage 19.24.070 Portable Signs 19.24.080 Temporary Window Signs 19.24.090 Violations 19.24.010 Purpose A. Temporary signs serve an important economic function and contribute to the success of the City's businesses. However, the City also desires to limit the number of temporary signs and control the placement and size of such signage in order to minimize visual clutter. 19.24.020 Application Requirements A. All applications to install a temporary sign or other visual communication device shall be subject to the application requirements found at TMC 18.104. 19.24.030 Temporary Signs in Residential Zones A. In addition to the signage permitted under TMC 19.12.030, institutional and multi -family uses are permitted the following temporary signage: 1. Each institutional use and multi -family complex is permitted up to two temporary signs per temporary sign permit. 2. The total area of all temporary signs displayed under a permit may not exceed 64 square feet in sign face area. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 29 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 96 3. Temporary signs may be either flat cloth or vinyl banners, or rigid plastic or cardboard signs. 4. Temporary signs may remain in place for not more than 30 days per calendar quarter. A temporary sign permit from the City is required for each separate display of temporary signage within the calendar quarter. 5. In addition to the temporary signage allowed above, each institutional use and multi -family complex may have up to 12 special event signage permits per year to display signs and devices that would be prohibited under TMC 19.12.040.6. The duration of the permit shall not exceed 72 hours. 19.24.040 Temporary Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones A. Each business is permitted up to two temporary signs per temporary sign permit. B. The total area of all temporary signs displayed under a permit may not exceed 64 square feet in sign face area. C. Temporary signs may be either flat cloth or vinyl banners, or flat plastic or cardboard rigid signs. D. Temporary signs may remain in place for not more than 30 days per calendar quarter. A temporary sign permit from the City is required for each separate display of signage within the calendar quarter. 19.24.050 General Provisions for all Temporary Signs A. Placement: Temporary signs may only be placed on the wall fronting the tenant space of the applicant that has been issued the temporary sign permit or on the associated premises. The sign must be securely attached, either to the wall if located on the building, or securely tied to stakes located in a landscaped area. Display of temporary signs in any other manner, except as outlined by this code, is strictly forbidden. B. Setbacks: All temporary signs not attached to buildings shall be placed a minimum of five feet from all property lines. No temporary sign more than three feet in height shall be placed within the sight distance triangle of a vehicular access point, unless it can be demonstrated the sign will not pose a safety issue by reducing visibility. 19.24.060 Additional Temporary Signage A. Each business operating within the City shall be permitted one additional temporary sign permit every 24 months. That permit allows: 1. The type and size of temporary signs permitted under TMC 19.24.040 and 19.24.050. 2. Any of the sign types otherwise prohibited under TMC 19.12.040.6, "Prohibited Signs and Devices." 3. These signs may remain in place for up to 30 days. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 30 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 97 19.24.070 Portable Signs A. In order to facilitate the orderly movement of automobile traffic and pedestrians, portable signs may be used for limited duration with special permission from the City. B. The City may approve the use of portable signs if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The portable signs are being used strictly to assist motorists and/or pedestrians in navigating City streets and/or commercial properties. The portable signs are not intended to be used for advertising or as a means to circumvent the intent of this code. 2. The placement of the portable signs will not impact public safety. 3. The use of the portable signs is part of a larger motorist and/or pedestrian management plan. 4. The anticipated traffic for the event represents a 50 percent increase above the ordinary traffic for the site that will be hosting the event. 5. The special permit shall be valid for up to 30 days. Portable signs shall be removed within 24 hours following the conclusion of the event. 6. The signs can be safely displayed and placed. 19.24.080 Temporary Window Signs A. Temporary window signs do not require sign permits. B. No sign may be displayed for longer than 30 days. C. Signs are permitted to be placed within ground -floor windows that provide a direct line of sight in and out of an area open to the public. Temporary window signs are not permitted to be placed in windows located along private offices, storage space, residential units or other areas of the building that are not open to the public. D. Only windows along the same facade as a public entrance to the business are eligible for temporary window signs. E. No more than 15 percent of the total ground -floor transparent -window area of a business along an exposed building face may be occupied by temporary window signs. Spandrel, opaque and mirrored glass do not qualify for window signage. F. No individual sign may be larger than six square feet. G. In no case may the total sign area in the window, both of permanent window signs and temporary window signs, exceed 25 percent of the eligible window area. 19.24.090 Violations A. Any violation of this chapter, or failure to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter, shall be subject to enforcement and penalties as prescribed in TMC 8.45 and the issuance of a Notice of Violation in accordance with TMC 8.45.070. CHAPTER 19.32 Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 31 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 98 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM Sections: 19.32.010 Intent of Master Sign Program 19.32.020 Eligibility 19.32.030 Process 19.32.040 Criteria 19.32.050 Application Requirements 19.32.060 Allowable Modifications Under a Master Sign Program 19.32.070 Existing Signs Not Conforming to a Master Sign Program 19.32.075 Copy and Refaces of Monument and Grand Monument Signs 19.32.080 Regional Gateway Sign 19.32.090 Binding Effect 19.32.010 Intent of Master Sign Program A. The Master Sign Program is intended to provide a voluntary process to allow for adaptation of the standard provisions of the Sign Code to the specific needs of larger sites. The signs approved through this process must be integrated into a cohesive design and communication approach for the site, while continuing to meet the overall intent of the Sign Code listed in TMC 19.04.020. Signs permitted under this chapter may only list on -premise businesses, products and uses. 19.32.020 Eligibility A. Property owners of premises that meet one of the following conditions may apply for approval of a Master Sign Program to customize the standard Sign Code requirements to their specific site conditions: 1. Sites of 15 acres or more, developed with one or more buildings, totaling at least 200,000 square feet. 2. Essential Public Facilities within commercial or industrial zones. 19.32.030 Process A. Master Sign Programs are Type 1 Permit decisions in accordance with TMC 18.104. Approval of a Master Sign Program does not waive the permit requirements for individual signs. 19.32.040 Criteria A. A Master Sign Program may be approved if all of the following criteria are met: 1. The Master Sign Program meets the intent of the Sign Code as well or better than the signage allowed under the standard code provisions. 2. The requested deviations from the code respond to the specific characteristics or use of the premises. 3. The program complies with the applicable standards in this chapter. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 32 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 99 4. The existing and proposed signage is integrated with an overall lighting scheme for the project site to create a safe, lively and inviting night-time environment if the site is in a commercial zone. 5. No sign -related code enforcement violations on the premises for at least one year prior to submitting the Master Sign Program application. 6. The program must contain a schedule for the removal of all non- conforming signs on the premise within three years from the date of Master Sign Program approval. 19.32.050 Application Requirements A. Applications for Master Sign Programs shall be subject to the application requirements found at TMC 18.104.060. 19.32.060 Allowable Modifications Under a Master Sign Program A. Modifications to the following standards may be allowed under an approved Master Sign Program: 1. Increase in monument sign total area of up to 25 percent. No increase in height permitted. 2. Increase in the area of a flush -mounted building sign, allowed per TMC 19.20.050.A shall be allowed as follows: a. For premises up to 85 acres in size, the flush -mounted building sign can be increased to six percent of the exposed building face, up to a maximum of 250 square feet. b. For premises 85 acres and over in size, the flush -mounted building sign can be increased up to six percent of the exposed building face, up to a maximum of 500 square feet, provided that no flush -mounted building sign with an area greater than 250 square feet is located within 250 feet of a public street. 3. Aggregation of the building -mounted or freestanding sign area allowed per Table 1 or Table 2 into fewer, larger signs of the same type. 4. Up to four additional directional signs. The directional signs must utilize materials, colors and details consistent with the design of the other site signage. 5. In no more than one location on a premise, the allowable sign area for an exposed building face may be split between two flush -mounted building signs located on the same exposed building face so long as there is a minimum vertical separation of 20 feet between the two flush -mounted building signs. 6. Roof signs, subject to the following standards: a. Roof signs may be allowed only within the TUC zone. b. Roof signs may only be permitted on sloping roofs. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 33 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 100 c. Roof signs may not exceed a maximum height of four feet above the eave of the roof, but in no case may any part of the sign be higher than the peak of the roof. d. Roof signs may not exceed 40 square feet in total size. e. Roof signs may only be individual channel letters supported by an architecturally -integrated structure. f. Roof signs may not project beyond the face of the building. g. One roof sign may be allowed per structure. One additional roof -top sign may be permitted if the roof -top signs are approved as part of the design review approval of the structure. 7. Grand monument signs, subject to the following standards: a. Grand monument signs may be allowed only within the TUC and TVS zones. b. Each grand monument sign would substitute for one of the monument signs the premises is eligible to install under TMC 19.20.040. c. Any poles or columns supporting the sign must have an architectural treatment such as brick, stone or wood cladding that is consistent with the design of the buildings on site. d. Sign message area may be increased up to 100 square feet per side, 200 square feet total and the limitation on structure size is removed. For sites over 85 acres, the sign message area may be increased up to 500 square feet per side, 1000 square feet total. e. The sign structure must be set back from the side and rear property lines of the premise a distance equal to the height increase requested or five feet, whichever is greater. The minimum front setback is the smaller of the front yard required in the zoning district or the height increase requested. f. Total height of the sign structure may not exceed the height of the tallest building on the premises, except for sites over 85 acres, the height may exceed the tallest building but shall not exceed 115 feet. g. No more than two grand monument signs are allowed per premises. 8. Landmark business wall signs, subject to the following standards: a. Landmark businesses are allowed up to four flush -mounted building signs, one for each wall that faces a cardinal direction. b. The allowed sign area is six percent of the total exterior wall of the tenant space, up to a maximum of 500 square feet. c. Landmark businesses that have a portion of their exterior wall obscured by a structure may place their signage on the structure wall parallel to their obscured wall. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 34 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 101 19.32.070 Existing Signs Not Conforming to a Master Sign Program A. Any new or amended Master Sign Program shall include the removal of any existing, non -conforming signs on the premises. The applicant may propose a phased schedule for bringing into conformance all signs not conforming to the proposed or amended program, or TMC 19.36 of this code, within three years. If phasing is proposed, a financial guarantee acceptable to the Director shall be held by the City until the premises is brought into compliance with the Sign Code and approved Master Sign Program. 19.32.075 Copy and Refaces of Monument and Grand Monument Signs Approved under this Chapter A. A monument sign or grand monument sign permitted under this TMC is permitted to complete refaces and copy changes without having to obtain a new permit, provided ALL of the following criteria are met: 1. The monument sign or grand monument sign was authorized by the City under a permit issued on or after August 24, 2010. 2. The property owner, or authorized agent of the property owner, was the applicant to secure the permit as required by TMC 19.32.075 (1). 3. The reface or copy change does not include any structural changes to the sign that result in a change of sign or message area, modification in sign height, inclusion of a dynamic sign component, or change in the monument or grand monument sign's location. 19.32.080 Regional Gateway Sign A. In addition to the signs otherwise allowed under the Master Sign Program, the City may allow by development agreement on property adjacent to two interstate highways, installation of one sign intended to attract and welcome visitors to the Tukwila Urban Center area of the City. The standards for such a sign shall be set forth in the development agreement. 19.32.090 Binding Effect A. After approval of a Master Sign Program, no permanent signs shall be erected, placed, painted or maintained, except in conformance with such plan, and such plan shall be enforced in the same way as any provision in this code. The Master Sign Program shall be referenced to the lease agreements for all leasable space within the project and recorded on the property title. In case of any conflict between the provisions of such a plan and any other provisions in this code, this section shall control. CHAPTER 19.36 NON -CONFORMING PROVISIONS Sections: 19.36.010 Purpose 19.36.020 Definition and Removal of Legally Non -Conforming Permanent Signs 19.36.030 Existing Freeway Interchange Signs 19.36.040 Additional Signage Prohibited Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 35 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 102 19.32.050 Financial Incentives — Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor 19.36.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish limits on the use of and requirements for the removal of non -conforming signs. Subject to the remaining restrictions of this chapter, non -conforming signs that were otherwise lawful at the time of their installation, may be continued until their removal is triggered. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to billboards. 19.36.020 Definition and Removal of Legally Non -Conforming Permanent Signs A. All permanent signs that do not conform to the specific standards of this code may be considered legally non -conforming if the sign was erected in conformance with a valid permit, if a permit was required, and complied with all applicable laws at the time of the sign's installation. Non -conforming rights are not granted to temporary signs or signs that were in violation of previous versions of the Sign Code. B. Any monument sign that was installed in the City prior to the effective date of this code and that exceeds Sign Code standards as to sign area, height or setback by 15 percent or less shall be deemed a conforming sign. C. Loss of Legal Non -conforming Status: Non -conforming signs shall either be removed or immediately brought into compliance with this chapter upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events: 1. When a non -conforming sign permit is required but not obtained within 180 days of notice of non-conformance. 2. When an application is submitted to the City for a project that is subject to design review, on any non -conforming building -mounted signs on the premise affected by the construction and all non -conforming free-standing signs lose their non -conforming status. 3. When any change to the structure or sign panel/face/copy or any relocation, re -erection, alteration, replacement or change in any way to a sign is proposed. 4. When the sign meets the definition of abandoned. 5. Damage of 25 percent or more in the value of either the non -conforming sign or the structure to which it is affixed. D. Maintenance: Ordinary maintenance and repair of a sign shall be permitted without loss of nonconforming status if the cost of all maintenance and repair over a two- year period is less than 25 percent of the cost of replacing the sign. 19.36.030Existing Freeway Interchange Signs A. Relocation, re -erection, alteration, replacement or change in any way to the structure or sign panel/face/copy of any existing sign classified as a freeway interchange signs under the previous sign code is prohibited and will result in a loss of non -conforming status. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a sign shall be permitted without loss of non - Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 36 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 103 conforming status if the cost of all maintenance and repair over a two-year period is less than 25 percent of the cost of replacing the sign. 19.36.040Additional Signage Prohibited A. No additional permanent building -mounted signage is permitted on a tenant space that contains a non -conforming building -mounted sign. No additional permanent free-standing signs are permitted on a premises that contains a non -conforming freestanding sign other than a sign that was classified as "freeway interchange" under the previous Sign Code. 19.36.050Financial Incentives — Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor A. In order to assist with the removal of non -conforming signs within the Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor, the City Council may develop a grant program to provide financial incentives to property owners and businesses. 1. Applications to the grant program shall be reviewed quarterly and approved by the Director, subject to the availability of allocated funds. 2. In order to be eligible for grant funding the project must comply with the following requirements: a. Sites must be located within the Tukwila International Boulevard Redevelopment Area, Zoning Code Figure 18-9. b. Removal of non -conforming signs listed in TMC 19.36.030 shall have a higher priority than removal of non -conforming signs listed in TMC 19.36.020. c. Payment of the grant award shall not occur until after the sign has been removed and properly disposed of. d. No applicant or business shall receive more than $2,000 from the grant. e. The Director is hereby authorized to develop written procedures for award and administration of the grant funds. CHAPTER 19.37 NON -CONFORMING SIGNS IN ANNEXATION AREAS Sections: 19.37.010 Purpose 19.37.020 Definition and Removal of Legally Non -Conforming Permanent Signs 19.37.030 Non -Conforming Sign Permits 19.37.040 Non -Conforming Temporary Signs 19.37.050 Additional Signage Prohibited 19.37.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish limits on the use of and requirements for the removal of non -conforming signs within areas of the City that were annexed after Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 37 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 104 May 1, 2012. Subject to the remaining restrictions of this chapter, non -conforming signs that were otherwise lawful on the effective date of the annexation may remain subject to the limitations under this chapter. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to billboards within annexation areas. 19.37.020 Definition and Removal of Legally Non -Conforming Permanent Signs A. All permanent signs within annexation areas are considered legally non- conforming if the sign was erected in conformance with a valid permit, if a permit was required, and complied with all applicable laws at the time of the sign's installation. Non- conforming rights are not granted to temporary signs or signs that were in violation of King County ordinances or regulations of the State of Washington. The burden of establishing that a sign is non -conforming lies solely with the individual asserting the claim that a sign is non -conforming. B. Any monument sign installed within an annexation area that exceeds Sign Code standards as to sign area, height or setback by 15 percent or less shall be deemed a conforming sign. C. Grace Period for Permanent Signs in Annexation Areas: Signs that were installed within the annexation area prior to the effective date of the City's annexation and became non -conforming upon annexation in the City, may be issued a non -conforming sign permit that will allow the signs to remain for 10 years from the effective date of the annexation. This 10-year period shall be known as the "annexation grace period." D. Sign Modifications During the Annexation Grace Period: During the annexation grace period, signs with non -conforming sign permits may be refaced and the panel or copy changed, provided the area, height and location of the sign remain unchanged. A non -conforming sign permit will be issued for work covered under this section. Permanent signs and sign structures that are moved, replaced or structurally altered must be brought into conformance with the current Sign Code regulations. E. Sign Modifications After the Annexation Grace Period: After the annexation grace period, the sign is permitted to remain as -is indefinitely. However, relocation, re - erection, alteration, replacement or change in any way to a legal, non -conforming sign, including the structure or sign panel/face/copy, will require the sign be brought into compliance with the sign code in effect at the time of submittal of a complete sign permit application. 19.37.030 Non -Conforming Sign Permits A. Non -Conforming Sign Inventory: The Director shall, as soon as practicable after the effective date of the annexation, survey the annexation area for signs that do not conform to the requirements of Title 19. Upon determination that a sign is non -conforming or illegal, the Director shall use reasonable efforts to notify the sign owner, in writing and, where practicable, the owner of the property on which the sign is located. Notification shall include: 1. Whether the sign is non -conforming or illegal. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 38 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 105 2. Whether the sign may be eligible for a non -conforming sign permit. If the identity of the sign owner cannot be determined after reasonable inquiry, the notice may be affixed in a conspicuous place on the sign or on the business premises with which the sign is associated. The failure of the City to identify the sign owner shall not relieve the property owner from the requirements of this section. B. Non -Conforming Sign Permits: 1. Eligibility: A non -conforming sign permit may be issued only in accordance with the standards listed in this chapter. 2. Permit Required: A Type 1 Sign Permit is required for all eligible non- conforming signs within the annexation areas. The sign owner shall obtain the permit within 180 days of notification by the City. Sign permits shall be obtained for any panel or copy change allowed during the annexation grace period. There is no permit fee for the issuance of the non -conforming sign permit. 3. Applications: Applications for a non -conforming sign permit shall be subject to the application requirements found at TMC 18.104. 4. Failure to Respond: It is the sign owner and/or property owner's responsibility to return the non -conforming sign permit to the City within the 180 days of notice as outlined in this section. Failure to respond will constitute a waiver of any grace period provided to the sign under this chapter and modifications to the sign will be controlled by TMC 19.36.030. 5. Permit Issuance: The Director shall issue non -conforming sign permits upon a determination of eligibility. C. Loss of Legal Non -conforming Status: Non -conforming signs shall be brought into compliance with this chapter upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events: 1. When an application is submitted to the City for a project that is subject to design review, any non -conforming building -mounted signs on the premise affected by the construction and all non -conforming free-standing signs lose their non -conforming status. 2. When any panel or copy changes are proposed after the expiration of the annexation grace period. 3. When the sign meets the definition of abandoned. 4. Damage of 25 percent or more in the value of either the non -conforming sign or the structure to which it is affixed. D. Maintenance: Ordinary maintenance and repair of a sign shall be permitted without loss of non -conforming status if the cost of all maintenance and repair over a two- year period is less than 25 percent of the cost of replacing the sign. 19.37.040 Non -Conforming Temporary Signs A. Non -conforming temporary signs in annexation areas must be removed within 120 days of the effective date of the annexation. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 39 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 106 B. Commercial real estate signs in existence in the annexation area prior to the adoption of this code are permitted to remain for up to three months, after which time the signs must be removed and any future signage must comply with the terms of this code. 19.37.050 Additional Signage Prohibited A. No additional permanent building -mounted signage is permitted on a tenant space that contains a non -conforming sign. No additional permanent freestanding signs are permitted on a premises that contains a non -conforming freestanding sign. CHAPTER 19.38 BILLBOARDS Sections: 19.38.010 Purpose 19.38.020 Billboard Receiving Areas Established 19.38.030 Billboard Sending Areas Established 19.38.040 New Billboards 19.38.050 Refurbishing Existing Billboards 19.38.060 Application Materials for Billboards within the City 19.38.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations for the use of billboards within the City. The City desires to establish a process that will allow some use of billboards within certain areas of the City while at the same time working to remove billboards in areas of the City where the use of such signs is no longer appropriate or desired. 19.38.020 Billboard Receiving Areas Established A. New billboards shall only be permitted in designated receiving areas. 19.38.030 Billboard Sending Areas Established A. All areas of the City that are not designated as receiving areas in TMC 19.38.020 are hereby designated as billboard sending areas, from which billboards must be removed before construction of the billboard in the receiving area can commence. 19.38.040 New Billboards A. No new billboards, neither digital nor standard, will be permitted within the City unless the applicant reduces the total number of existing billboards within the City sending areas. 1. Installing new billboards within designated receiving areas requires securing the removal of existing billboards within designated sending areas. 2. Table 1 shows the ratio that will be used to determine the number of billboards that must be removed (cut to or below grade, including removal of the pole structure) within a designated sending area in order to install a billboard within designated receiving areas. Removal of all billboards included in Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 40 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 107 an application for a new billboard must be completed before construction can commence on the proposed billboard in the application. Table 1 Type of Sign Proposed in Designated Receiving Area One Static Billboard Face Number of Billboards That Must Be Removed Within Designated Sending Areas Five billboard faces One Digital Billboard Face Seven billboard faces 3. The following requirements shall apply to new billboards within designated receiving areas: a. No more than two faces are permitted for each billboard structure. b. Area of an individual face shall not exceed 500 square feet. c. Billboards shall be spaced at least 500 feet away from any existing or proposed billboard. d. Billboards shall not exceed a height of 35 feet. e. No portion of the billboard shall be within 10 feet of any adjacent right of way. f. No portion of the billboard's foundation shall be within 15 feet of the adjacent right of way. The billboard shall meet any required side or rear setback in the zone in which it is located. g. Lighting of Billboards: 1) The billboard may be illuminated; non -digital billboards shall utilize lights that shine directly on the sign structure. Digital billboards shall not operate at a brightness level of more than 3-foot candles above ambient light as measured using a foot candle meter at a pre-set distance as outlined in Table 2. Table 2 Billboard Style Dimensions Measurement Distance Posters 12 x 24 feet 150 feet Bulletins 14 x 48 feet 250 feet 2) Each display must have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness as ambient light conditions change. 3) The technology currently being deployed for digital billboards is LED (light emitting diode), but there may be alternate, preferred and superior technology available in the future. Any other technology that operates under the maximum brightness stated in Table 3 above shall be permitted. 4) If a digital display is proposed, the rate of change for the sign shall not exceed a frequency of more than once every 8 seconds. 5) One sign, 8.5 square feet in size shall be permitted to be attached to the billboard. The sign can only be used to identify the operator of the billboard. Address Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Version: 10/17/24 108 Page 41 of 43 or billboard identification numbers are permitted and shall not exceed an area of three square feet. 4. Billboard Placement, Street Tree Pruning: Upon application to place a billboard within a designated receiving area, the City and the applicant shall work to determine a billboard location that will not be visually obscured either now or in the future by surrounding street trees. If placement of the billboard cannot be accomplished in such a way that will avoid conflicts between the billboard and current or future street trees, pruning of the street trees is permitted, provided: a. The applicant obtains a street use permit from the City's Public Works Department. The purpose of the permit is to regulate the manner by which the trees will be pruned, such as lane closures, sidewalk closures, etc. b. All pruning is done by the applicant and all cost is borne entirely by the applicant. c. All pruning activities are supervised by a certified arborist and all pruning complies with ANSI A300 as currently written or as may be amended. d. Only those street trees on or adjacent to the property where the billboard is located are eligible for pruning. e. In the event of death of the tree(s) as a result of the pruning activities, the applicant shall be responsible for paying the landscape value of the tree(s) as determined by a certified arborist or landscape architect. 19.38.050 Refurbishing Existing Billboards A. Existing billboards within designated sending areas may be refurbished and upgraded, subject to the following standards: 1. The refurbished billboard must remain on the same premise. 2. The applicant shall demonstrate that the billboard that is being refurbished was legally installed. 3. The number of faces for the billboard remains the same or is reduced from the existing billboard. 4. The height of the billboard may not be increased. 5. Setbacks for the billboard remain unchanged. If the setbacks do not comply with setbacks for the underlying zoning, the billboards can be relocated provided they come closer to complying with the required setbacks. In no case shall the billboard be moved closer to a property within a residential zone. 6. Non -digital billboards cannot be refurbished or upgraded to either tri-vision or digital displays. 7. Improvement of lighting is permitted. Foot candles produced by the billboard may not extend offsite. 8. Additional signage may be attached to sign provided it complies with TMC 19.38.040.H. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 42 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 109 9. Area of an individual face shall not exceed 500 square feet. The area of a face can be increased to up to 672 square feet if the billboard operator agrees to make the billboard available for public service announcements and emergency alerts. Public service announcements shall include, but not be limited to, advertising for civic events. Emergency alerts shall include those messages necessitating the immediate release of information pertaining to the protection and preservation of public safety. Emergency alerts include, but are not limited, Amber Alerts and emergency evacuation orders. The Director of Community Development, working with the Director of Public Works, Director of Parks and Recreation, Police Chief, and Fire Chief, shall develop administrative rules that shall be used for public service and emergency alerts. The rules shall specify required message duration and length of display for both public service announcements and emergency alerts. 19.38.060 Application Materials for Billboards within the City A. All applications to install a billboard shall be subject to the application requirements found at TMC 18.104. Exhibit B: Title 19 Repeal and Reenact Page 43 of 43 Version: 10/17/24 110 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1331 §19, 1344 §10, 1770 §84, AND 2374 §1, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) SECTION 21.04.210; TO REMOVE AMBIGUITIES, CODIFY INTERNAL POLICIES AND REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5290 ("SB 5290"), which made changes to the land use permitting process; and WHEREAS, certain sections of Chapter 21 of the Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC") need to be updated and brought into compliance with SB 5290; and WHEREAS, there are also certain ambiguities and policies in the TMC that need to be revised and updated; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein further the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Tukwila. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals and incorporates them herein as support for these amendments. Section 2. TMC Section 21.04.210 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 1331 §19, 1344 §10, 1770 §84, and 2374 §1, as codified at TMC Section 21.04.210, "Public Notice Procedure," are hereby amended to read as follows: A. Whenever public notice is required, the City shall follow the procedures set forth in this section. B. Public notice will be given in the following situations: 2024 Legislation: Title 21 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page 1 of 3 111 1. When the City issues an Optional Determination of Non -Significance (ODNS) per WAC 197-11-355; 2. When the City issues a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) per WAC 197-11-340; 3. When the City issues a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) per WAC 197-11-350; 4. When the City issues a Determination of Significance (DS) to commence scoping per WAC 197-11-360; 5. When a draft EIS (DEIS) is issued per WAC 197-11-455; 6. Whenever the City holds a public hearing pursuant to WAC 197-11-535, provided that if the project requires a Type 3, 4 or 5 decision such hearing shall be consolidated with the public hearing on the merits of the project; or 7. Whenever the responsible official determines that public notice is required. C. The threshold determination shall be sent to the applicant, parties of record and agencies with jurisdiction, and posted to the SEPA Register per WAC 197-11-508 for the projects listed under subsection B above. Public notice of the threshold determination shall be made available on the City's website, or using one of the notice procedures set forth in WAC 197-11-510. D. The City may require an applicant to compensate the City for the costs of compliance with the public notice requirements for the applicant's proposal and/or provide services and materials to assist. Section 3. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. 2024 Legislation: Title 21 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor 112 Page 2 of 3 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, City Clerk Thomas McLeod, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney 2024 Legislation: Title 21 amendments Version: 10/17/24 Staff: I. Gloor Page3of3 113 114 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared ty Mayor's review Council review 08/26/24 IG 10/21/24 IG ITEM INFORMATION ITEM NO. 4.D. STAFF SPONSOR: MAX BAKER ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 8/ 26/ 24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Update to DCD Permit Fees CATEGORY n Discussion 114-tg Date 8/26 Motion Mtg Date Resolution Mtg Date 9/16 Ordinance Mtg Date Bid Award Mtg Date Public Hearing fl Other 114-tg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ PAR ❑ Police ❑ I'U SPONSOR'S SUMMARY Updates to DCD's permit fee schedule are needed to comply with recently passed Washington State legislation SB 5290 and HB 1293. REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance M Planning & Community Dev. ❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. DATE: 8/12 ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: MARTINEZ RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONsoR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development COMMIFIEL, Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 8/12/24 Forwarded to Regular Meeting Consent Agenda 10/21/24 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/21/24 Resolution 115 116 Ci of Tukwila Washington Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHIINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2058; UPDATING CERTAIN PARTS OF THE LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE AS A RESULT OF CHANGES IN STATE LAW. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2058 in 2022, establishing the City's current Consolidated Permit Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, the City intends to update permit fees on an annual basis, with any increases tied to growth in City expenses for providing permit services; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by RCW 82.02.020 to recover the City's costs for reviewing and processing permit applications; and WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5290 ("SB 5290"), which made changes to the land use permitting process; and WHEREAS, certain sections of Title 8, "Public Peace and Safety," Title 16, "Buildings and Construction," Title 17, "Subdivisions and Plats," Title 18, "Zoning," Title 19, "Sign and Visual Communication Code," and Title 21, "Environmental Regulations," of the Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC") are being updated to bring the TMC into compliance with SB 5290; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update the Land Use Fee Schedule to align with the changes being made to the TMC in compliance with SB 5290; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Resolution No. 2058 is hereby amended to revise Section 4, "Land Use Fee Schedule," of the Consolidated Permit Fee Schedule as follows: 2024 Legislation: Amend Land Use Fee Schedule Version: 10/1/2024 Staff: M. Baker Page 1 of 6 117 Code Interpretation 2 Development Agreement 5 Preapplication Meeting Resolve uncertain zoning district boundary +HE 3 Zoning Verification Letter (Up totwo contiguous parcels; S50for each additional parcel) Appeal of Type 1, 2 Decisions Appeal of Sign Code Decision Appeal of Fire Impact Fees Appeal of Parks Impact Fees Appeal of Transportation Fees $795.00 " Site Specific Rezones Separate Comprehensive Plan amendment fees also apply $8,560.00 5 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $5,388.00 5 Development Regulations Amendment $6,130.00 $306.50 5 Administrative $3,020.00 $151.00 2 Minor Modification $841@ State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) $42.15 SEPA Checklist SEPA E|5 $4,042.00 SEPA Planned Action SEPA Addendum SEPA Exemption Letter 2024 Land Use Fee Schedule Version: 10/1/2024 Staff: m.Baker Page 2 of 6 118 Environmentally Critical Areas Critical Areas Deviation, Buffer Reduction I ~ Reduced fee for LDRhomeowners, noassociated short plat Z Critical Areas Reasonable Use Exception $4,042.00 +HE 3 Environmentally Critical Area Master Plan Overlay Exemption from Shoreline Permit Letter +HE 3 1 Shoreline Permit Revision $41.25 Conditional Use Permit Shoreline* $5244.00 +HE Shoreline Substantial Development Permit* Project value: $8504 $15,0K001 $5,956.00 Permanent Sign 1 Temporary/Special Event Permit Sign $2.70 1 Pole/Banner Initial Application $16.40 Pole/Banner Annual Renewal $3.60 New Billboard Master Sign Program Legal Lot Verification Z 1 Binding Site Improvement Plan $5'160.00 Boundary Line Adjustment & Lot Consolidation Boundary Line Adjustment 'Lot Consolidation Boundary Line Adjustment No Lot Consolidation $122.35 Minor Modification ofaBoundary Line Adjustment or Lot Consolidation Preliminary Approval 2024 Land Use Fee Schedule Version: 10/1/2024 Staff: m.Baker Page 3 of 6 119 Subdivision - Short Short Plat (2-4lots) $321.00 Z Short Plat (5'9 lots) $8,560.00 Z Minor Modification toPreliminary Short Subdivision Subdivision - Long $122.35 2 Subdivision Preliminary Plat (10+ lots) $9,095.00 +HE 3 Subdivision Final Plat (lU+lots) 2 Minor Modification toPreliminary Long Subdivision Planned Residential Development (PRD) 2 Administrative 2 Public Hearing +HE 3 Minor Modification toPRD $39.75 1 Major Modification to PRD $3,277.00 +HE Not Within Critical Area, Shoreline 3 Tree Permit for SFR properties Request for Landscape Modification $795.00 Within Critical Area, Shoreline Critical Area Tree 0'Vegetation Clearing Permit Z Shoreline Tree Permit In -Lieu Tree Replacement Fee Conditional Use Permit $5,244.00 +HE $39.75 Z 3 TSO Special Permission Use +HE 3 Unclassified Use Permit Variances from Zoning Code $3,821.00 Noise +HE 4 3 Type 1- 30 days or less Type III - More than 30 days +HE 3 2024 Land Use Fee Schedule Version: 10/1/2024 Staff: m.Baker Page 4 of 6 120 Parking Modifications to Certain Parking Standards $795.00 $39.75 2 Parking Lot Restriping $795.00 $39.75 2 Parking standard for use not specified $783.00 $39.15 2 Parking Variance - Under 10% reduction $795.00 $39.75 2 Parking Variance - Over 10% reduction $1,310.00 +HE $65.50 3 Shared, Covenant, and/or $795.00 Complementary Parking Reduction Tukwila South Overlay (TSO) Modifications $39.75 2 Modification to TSO Development Standards $795.00 Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Modifications $39.75 2 Modification to TUC Corridor Standards $795.00 $39.75 2 Modification to TUC Open Space Regulations $795.00 $39.75 2 Transit Reduction to Parking Requirements $795.00 Special Permission $39.75 2 Exception from Single -Family Design Standard $795.00 $39.75 2 Cargo Container Placement Eligible Facilities Modification $795.00 IIRELESS $795.00 $39.75 $39.75 2 1 Macro Facility - No New Tower $2,266.00 $113.30 2 Macro Facility - New Tower $4,534.00 +HE Noticing Fees Database Fee (to Generate Labels, per project) $615.00 $226.70 3 Notice Fee (Per address for each physical mailing piece -not emails) $1.00 Section 2. Effective Date. This resolution and the fee schedules contained herein shall be effective October 26, 2024. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. 2024 Legislation: Amend Land Use Fee Schedule Version: 10/1/2024 Staff: M. Baker Page 5 of 6 121 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, CMC, City Clerk Mohamed Abdi, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney 2024 Legislation: Amend Land Use Fee Schedule Version: 10/1/2024 Staff: M. Baker Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: Page 6 of 6 122 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 CT ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 4.E. STAFF SPONSOR: MARTY WINE ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 10/21/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2025-2026 Contract with Karen Lentz PLLC for Prosecution Services CATEGORY Discussion Mtg Date Motion Mtg Date 10/21/24 /1 Resolution Mtg Date Ordinance Mtg Date Bid Award Mtg Date Public Hearing Mtg Date Other Mtg Date SPONSOR Li Council ►1 .Mayor LI Admin Svcs [J DCD [J Finance [J Fire [J P&R [J Po/ice Li PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY The current contract for prosecution services expires December 31, 2024. The 2025-2026 contract provides a 3.2% annual increase in compensation for services at $14,450 p/month for 2025 and $14,900 p/month for 2026. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs 11 Community Svcs/Safety [J Finance & Governance [J Planning & Community Dev. ❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. DATE: 10/14/2024 ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMII"IEE CHAIR: MCCONNELL RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Mayor's Office COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to 10/21/2024 Consent Agenda COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $173,400/2025; 178,800/2026 AMOUNT BUDGETED $352,200 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ Fund Source: GENERAL FUND Comments: TG. DATE 10/21/24 MTG. DATE 10/21/24 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION ATTACHMENTS nformational Memorandum dated September 30, 2024 Dra 2025-2026 Contract for Services Minutes from 10/14/2024 Community Services and Sa e Committee Meeting 123 124 TO: City of Tukwila Thomas McLeod, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor McLeod Community Services and Safety Committee FROM: Marty Wine City Administrator BY: Cheryl Thompson Executive Coordinator DATE: September 30, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025-2026 Contract for Prosecution Services ISSUE The current contract for prosecution services expires December 31, 2024. The proposed contract for 2025-2026 is attached. BACKGROUND The City has contracted with Karen Lentz PLLC for Prosecution Services since July 1, 2023, through a Request for Proposals process conducted in May 2023. Prior to contracting with the City, Ms. Lentz served as the Tukwila Prosecuting Attorney since April 2022 as a subcontractor with the Walls Law Firm. DISCUSSION The City currently pays Ms. Lentz $14,000 per month for prosecution services and provides supporting resources for case management. The 2025-2026 contract increases monthly compensation by approximately 3.2% each calendar year paying $14,450 per month in 2025 and $14,900 per month in 2026 and continues to provide supporting resources for case management, legal research and evidence access. The attached agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. RECOMMENDATION The Committee is being asked to move this contract forward to the consent agenda of the October 21, 2024, Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Draft Contract for Prosecution Services for 2025-2026 125 126 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Contract Number: CONTRACT FOR PROSECUTION SERVICES This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, Washington, a non -charter optional municipal code city hereinafter referred to as "the City," and Karen S. Lentz, PLLC hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor". WHEREAS, the City has determined the need to have certain services performed for its citizens but does not have the staffing or expertise to perform such services; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have the Contractor perform such services pursuant to certain terms and conditions; now, therefore, IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope and Schedule of Services to be Performed by Contractor. The Contractor shall perform those services described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. In performing such services, the Contractor shall at all times comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes, ordinances and rules applicable to the performance of such services. Compliance with these standards goes to the essence of this Agreement. The Contractor shall request and obtain prior written approval from the City if the scope of services is to be modified in any way. 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 B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing January 1, 2025, and ending December 31, 2026, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. 4. Independent Contractor. Contractor and City agree that Contractor is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither Contractor nor any employee of Contractor shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor. 5. Indemnification. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page i, of 8 127 the Contractor and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Contractor's maintenance of insurance, its scope of coverage and limits as required herein shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types and with the limits described below: 1. Automobile Liability: Waived. The Contractor acknowledges that use of a motor vehicles is not required for the provision of services and any travel to and from court is outside the scope of this agreement. 2. Commercial General Liability: Waived. 3. Workers' Compensation: The Contractor shall procure and maintain Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 4. Professional Liability Insurance: The Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force throughout the duration of this Agreement Professional Liability insurance with a minimum coverage of $2,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 aggregate. Contractor shall provide evidence of such coverage in a manner and form acceptable to the City in the City's sole discretion. Cancellation of the required insurance shall automatically result in termination of this Agreement. B. Other Insurance Provision. The Contractor's Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shalt be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VI I. D. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. E. Notice of Cancellation. The Contractor shall provide the City and all Additional Insureds for this work with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice. Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 2 of 8 128 7. Record Keeping and Reporting. A. The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial and programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of this Agreement and to ensure compliance with the Public Records Act, chapter42.56 RCW. B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RCW Chapter 40.14 and by the City. 8. Audits and Inspections. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by law during the performance of this Agreement, to the extent permitted by law. 9. Termination. This Agreement may at any time be terminated by the City giving to the Contractor thirty (30) days written notice of the City's intention to terminate the same. Failure to provide products on schedule may result in contract termination. If the Contractor's insurance coverage is canceled for any reason, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately. 10. Discrimination Prohibited. The Contractor, with regard to the work performed by it under this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, age, veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation, the presence of any disability, or any other protected class status under state or federal law, in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies. 11. Assignment and Subcontract. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the services contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the City. If the Contractor is unable to attend Court due to illness, vacation or unforeseen circumstances, she will make arrangements with a qualified attorney to cover in her absence. If coverage is needed for more than 5 consecutive Court days, the Contractor will obtain written approval from the City. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties. 13. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Administrator, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 3; of 8 129 Notices to the Contractor shall be sent to the following address: Karen S. Lentz, PLLC 10410 163rd Court NE Redmond WA 98052 14. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this Agreement, which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the completion, expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement. 15. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. DATED this day of , 2024. CITY OF TUKWILA CONTRACTOR Thomas McLeod, Mayor Karen S. Lentz, WSBA# 50396 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kari L. Sand, City Attorney Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 4 of 8 130 EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES Contractor agrees to provide a level of service equal to or greater than the level of service provided by an in- house Prosecuting Attorney. Karen S. Lentz is the designated attorney that will serve as the City Prosecutor. Any changes in this designation must be approved in advance by the City. 1. Police Report Review. Review all Tukwila Police Reports involving misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, make decision as to filing of criminal charges or referral for pre -filing diversion in alignment with City policies and in consultation with the Tukwila Police. 2. Court Appearances. Appear at all criminal calendars in Tukwila Municipal Court on behalf of the City of Tukwila including but not limited to: in-custody/out-of-custody arraignments, pretrial hearings and motions, readiness hearings, bench trials, jury trials, sentencings, review hearings, tow hearings and contested traffic and parking infraction hearings when the offender is represented by an attorney. 3. Appeals. The City shall pay the Attorney an additional sum of $800 per appeal filed with the King County Superior Court in connection with criminal misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases. 4. Conflict Counsel. In the event prosecution of a defendant hereunder raises a conflict of interest, the City will provide a conflict prosecutor at no cost to the Contractor. 5. Case Preparation. Conduct investigations, contact witnesses, advise victims regarding their rights and responsibilities, coordinate with the victim advocate when appropriate, conduct plea bargain negotiations and make appropriate plea offers consistent with the laws and regulations as well as City of Tukwila standards and policies, make sentencing and bail recommendations to the Court, prepare and present legal memoranda, subpoenas, jury instructions and other related materials, argue motions, represent the City at restitution hearings, bench trials and jury trials. 6. Administrative Functions. Administrative functions relating to criminal prosecution and contested traffic and parking hearings such as creation and maintenance of files, and completion of discovery requests. All files shall remain property of the City and shall be returned to the City upon termination of this Agreement or upon request by the City. Contractor shall retain all records in accordance with Washington State document retention laws. 7. Police Department Support. Advise the Tukwila Police Department on the conduct of investigations, search warrants, trial preparations and related matters. Provide legal research, training and assistance to the Tukwila Police Department including statutory interpretation, enforcement issues and case decisions. Attend police department administrative staff meetings as requested. The Prosecutor shall be reasonably available for night and weekend contact by police personnel. 8. Resources. The City will provide the Contractor with the following resources for use while conducting business on behalf of the City: • A City cell phone for use in communicating with police officers; • A City laptop; • Access to Prosecute by Karpel case management software; • Access to Axon Evidence Justice Services; • Access to LexisNexis for legal research; Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 5 o 131 9. Policy Revisions and Tukwila Municipal Code Amendments. Contractor will communicate and coordinate with City Administration on any requested policy revisions or municipal code amendments. 10. Training. Contractor agrees to attend seven (7) hours of prosecution focused training each year. This requirement also applies to all associate counsel. Each Attorney will submit a copy of their Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Credits transcript from the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) with the Annual Report. 11. Reporting. Contractor agrees to submit the following reports: • Monthly Statistics Reports: This report shall take substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit C and shall be submitted with the monthly invoice. • Annual Report: This report will detail the number of cases filed for the year, the number of cases referred for pre -filing diversion, the number of cases where pre -filing diversion was successfully completed, the number of cases where stipulated orders of continuance or deferred prosecution was agreed to, and the number of cases dismissed. Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 6 of 8 132 EXHIBIT B - COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 1. Base Compensation. For 2025, all prosecution services set forth in Exhibit A, Contractor shall be paid a flat monthly fee of $14,450, plus allowed expenses. For 2026, all prosecution services set forth in Exhibit A, Contractor shall be paid a flat monthly fee of $14,900, plus allowed expenses. Allowed expenses shall include record requests to other courts for use in prosecution. 2. Invoices. The Contractor shall invoice the City by the tenth day of each month for the previous month services. 3. Community Court or Additional Court Calendars. The Tukwila Municipal Court is researching implementation of a Community Court. If a Community Court or additional court calendars are implemented during the term of this contract, the impact to provision of prosecution services will be assessed and compensation will be negotiated and adjusted accordingly. Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 7 o 133 EXHIBIT C - PROSECUTION MONTHLY REPORT CASES New Filings Cases Declined PRE -FILING DIVERSION Referred for pre -filing diversion Successful completion of pre -filing diversion DISPOSITIONS Deferred Prosecution SOC/ Pre -Trial Diversion Agreement DWLS 3 Amended to Infraction Dismissals prior to Readiness TRIALS SET TRIED Stipulated Facts Trial Bench Trial Jury Trial Dismissals - Post Readiness/Day of Trial Lentz Prosecution Services Agreement 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 8 of 8 134 City of Tukwila City Council Community Services & Safety Committee Meeting Minutes October 14, 2024- 5:30p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Hazelnut Conference Room & MS Teams Councilmembers Present: Jovita McConnell, Chair; De'Sean Quinn, Hannah Hedrick Eric Lund, Marty Wine, Cheryl Thompson, Laurel Humphrey Staff Present: Chair McConnell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. I. BUSINESS AGENDA * Contract: 2025-2026 Prosecution Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Karen Lentz PLLC to continue prosecution services through December 31, 2026 at a rate increase of approximately 3.2% each year. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. B. Contract: 2025-2026 Public Defense Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Kirshenbaum & Goss for public defense services through 2026. Staff is also seeking approval of a comment letter to the Washington State Supreme Court on the proposed Standards for Indigent Defense Item(s) for follow-up: Provide draft letter to City Council via email in advance of the Regular Meeting. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. C. Contract: 2025-2026 City Attorney Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Ogden Murphy Wallace for City Attorney Services through 2026. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. D. Police Department 2024 3rd Quarter Report Staff presented the report. Committee Recommendation: Discussion only. II. MISCELLANEOUS The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. „far Committee Chair Approval Minutes by LH 135 136 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 CT ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 4.F. STAFF SPONSOR: MARTY WINE ORIGINAL. AGENDA DATE: 10/21/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2025-2026 Contract with Kirshenbaum & Goss, Inc. P.S. for Public Defense Services CATEGORY Discussion Mtg Date Motion Mtg Date 10/21/24 /1 Resolution Mtg Date Ordinance Mtg Date Bid Award Mtg Date Public Hearing Mtg Date Other Mtg Date SPONSOR Li Council ►1 .Mayor Admin Svcs [J DCD [J Finance [J Fire [J P&R [J Po/ice [J PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY The current contract for public defense services expires December 31, 2024. The 2025- 2026 contract pays $32,600 per month, with $2,000 per month paid from Office of Public Defense grant funds. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs 11 Community Svcs/Safety LJ Finance & Governance LJ Planning & Community Dev. ❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. DATE: 10/14/2024 ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMII"IEE CHAIR: MCCONNELL RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Mayor's Office COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to 10/21/2024 Consent Agenda COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $367,200 AMOUNT BUDGETED $367,200 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ Fund Source: GENERAL FUND Comments: Supplemented by $24,000 Office of Public Defense Grant Funds TG. DATE 10/21/24 MTG. DATE 10/21/24 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION nformational Memorandum dated Dra ATTACHMENTS 2025-2026 Contract for Services Draft letter to Washington Supreme Court re Indigent Defense Standards Minutes from 10/14/2024 Community Services and Safety Committee Meeting 137 138 TO: City of Tukwila Thomas McLeod, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor McLeod Community Services and Safety Committee FROM: Marty Wine City Administrator BY: Cheryl Thompson Executive Coordinator DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025-2026 Contract for Public Defense Services ISSUE The current contract for public defender services provided by Kirshenbaum & Goss expires December 31, 2024. The proposed contract for 2025-2026 is attached. BACKGROUND The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that people accused of serious crimes who cannot afford to pay for private counsel be provided with an attorney. Responsibility for upholding the mandate of the Sixth Amendment lies with the states, although in Washington State this responsibility has been delegated to counties and municipalities that have judicial branches. The City of Tukwila contracts for public defense services to provide legal representation for indigent criminal defendants who qualify for appointment of counsel. Representation is provided from the time of screening for eligibility through trial, sentencing and appeals to the superior court, if necessary. Two significant occurrences have impacted the provision of public defense services in the recent past: 1) Effective January 1, 2015, Public Defense Standards were adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court. These standards delineate the number of cases each attorney can handle per year and mandates that compensation include administrative and training costs. 2) The federal court decision, Wilbur v. Mt. Vernon provided additional emphasis on requirements for timely contact with clients, provision of support services for public defense attorneys to provide adequate representation like investigation services, interpreter services and expert witnesses, and reasonable compensation. The City has developed a Public Defense program that fully complies with the Public Defense Standards and Wilbur v. Mt. Vernon. The City has historically contracted with Kirshenbaum & Goss, Inc. P.S. for the provision of public defense services. In September 2022 the City advertised a Request for Proposals for the 139 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 provision of public defense services. Kirshenbaum & Goss was the only firm to submit a proposal. In 2018 the City was paying $32,600 per month for public defense services. Due to a decline in caseload numbers and the impacts of the pandemic, that rate was reduced and in 2023-2024 we paid a Base Compensation rate of $29,500 per month for public defense services with an additional $375 per case for each case assigned over the 240 quarterly caseload and an additional $800 for any case that is appealed to King County Superior Court where the firm has to prepare and submit a brief. As of today, we have not exceeded 240 case assignments per quarter and there have been no appeals to Superior Court. DISCUSSION Due an increase in caseload numbers parallel to the caseload of 2018, the proposed 2025- 2026 contract restores Base Compensation to $32,600 per month for public defense services with $30,600 being paid from the general fund and $2,000 per month from Office of Public Defense grant funds. The contract provides for an additional $550 per case for each case assigned exceeding a 240 quarterly caseload and maintains an additional $800 for any case appealed to King County Superior Court. This contract also has an additional provision for compensation at $550 per case specific to Drug Possession cases paid for through the Simple Possession Advocacy and Representation (SPAR) Program grant. The overall impact to the budget is an additional $13,200 per year from the general fund. The 2025-2026 agreement allows for compensation review in three circumstances: 1) When the City receives notice from the Office of Public Defense regarding the 2026-2027 Grant Application, to adjust compensation, if needed; 2) If the Tukwila Municipal Court implements a Community Court during the term of the Agreement, the impact to provision of public defense services for the Community Court will be assessed and compensation may be adjusted accordingly; and 3) to comply with any amendments made to the Washington Supreme Court Standards for Indigent Defense, which are currently under consideration. The attached agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. Standards for Indigent Defense The Washington State Supreme Court is currently reviewing a request from the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) to revise the Standards for Indigent Defense that outlines the requirements that jurisdictions must meet in providing public defense services. The revisions requested by the WSBA for municipal courts are summarized below: • Reduction of misdemeanor caseloads from 400 cases per attorney per year beginning July 2025 with the end result being 80-120 misdemeanor cases per attorney per year, depending on the complexity of the cases effective July 2027. • Required ratio of investigators, support staff, mitigation specialists and interpreter services per attorney. 140 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 These requirements would have a significant impact not only from a budgetary standpoint but could also impact charging decisions at the felony level all the way down to the misdemeanor level. The Washington State Supreme Court is accepting public comment on the proposed changes through October 31, 2024. Staff has prepared the attached letter to submit as public comment from the City of Tukwila and is requesting that the City Council join Mayor McLeod in signing the letter expressing concerns about the proposed Standards. RECOMMENDATION The Committee is being asked to move the agreement and letter forward to the October 21, 2024, consent agenda. ATTACHMENTS Draft Contract for Public Defense Services for 2025-2026. Draft letter to Washington State Supreme Court re: Indigent Defense Standards 141 142 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Contract Number: CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES This Agreement is entered into by and between the CITY OF TUKWILA, Washington, a non -charter optional municipal code city hereinafter referred to as "the City," and Kirshenbaum & Goss, Inc. P.S., a Washington Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor" (collectively, "the Parties"). WHEREAS, the City has a need to have legal services available for those charged with a crime in Tukwila Municipal Court who are deemed indigent and are entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at the public expense; and WHEREAS, the Federal Court decision Wilbur v. Mt. Vernon emphasizes the need for the City to provide indigent defense services to clients of the Tukwila Municipal Court in a manner which fully complies with the City's obligations under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have the Contractor perform such services pursuant to certain terms and conditions; now, therefore, IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope and Schedule of Services to be Performed by Contractor. The Contractor shall perform those services described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. In performing such services, the Contractor shall at all times comply with all federal, state, and local statutes, rules and ordinances applicable to the performance of such services and the handling of any funds used in connection therewith, including the provisions of CrRLJ 3.1 and the public defense standards adopted by the City pursuant to TMC 2.70. Compliance with these standards goes to the essence of this Agreement. The Contractor shall request and obtain prior written approval from the City if the scope of work or schedule of services is to be modified in any way. 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 B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Base Compensation is in consideration of a caseload not to exceed 960 cases per year. In compliance with the public defense standards, the case counts include the Contractor's appearance at 48 arraignment calendars per year. 3. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing January 1, 2025, and ending December31, 2026, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page l of 10 143 4. Independent Contractor. Contractor and City agree that Contractor is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither Contractor nor any employee of Contractor shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor. 5. Indemnification. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Contractor's maintenance of insurance, its scope of coverage and limits as required herein shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types and with the limits described below: 1. Automobile Liability: The Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force throughout the duration of this Agreement Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Automobile liability insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired, and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. 2. Commercial General Liability: The Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force throughout the duration of this Agreement Commercial General Liability insurance with 1 44Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 2 of 10 limits no less than $2,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, and $2,000,000 products -completed operations aggregate limit. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, stop -gap independent contractors, personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 26. 3. Workers' Compensation: The Contractor shall procure and maintain Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 4. Professional Liability Insurance: The Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force throughout the duration of this Agreement Professional Liability insurance with a minimum coverage of $2,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 aggregate. Contractor shall provide evidence of such coverage in a manner and form acceptable to the City in the City's sole discretion. Cancellation of the required insurance shall automatically result in termination of this Agreement. B. Other Insurance Provision. The Contractor's Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, that they shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. D. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. E. Notice of Cancellation. The Contractor shall provide the City and all Additional Insureds for this work with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice. 7. Record Keeping and Reporting. A. The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial and programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of this Agreement. Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 3 of 10 145 B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RCW Chapter 40.14 and by the City. 8. Amendment or Renegotiation. This Agreement may be amended prior to the effective date of any significant changes to the Washington Supreme Court Standards for Indigent Defense. 9. Termination. This Agreement may at any time be terminated by the City giving to the Contractor thirty (30) days written notice of the City's intention to terminate the same. If the Contractor's insurance coverage is canceled for any reason, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately. 10. Discrimination Prohibited. The Contractor, with regard to the work performed by it under this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, age, veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation, the presence of any disability, or any other protected class status under state or federal law, in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies. 11. Assignment and Subcontract. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the services contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the City. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties. 13. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Administration City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Notices to the Contractor shall be sent to the following address: Kirshenbaum & Goss, Inc. P.S. 6300 Southcenter Blvd Suite 211 Tukwila, WA 98188 14. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition, or provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this Agreement, 1 46Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 4 of 10 which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the completion, expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement. 15. Applicable Law, Venue, Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. DATED this day of , 2024. CITY OF TUKWILA CONTRACTOR: CT Thomas McLeod, Mayor David Kirshenbaum Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form: Andy Youn, City Clerk City Attorney's Office Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 5 of 10 147 EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. General Scope of Representation. Provide legal representation services in accordance with the standards adopted by the City in TMC 2.70, the standards set forth by the Washington State Bar Association Standards for Indigent Defense Services, the Rules of Professional Conduct, Wilburv. Mt. Vernon, other related case law and applicable court rules defining the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants in criminal cases for all indigent criminal defendants charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor under ordinances of the City who qualify for appointment of counsel. The Contractor agrees to attempt to contact the client within 72 hours of notification of appointment. The Contractor shall provide legal representation for each of these defendants from time of screening for eligibility through trial, sentencing and appeals to the superior court, if necessary. 2. Video Court Services. Provide daily video court public defense services to defendants charged under ordinances of the City who are detained at the SCORE Jail and qualify for public defense services in a manner consistent with the accepted practices for similar services, performed to the City's satisfaction. 3. Attorney of the Day Services. Provide an attorney for weekly arraignment calendars, available to all unrepresented defendants for consultation. 4. Screening. Determination of indigency for eligibility for appointed counsel under this Agreement shall be determined by an independent screening process established by the City. Should the Contractor determine a defendant is not eligible for assigned counsel prior to the establishment of the attorney/client privilege, the Contractor shall so advise the City to reconsider the screening of that particular individual. 5. 24-Hour Contact Information. The Contractor shall provide to the City Police Department, a telephone number or numbers at which an attorney may be reached 24-hours each day for "critical stage" advice to the defendants during the course of police investigations and/or arrest for misdemeanor violations of City Ordinances. 6. Authority to practice. Any counsel associated with or employed by the Contractor shall have the authority to perform the services called for herein and the Contractor may employ associate counsel to assist him/her at the Contractor's expense and with written consent from the City in compliance with Section 11 of this Agreement. The Contractor and any other attorneys retained pursuant to this section shall be admitted to practice pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington and shall have read and be fully familiar with the provisions of the Washington Supreme Court rule and the standards adopted by the City pursuant to TMC 2.70, as well as the Wilburv. Mt. Vernon decision. 7. Conflicts. In the event representation of a defendant hereunder raises a conflict of interest such that the Contractor cannot ethically represent the defendant, said defendant shall be referred 1 48Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 6 of 10 back to the City for further assignment, without being included in the caseload assignments for the Contractor. 8. Discovery. The City shall provide to the Contractor, at no cost, one copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case. Such material shall include, where relevant, a copy of the abstract of the defendant's driving record. 9. Training. Contractor agrees to attend seven (7) hours of criminal defense training each year. The training must be approved by the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) in compliance with the OPD Improvement Program Training requirements. This requirement also applies to all associate counsel. Each attorney will submit a copy of their Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Credits transcript from the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) with the Annual Report. 10. Case management. Pursuant to TMC 2.70.050 Standard 8, the Contractor shall maintain a case reporting and case management system that includes number & type of cases, attorney hours and disposition. 11. Reporting. Contractor agrees to submit the following reports: • Monthly Case Assignment List: Includes Cause Number, Name, Charges, Date of Assignment and Date of First Effort to Contact; • Monthly Statistics Report: This report shall take substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit C and shall be submitted with the monthly invoice; • Quarterly Certification of Compliance: The Contractor shall certify compliance with the standards required by CrRLJ 3.1. The Certification shall take substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit D and shall be filed quarterly with the Tukwila Municipal Court on the following dates: January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1, or the next court day, if the filing day falls on a weekend or holiday; • Annual Report: Detailing the number of other public defense contracts including jurisdiction, the number and type of non-public defense cases handled, and the total hours billed for non-public defense cases. 12. Client Contact Prior to Court Hearings. Contact all clients 1-2 business days prior to their court hearing to confirm access to and knowledge of how to utilize the necessary technology to appear before the court. 13. Additional Coverage for Review Calendars. Provide a minimum of two attorneys at each review calendar to expedite efficient hearings. Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 7 of 10 149 EXHIBIT B - COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 1. Base Compensation Rate. Effective January 1, 2025, for all public defense services set forth in Exhibit A, Contractor shall be paid a flat monthly fee of $32,600, which includes $2,000 per month Office of Public Defense (OPD) grant funds to compensate for additional services provided as outlined in Exhibit A Sections 12 & 13. Should provision of the additional services be modified in any way, compensation will be adjusted accordingly. OPD grant funds have been awarded for 2025. If needed, a mid -contract review will be conducted to adjust compensation based on grant funding. 2. Caseload Compensation. Caseload assignments will be evaluated on a quarterly basis. For each case per quarter over 240 cases additional compensation will be provided at the rate of $550 per case. 3. Possession and Public Use Cases: Simple Possession Advocacy and Representation (SPAR) grant funds have been awarded through June 30, 2025. These funds will pay $550 per case for possession or public use of a controlled substance cases. The City will apply for continued grant funding for the remainder of 2025-2026. 4. Appeals. The City shall pay the Attorney an additional sum of $800 per RAJ appeal filed with the King County Superior Court in which a brief has been filed by the Contractor. 5. Community Court. The Tukwila Municipal Court is researching implementation of a cross - jurisdictional Community Court. If a Community Court is implemented during the term of this contract, the impact to provision of public defense services for the Community Court will be assessed and compensation will be adjusted accordingly. 6. Preauthorized Non -Routine Expenses. Non -routine case expenses requested by Attorney and preauthorized by order of the Tukwila Municipal Court. Non -Routine expenses include, but are not limited to: a. Medical and psychiatric evaluations; b. Expert witness fees and expenses; c. Interpreters for languages not commonly spoken in the city or interpreters; d. Investigation expenses; e. Medical, school, birth, DMV, 911, emergency communication recordings and logs, and other similar records when the cost of an individual item does not exceed $75; and f Any other non -routine expenses the Tukwila Municipal Court finds necessary and proper for the investigation, preparation, and presentation of a case. 7. Invoices. The Contractor shall invoice the City by the fifth day of the month for all cases assigned to him/her for the previous month. The bill shall delineate the following: • City compensation; • Miscellaneous Charges: Copies of invoices and/or receipts shall be attached to the bill; and • A list of the cases assigned for the month including the defendant's full name, case number, charges, date of assignment & date of first contact. 1 50Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT C - PUBLIC DEFENSE MONTHLY REPORT - Kirshenbaum & Goss CLIENT CONTACT # per month Jail Visits Out of Court Meetings Phone Calls Email Correspondence MOTIONS PRACTICE Motions RESOURCES UTILIZED Expert Consulted Immigration Case Assistance/Resources (WDA) Interpreter (out of court) Investigator Referred for Mental Health/Competency Evaluation Social Services Liaison COMPLAINTS Complaint Forms Received from Clients Complaints Filed with the WSBA TRAINING (in hours.) WDA WACDL Other Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 9 of 10 151 EXHIBIT D - CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR CITY OF TUKWILA STATE OF WASHINGTON CERTIFICATION BY: [NAME], [SBA#]' QUARTER [1ST,2ND, 3RD, 4TH] CALENDAR YEAR 202 CERTIFICATION OF APPOINTED COUNSEL OF COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS REQUIRED BY CrR 3.1/CrRU 3.1/JuCR 9.2 Certification for: to MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY The undersigned attorney hereby certifies: 1. I am familiar with the Standards for Indigent Defense adopted by the Supreme Court which apply to attorneys appointed to represent indigent clients. 2. I file certification forms in each court in which I provide indigent defense representation. 3. Approximately % of my total practice time is devoted to indigent defense cases. Approximately % of my total practice time is devoted to indigent defense cases in Tukwila Municipal Court. 4. I am appointed in other courts to provide indigent defense representation. My practice time in each is approximately as follows: Not Applicable Court: Total practice: Court: Total practice: Court: Total practice: 5. Caseload: I limit the number of cases and mix of case types to the caseload limits required by Standards 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. My caseload is prorated to the percentage of my practice devoted to indigent defense. 6. Qualifications: I meet the minimum basic professional qualifications in Standard 14.1. I am familiar with the specific case qualifications in Standard 14.2 and accept appointment as lead counsel only when I meet the qualifications for that case. 7. Office: I have access to an office that accommodates confidential meetings, a postal address, and adequate telephone and communication services as required by Standard 5.2. 8. Investigators: I have investigators available to me and use investigative services as appropriate, as required by Standard 6.1. Attorney Signature WSBA No. Date ,� 52Kirshenbaum & Goss 2025-2026 DRAFT Page 10 of 10 City of Tukwila Mayor's Office - Marty Wine, City Administrator October 22, 2024 Washington Supreme Court PO Box 40929 Olympia WA 98504 Thomas McLeod, Mayor Re: Proposed changes to the Washington Supreme Court Standards for Indigent Defense Dear Honorable Justices: The City of Tukwila respectfully implores the Washington Supreme Court to reject the requested amendments to the Standards for Indigent Defense in CrRLJ 3.1. The City of Tukwila supports a defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The criminal justice system is facing significant workforce challenges, and the City of Tukwila is working to provide resources that ensure every adult misdemeanor defendant has effective assistance of counsel where the attorney meets an "objective standard of reasonableness" under "prevailing professional norms." The proposed revisions to the state's Standards for Indigent Defense will not solve current issues and will result in new and weightier challenges than before, and the potential for felony cases to be charged as misdemeanors would have a significant impact on the Municipal Court caseload. The proposed changes are based on a national study. The proposed changes to the state's Standards for Indigent Defense are predicated on a 2023 national study2 completed by the RAND organization. The report notes that the views expressed in the report are solely the opinions of the authors and have not been approved by the American Bar Association 3. Furthermore, the RAND report says that the results of the study are "primarily applicable to locations or for purposes where jurisdictionally focused workload standards have not already been produced." Washington state currently has caseload standards in place. The report continues to state that, "the most accurate weighted caseload model is developed specifically for an individual state or jurisdiction," Therefore, the appropriate response would be for Washington to conduct the necessary research and base recommendations on that research. These issues are too important to rush in haste to a solution. 1 Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 (1984) 2 http://www.rand.org/pubs/research reports/RRA2559-1.html 3 RAND Report Page ii Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 153 Washington Supreme Court October 22, 2024 Page 2 The criminal justice system requires effective coordination of all moving and interdependent parts, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, court staff, victims' advocates, investigators, social workers and external resources like substance use and behavioral health treatment providers. Without adequate funding and workforce available to meet the proposed standards, it is inevitable that more criminal cases will be dismissed due to a lack of defense counsel, including misdemeanor DUI and domestic violence cases. The proposed recommendations will exacerbate current challenges with harmful consequences. Smaller jurisdictions struggle the most to recruit and retain public defense attorneys. Modifying the caseload standards will not provide equal access to justice but will increase the challenges that smaller jurisdictions will have in providing public defense services. Instead, the solution lies in concerted workforce efforts to increase access to internships, student loan forgiveness programs for contract attorneys, and other programs designed specifically to increase the workforce in smaller, underserved areas. There is an inadequate workforce to meet the proposed standards To implement the proposed caseload standards, the City of Tukwila will require at least three times the number of public defense attorneys, as well as social workers and investigators. There is a very real concern that the workforce required will not be available within the timeframe envisioned by the proposed standards. With the inability to expand the workforce to meet the standards, the City of Tukwila would be hindered in the ability to address misdemeanor crimes consistently and effectively, including crimes like domestic violence, drug possession, and DUI. Additionally, misdemeanor caseloads may be incrementally increased when felony charges are reduced down to a misdemeanor. The City of Tukwila supports a concerted legislative effort to increase the workforce pipeline for public defenders, prosecutors, court staff, social workers, investigators, and other key personnel. However, even if the legislature takes significant steps in the 2025 legislative session towards these goals, the recommended caseload standards as proposed are not feasible. The proposed standards are financially infeasible for cities The City of Tukwila pays public defense costs out of the general fund budget. Funding sources for a city's general fund are statutorily and constitutionally limited, in addition to being constrained by residents' ability and willingness to pay. The State currently funds only a small fraction of public defense costs. Given the current state budgetary forecasts, this is unlikely to change in the near future. Faced with these cost increases, the City of Tukwila may be forced to make budget cuts to other services, including those designed to address the root causes of criminal behavior keeping people out of the criminal justice system. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 154 Washington Supreme Court October 22, 2024 Page 3 Better alternatives exist to address the challenges A Washington -state specific study: The RAND report highlighted national issues and has prompted other states and local governments to call for a location -specific study to determine the appropriate weighted caseload standard for their jurisdiction. Rather than making a decision on the WSBA recommendations in haste, the City of Tukwila supports careful consideration of a state -specific standard developed by a neutral researcher. We urge approval of only portions of the proposed recommendations that are feasible and achievable within current revenue and workforce limits, and which will improve public defense. The proposed caseload limits have been the focus of much of the attention related to the WSBA's recommendations, however, some components of the proposed revisions are feasible and would strengthen Washington's public defense services. For example, the City of Tukwila supports the training and qualification requirements for misdemeanor public defenders. While the staff ratios envisioned in the proposed standards may not be workable everywhere, we support the idea of providing access to investigators, social workers, and interpreters. These types of reforms are positive steps forward but if the rigid requirements of the proposed revisions are adopted the City of Tukwila will be limited in the provision of these resources. If the Court is inclined to adopt the proposed revisions to the Standards for Indigent Defense in their entirety, we ask the Court to exempt adult misdemeanors from the revisions, or at a minimum, delay implementation as to misdemeanors for several years to allow time to build the necessary workforce and time for the legislature to appropriate the needed funding increases. The City of Tukwila appreciates the work done by our public defenders. We know that the current recommendations will not solve the issues. At best, the recommendations are financially and logistically infeasible, and at worst, they will create harmful consequences. We ask that you do not adopt the proposed changes. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Standards for Indigent Defense, and we welcome any questions you may have. Thomas McLeod Mohamed Abdi Mayor Council President Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 155 City of Tukwila City Council Community Services & Safety Committee Meeting Minutes October 14, 2024- 5:30 p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Hazelnut Conference Room & MS Teams Councilmembers Present: Jovita McConnell, Chair; De'Sean Quinn, Hannah Hedrick Eric Lund, Marty Wine, Cheryl Thompson, Laurel Humphrey Staff Present: Chair McConnell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Contract: 2025-2026 Prosecution Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Karen Lentz PLLC to continue prosecution services through December 31, 2026 at a rate increase of approximately 3.2% each year. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. B. Contract: 2025-2026 Public Defense Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Kirshenbaum & Goss for public defense services through 2026. Staff is also seeking approval of a comment letter to the Washington State * Supreme Court on the proposed Standards for Indigent Defense Item(s) for follow-up: Provide draft letter to City Council via email in advance of the Regular Meeting. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. C. Contract: 2025-2026 City Attorney Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Ogden Murphy Wallace for City Attorney Services through 2026. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. D. Police Department 2024 3rd Quarter Report Staff presented the report. Committee Recommendation: Discussion only. II. MISCELLANEOUS The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. `r Committee Chair Approval Minutes by LH 156 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 CT ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 4.G. STAFF SPONSOR: MARTY WINE ORIGINAL. AGENDA DATE: 10/21/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2025-2026 Contract with Ogden Murphy Wallace for City Attorney Services CATEGORY Discussion Mtg Date Motion Mtg Date 10/21/24 /1 Resolution Mtg Date Ordinance Mtg Date Bid Award Mtg Date Public Hearing Mtg Date Other Mtg Date SPONSOR Li Council ►1 .Mayor Admin Svcs [J DCD [J Finance [J Fire [J P&R [J Po/ice [J PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY The current contract for City Attorney services expires December 31, 2024. The 2025-2026 contract maintains City Attorney Services at 28 hours per week for a flat monthly rate of $36,400 per month in 2025 and an increase to $38,220 per month in 2026. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs 11 Community Svcs/Safety LJ Finance & Governance LJ Planning & Community Dev. ❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. DATE: 10/14/2024 COMMII"IEE CHAIR: MCCONNELL RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Mayor's Office COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to 10/21/2024 Consent Agenda COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED $436,800/2025; $458,640/2026 $436,800/2025; $458,640/2026 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ Fund Source: GENERAL FUND Comments: TG. DATE 10/21/24 MTG. DATE 10/21/24 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION ATTACHMENTS nformational Memorandum dated September 30, 2024 Dra 2025-2026 Contract for Services Minutes from 10/14/2024 Community Services and Sa e Committee Meeting 157 158 TO: City of Tukwila Thomas McLeod, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor McLeod Community Services and Safety Committee FROM: Marty Wine City Administrator BY: Cheryl Thompson Executive Coordinator DATE: September 30, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025-2026 Contract for City Attorney Services ISSUE The current contract for City Attorney Services provided by Ogden Murphy Wallace expires December 31, 2024. The proposed contract for 2025-2026 is attached. DISCUSSION Ogden Murphy Wallace began providing City Attorney Services to the City of Tukwila in April 2020. The City currently pays a flat rate of $35,000 per month for general City Attorney services. Under the proposed 2025-2026 contract, general City Attorney services will be maintained at 28 hours per week with monthly compensation increasing by 4% in 2025 to $36,400 per month and by an additional 5% in 2026 to $38,220 per month in 2026. Litigation, contested administrative proceedings, and special services are subject to prior approval and are billed at the hourly rates of the staff involved. Hourly rates are listed in Exhibit B to the contract. RECOMMENDATION The Committee is being asked to move this contract forward to the October 21, 2024, consent agenda. ATTACHMENTS Draft 2025-2026 Contract for Legal Services 159 160 OGDEN MURPHV WALLACE, PLLC 901 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3500 SEATTLE, WA 95164-2008 October 8, 2024 SENT VIA E-MAIL ONLY Thomas McLeod, Mayor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov T 206.447.7000 F 206.447.0215 0M W LAW.COM KARI L. SAND 206.447.2250 ksand@omwlaw.com Re: Engagement Letter for City Attorney Services through December 31, 2026 Dear Mayor McLeod: My team at OMW and I appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service providing City Attorney services for the City of Tukwila from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2026. The purpose of this letter is to confirm how our services will be provided. Terms of Engagement In our representation of clients, we think it is critical that our clients and the film share the same understanding of the attorney -client relationship. To that end, enclosed is a copy of our Standard Terms of Engagement. This engagement letter and the enclosed Standard Teliiis of Engagement set forth our agreement with you. Please review them carefully and let me know if you have any questions regarding the proposed terms. Legal Fees We will provide City Attorney services up to approximately 28-hours per week consistent with Exhibit A, the Scope of Services. I will serve as City Attorney and will be available, either in -person or remotely, as needed. Other Members and Associates also will be available, either on -site or remotely, as appropriate, as well as any other Member of my firm whose expertise may be needed, such as Member Karen Sutherland. Invoice statements will be sent monthly via regular mail or e- mail, unless you request otherwise. As supervising attorney, I will be responsible for seeing that the work is carried out in an efficient and economical manner. I will be assisted by other attorneys and legal assistants in our office. They are all bound to you by the same duties of loyalty and confidentiality that binds me. 161 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 2 Hours of Work Staffing Model General Services Rate Flat monthly rate of $36,400 in 2025; Approx. 28 KLS = Supervising Lead City Attorney flat monthly rate of hours per week Other Member & Associate Attorneys, as $38,220 in 2026; and (varies) appropriate to the task other fees for separate & special services, as explained below. For 2025, the flat monthly billing rate will be $36,400 per month for City Attorney "General Services," as specified in Exhibits A (Scope of Services) and B (Compensation and Method of Payment). For representation on "Separate Services," such as administrative and judicial appeals, litigation, and other project/site-specific land use work and negotiation and drafting of development agreements, as specified in Exhibits A and B, the Member billing rate will be $385 per hour, and the Associate billing rate will be $285 per hour. For representation on "Special Services" that are eligible for reimbursement to the City from an applicant (e.g., franchise), as well as telecommunications work (e.g., small cell ROW agreements, pole leases, etc.) will be billed at $405 per hour for Members and $300 per hour for Associates. We will not bill for travel time to and from Tukwila City Hall. Travel to other locations for City -related business outside of regular office hours will be billed at applicable hourly rates (e.g., travel to the Kent Regional Justice Center or the King County Courthouse for the Friday motion calendar). We appreciate your expression of confidence in Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C. and would like to assure you that we will do our best to provide you with high quality legal services. If you have any questions or concerns during the course of our relationship, we encourage you to raise them with me or our Managing Member, Jessica B. Jensen, or our Chair, Geoffrey J. Bridgman. If you agree with the provisions of this engagement letter and the attached Terms and Conditions, please sign where indicated below and return to me. We look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. Kari L. Sand KLS/ljv Enclosure — OMW Standard Terms of Engagement cc: Aaron BeMiller, Finance Director 162 Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 3 I HEREBY ACCEPT AND AGREE TO the foregoing letter and the attached Standard Terms of Engagement this day of October, 2024. By: Print Name: Thomas McLeod Its: Mayor Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 163 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 4 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. STANDARD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT General Rates The usual basis for determining our fees is the time expended by attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants of the firm. The rates for our services presently range from $175 to $635 per hour and are subject to change from time to time. Our current rate schedule is always available upon request. Whenever it is appropriate, we will use associate attorneys, law clerks or legal assistants in our office. Other Factors in Rates Although time expended and costs incurred are usually the sole basis for determining our fees, by mutual agreement billings to you for legal services may, in some instances, be based on a more comprehensive evaluation of the reasonable value of the firm's services. The firm is committed to charging reasonable fees for its services. In certain situations, factors other than the amount of time required will have a significant bearing on the reasonable value of the services performed. Such factors include: the novelty and complexity of the questions involved; the skill required to provide proper legal representation; familiarity with the specific areas of law involved; the preclusion of other engagements caused by your work; the magnitude of the matter; the results achieved; customary fees for similar legal services; time limitations imposed by you or by circumstances; and the extent to which office forms and procedures have produced a high quality product efficiently. There may be some activity that we can do on a contingent or other basis; however, we will handle matters on a contingency or other basis only when and to the extent specifically agreed in writing in advance of the work. In circumstances where our fees will be based on or include factors other than our normal hourly charges and costs, we will notify you promptly and prior to proceeding. Any basic document fee that we may charge you has been and will be set in light of these various factors. Billing Fees and Costs We will bill you on a regular basis, normally each month, for all the time spent on your project and for other costs incurred relating to our work or on your behalf. The activities for which our time will be billed will conference time, whether in person or on the telephone; document preparation and revision; negotiations; correspondence; staff or attorney supervision; factual and legal research and analysis; travel on your behalf; and other matters directly pertinent to and related to your business and/or litigation matters handled by our firm. Typical of the costs for which you will be billed include filing fees; delivery fees; computer assisted legal research; copying; imaging; telephone conference charges; charges of outside experts and consultants; and travel. 164 Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 5 Payment; Interest You agree to make payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of our invoices. Outstanding balances that are not paid within thirty (30) days of receipt will accrue interest at the rate of one percent monthly from the date of invoice until paid. We impose a surcharge on credit cards only. The surcharge is not greater than our costs of acceptance. We impose an effective rate charge of 3% (three percent) on the transaction amounts on Visa, MC, Discover, and AMEX payments. We do not surcharge Gift Cards, Pre -Paid cards, or Visa, MC, Discover, and AMEX debit cards. Termination You may terminate our representation at any time, with or without cause, by notifying us. Upon such action, all fees and expenses incurred before the termination are due to the firm. If such termination occurs, your original papers will be returned to you promptly upon receipt of payment for outstanding fees and costs. If you wish to have a paper or electronic copy of your file at the conclusion of our representation, we will provide it to you at the current copy rate per page then in effect. Estimates You may, from time to time, ask us for estimates of our fees and expenses either in whole or in part. We are hesitant to give estimates because of their potential inaccuracy. However, if you require it, and if we do provide you with such estimates, they will be based upon our professional judgment, but always with a clear understanding that it is not a maximum or fixed fee quotation. We cannot guarantee that the actual fees and expenses will be at or below the estimates because of factors outside the control of the firm. Confidentiality and Electronic Communications Ogden Murphy Wallace is committed to maintaining the security of our system and the communications with our clients. Unless you otherwise instruct us in writing, we intend to use various communications devices in the normal course (which may include wired or wireless devices, e-mail, cellular telephones, voice over Internet, texting, and electronic data/document web sites) to communicate with and send or make available documents to you and others. Though encryption is a security tool that we utilize, not all communications are encrypted. By signing this letter, you consent to the usage of a variety of communication methods even if such methods are not encrypted. It is important for us to maintain open communication with each other throughout the engagement. We will regularly keep you informed of the status of the matter and will promptly notify you of any major case developments. We will consult with you whenever appropriate. Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 165 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 6 You agree to communicate with and provide us with complete and accurate information as needed to further the case. Further, you will timely notify us of any changes in the structure of your organization, changes to the personal information or residence of any individuals related to this matter, or any extended periods of time when you will be unavailable. Dispute Resolution If you disagree with the amount of our fee, please take up the question with your principal attorney contact or with the firm's managing member. Typically, such disagreements are resolved to the satisfaction of both sides with little inconvenience or formality. Any disputes relating to these Terms of Engagement or the accompanying engagement letter (collectively this "agreement") or the amount of legal fees related thereto, will be submitted to arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA") in Seattle, Washington, according to its then -effective rules, and to Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C. and you agree to be bound by the results of such arbitration. Please be aware that by agreeing to arbitration, you are waiving the right to a trial by jury and your right to appeal. Although the arbitrator will be authorized to award any damages or relief that a court of law having jurisdiction over the dispute could award, the arbitrator will be bound by the AAA rules and not by state or federal court rules, and discovery will be limited to what is allowed under the AAA rules. The grounds for appeal of an arbitration award are limited as compared to a court judgment or jury verdict. Arbitration fees and expenses shall be borne equally by the parties. In the event of non-payment such that we must pursue collection of your account, you agree to pay the costs of collecting the debt, including court costs and fees, and a reasonable attorney's fee. The law of the state of Washington will apply to any such dispute. Withdrawal We reserve the right to withdraw from representing you if, for any reason, our fees are not timely paid in accordance with this agreement, or for any other appropriate reason, as determined by the firm in accordance with applicable law and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Client Documents During the engagement, we will maintain certain documents relevant to this representation. At the conclusion of this engagement, we will retain your original documents for a period of ten years unless you request that they be returned to you. If you have not requested possession of the file or any of its contents at the end of ten years, the file may be destroyed in accordance with our record retention program. We may store some or all of your electronic files on a variety of platforms, including third -party cloud -based servers. You specifically consent to the use of these services for document storage 166 Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 7 and management, and to the conversion of all paper documents in your file to electronic form. You recognize that technology is ever evolving and that electronic communications cannot be fully protected from unauthorized interception. You acknowledge that our email system may be unencrypted, and you covenant and agree to proactively notify us in writing if you require that any of your deliverables or emails be sent to you with encryption. We caution you not to send or access any email or other electronic message to or from us, respectively, via any public or semi-public network, or network or devices owned or controlled by any third party. Nonetheless, for efficiency purposes, you authorize us to transmit information, including information of a confidential nature, to you (or your designated representative) by email to any address which you may provide to us for such purposes, including responding to the sending address of any such message that we may receive from you. In addition, you authorize our use of third -party cloud, back-up, client management, timekeeping, and file -sharing services, including, but not limited to, ShareFile, Dropbox, DocuSign, Carpe Diem, Mimecast, and SurePoint, in the course of our representation. You acknowledge that we may be bound by certain third party terms and conditions related to the use of such services and that our use of such services is not without risks (and you agree to assume such risks). Please note that if we represent you in a matter in litigation, you have an obligation to preserve all documents that may be relevant to this matter. Disclaimer You acknowledge that we have made no guarantees regarding the disposition, outcome, or results of your legal or business matters, and all expressions we have made relevant thereto are only our opinions as lawyers based upon the infoliilation available to us at the time. Our beginning work on your behalf will constitute your acceptance of this agreement unless we receive a written objection from you within ten (10) days of the date of the accompanying engagement letter. Independent Advice Since the Engagement Agreement is legally binding and affects your legal rights, you may wish to seek the advice of independent counsel prior to executing it. Conclusion Thank you for retaining our firm. We look forward to working with you. Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 167 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 8 EXHIBIT A -SCOPE OF SERVICES Contractor agrees to provide a level of service equal to or greater than the level of service provided by an in-house city attorney working approximately 28 hours per week. Kari L. Sand is the designated member of Ogden Murphy Wallace that will serve as the lead City Attorney. Any changes in this position must be approved in advance by the City. 1. Flat Rate Fee for City Attorney General Services Contractor agrees to provide general city attorney services, for a flat fee, including but not limited to: A. Attending regular meetings of the City Council and executive sessions scheduled for regular meetings of the City Council and, upon request, attending special meetings of the City Council, meetings of the Committee of the Whole, other Committee meetings, and meetings of City Boards and Commissions. B. Preparation and/or legal review of contracts, interlocal agreements, resolutions and ordinances and other city documents or materials as requested. C. Practice "preventative law" in the form of regular consultation with Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Administrator, and staff. D. Except as set forth in Section 2, defend and manage (for WCIA-related matters) litigation brought against the City. E. Providing legal advice relating to the Public Records Act and public records requests, including review and redaction of records and preparation and review of exemption logs, as requested. F. As requested, providing special classes and/or seminars for staff, elected officials, Boards, and Commissions on issues including, but not limited to, the PRA, OPMA, ethics, conflicts of interest, and the appearance of fairness doctrine. G. Such other general city attorney matters as are assigned. H. Work up to approximately 28 hours per week on average. I Maintain comprehensive Internet and remote access capability, including e-mail, linking Contractor's office with City Hall. J. It is incumbent upon the City, in partnership with the City Attorney, to manage the general services within the estimated 28-hour work week staffing model. 168 Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 9 2. Separate Matter Services Contractor agrees to provide City Attorney Separate Matter Services for litigation and contested administrative proceedings, which include but are not limited to: A. Each individual civil action filed by or against the City, except matters for which WCIA has assigned primary, lead defense counsel, which the City Attorney shall manage as part of general city attorney services, and except that multiple condemnation lawsuits related to the same project shall constitute only one Separate Matter; B. All Code Enforcement matters conducted before the Hearing Examiner or in Court, but not including general code enforcement services, which shall be included in Contractor's flat monthly fee; C. All drug or other forfeiture matters collectively filed by or against the City; and D. All negotiations, drafting, and meetings for development agreements; provided, however, that each development agreement shall first be authorized by the City for handling as a separate matter. For each such Separate Matter, Contractor shall be paid hourly rates for 2025-2026 as set forth in Exhibit B, Section 2. 3. Special Services Contractor agrees to provide City Attorney Special Services, which include but are not limited to: Other specialized municipal law services, including but not limited to franchise negotiations and telecommunications work (e.g., small cell ROW agreements, pole leases, etc.); provided, however, that any such Special Services shall first be authorized by the City. For such Special Services, Contractor shall be paid hourly rates for 2025-2026 as set forth in Exhibit B, Section 3. It is understood and agreed that the City Attorney shall not provide private legal services to any employee of the City of Tukwila during the term of this Agreement. Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 169 Mayor Thomas McLeod October 8, 2024 Page 10 EXHIBIT B-COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT City Attorney General Services For 2025, all city attorney general services set forth in Section 1 of Exhibit A, Contractor shall be paid a flat monthly fee of $36,400, plus extraordinary expenses. For 2026, all city attorney general services set forth in Section 1 of Exhibit A, Contractor shall be paid a flat monthly fee of $38,220, plus extraordinary expenses. Extraordinary expenses shall include court filing fees, deposition and other discovery costs, parking, mileage costs other than to and from City Hall or other locations within the City, and other similar expenses advanced by Contractor on City's behalf. Extraordinary expenses shall not include routine photocopying, fax, or long-distance telephone charges. 2. City -Attorney Separate Matter Services All litigation and administrative proceeding services set forth in Section 2 of Exhibit A shall be considered Separate Matter Services. Contractor shall maintain its current practice of providing individual monthly billing statements for each Separate Matter. 2025 Hourly Rates for Separate Services Member $385/hour Associates $285/hour 2026 Hourly Rates for Separate Services Member $405/hour Associates $300/hour 3. City -Attorney Special Services Special Services shall first be authorized by the City. Contractor shall be paid hourly rates for 2025-2026 as set forth below for authorized Special Services. 2025 Hourly Rates for Special Services Member $405/hour Associates $300/hour 2026 Hourly Rates for Special Services Member $425/hour Associates $315/hour Paralegal services for all matters will be billed at $155/hour. Summer clerk services for all matters will be billed at $200/hour. 170 Ogden Murphy Wallace City Attorney Services 2025-2026 City of Tukwila City Council Community Services & Safety Committee Meeting Minutes October 14, 2024- 5:30 p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Hazelnut Conference Room & MS Teams Councilmembers Present: Jovita McConnell, Chair; De'Sean Quinn, Hannah Hedrick Eric Lund, Marty Wine, Cheryl Thompson, Laurel Humphrey Staff Present: Chair McConnell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Contract: 2025-2026 Prosecution Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Karen Lentz PLLC to continue prosecution services through December 31, 2026 at a rate increase of approximately 3.2% each year. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. B. Contract: 2025-2026 Public Defense Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Kirshenbaum & Goss for public defense services through 2026. Staff is also seeking approval of a comment letter to the Washington State Supreme Court on the proposed Standards for Indigent Defense Item(s) for follow-up: Provide draft letter to City Council via email in advance of the Regular Meeting. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. C. Contract: 2025-2026 City Attorney Services Staff is seeking approval of a contract with Ogden Murphy Wallace for City Attorney Services *through 2026. Committee Recommendation: Unanimous approval. Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Consent Agenda. D. Police Department 2024 3rd Quarter Report Staff presented the report. Committee Recommendation: Discussion only. II. MISCELLANEOUS The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. `r Committee Chair Approval Minutes by LH 171 172 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 DCS ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 4.H. STAFF SPONSOR: DEREK SPECK ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 10/21/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable CATEGORY Discussion Mtg Date /1 Motion Mtg Date 10/21 El Resolution Mtg Date E Ordinance Mtg Date E Bid Award Mtg Date E Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council 11 Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY The Council is being asked to consider and approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expressing support to establish the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs LTAC DATE: 10/14/24 Community Svcs/Safety [J Finance & Governance 11 Planning & Community Dev. Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: MARTINEZ RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONsoR/ADMIN. Mayor's Office/Economic Development COMMII ILL Majority Approval; Forward to Consent Agenda COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/21/24 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/21/24 Informational Memorandum dated 10/7/24. Memorandum of Understanding Minutes from the Planning and Community Development Committee meeting 10/14/24 173 174 City of Tukwila Thomas McLeod, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Community Development Committee FROM: Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator CC: Thomas McLeod DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable ISSUE The Council is being requested to approve a Memorandum of Understanding expressing support to establish the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable. BACKGROUND The City of Kent has invited cities, educational institutions, and manufacturers in the air and space industries to form a strategic initiative called the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable. The purpose of the Roundtable is for Kent Valley C-level executives, educational institutions, and public sector representatives to collaborate and guide workforce development, public policy, and economic sustainability to retain and attract air and space manufacturing businesses. On September 17, 2024 the Kent City Council passed a motion expressing support for the Roundtable and approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU is now being routed to the other cities and educational institutions for signatures. A copy is attached for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION According to a 2022 analysis by the Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington state is well positioned to compete in a growing commercial space economy. The air and space industry is already vital to our regional economy and presents an important opportunity for the City of Tukwila. Attracting and retaining advanced manufacturing and aerospace business is included in Strategy 1A in the City's Economic Development Strategy. Staff believes the Roundtable has the potential to be an effective way to support our air and space economy. Tukwila's role would be to support the Roundtable by collaborating. The City of Kent would take the lead to facilitate the work and there would be no financial contribution from Tukwila. FINANCIAL IMPACT This item has no financial or budgetary impact. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to approve a motion expressing support and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding at the October 21, 2024 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Memorandum of Understanding 175 176 Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding Subject: Establishment of the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable Whereas, Green River College and Renton Technical College, as mission driven institutions of higher education and talent development, recognize the value of strong collaboration between aerospace leaders and the alignment of training and programs with industry growth; Whereas, The Auburn, Kent, and Renton School Districts are the starting point for student career exploration and contribute to the development of workforce education programs by fostering career connections between K-12 education, post- secondary pathways, and the aerospace industry; Whereas, The public sector leaders representing the cities of Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, and Renton, along with Kent Valley education leaders, recognize the need for a strategic initiative aimed at addressing challenges and opportunities within Kent Valley's aerospace industry; Whereas, The Next Generation Sector Partnerships model has demonstrated success in facilitating collaboration between business leaders, educators, and government entities to address industry challenges and promote economic vitality and sustainability; Whereas, The creation of the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable provides an efficient platform for industry leaders to collectively address workforce and talent development, drive legislative agendas, and promote economic vitality and sustainability within the aerospace industry; Whereas, Participation from industry leaders is essential for success of the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable as Kent Valley employers are creating the jobs of the future and their guidance is critical to shaping the aerospace industry's talent pipeline. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that Green River and Renton Technical Colleges, and the Auburn, Kent and Renton School Districts hereby invite establishment of the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable to build stronger partnerships, foster collaboration, and expand equitable access to our region's best jobs; Be it further resolved that Kent Valley employers represented by C-suite 177 executives, are invited to join the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable, and participate in the inaugural launch meeting scheduled for late October 2024, as well as subsequent biannual meetings and Action Teams; Be it further resolved that the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila express their support for the establishment of the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable and commit to working collaboratively with the Auburn, Kent and Renton School Districts, as well as Green River and Renton Technical Colleges, and industry partners to ensure its success; Be it further resolved that the Auburn, Kent and Renton School Districts, Green River, and Renton Technical Colleges, along with the city mayors, extend their sincere appreciation to Kent Valley Air and Space Industry employers for considering this opportunity to collaborate and shape the future of the air and space manufacturing industry and region. Signed: 178 City of Tukwila City Council Planning & Community Development Committee Meeting Minutes October 14, 2024, 5:30 p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Hazelnut Conference Room & MS Teams Councilmembers Present: Dennis Martinez, Chair; Tosh Sharp, Armen Papyan Staff Present: Derek Speck, Joel Bush Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Memorandum of Understanding: Kent Valley Air & Space Manufacturing Roundtable Staff is seeking approval of a Memorandum of Understanding expressing support to establish the Kent Valley Air and Space Manufacturing Roundtable. Item(s) for follow-up: Encourage Kent staff to extend an invitation to Tukwila School District. Committee Recommendation Majority approval (Martinez and Papyan in support; Sharp with no recommendation). Forward to October 21, 2024 Regular Meeting Consent Agenda. MISCELLANEOUS The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. DM Committee Chair Approval 179 180 COUNCIL A GRNDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date Prepared ly Mayor's review Council review 11/6/2023 BJ 10/21/2024 BJ ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 5 & 6.A. STAFF SPONSOR: NORA GIERLOFF ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 11/6/2023 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Request for rezone from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential at 6250 S. 151st St. This is a quasi-judicial matter and any and all discussion related to this issue should occur during the meeting. CATEGORY Discussion iYltr Date Motion Mt g Date 11/6 E Resolution Mtg Date Ordinance Mtg Date 11/6 ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date E Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adntin Svcs 11 DCD ❑ Finance ❑ F'ire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY Tukwila has received an application to change the zoning and Comprehensive Plan map for one parcel, current zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) to proposed zoning Medium Density Residential (MDR).This proposal was previously considered and denied by Tukwila City Council. However, following a Land Use Petition appeal, the King County Superior Court has remanded the matter to the Tukwila City Council to reconsider the merits of the rezone application. This is the second hearing regarding the original proposal. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ LTAC DATE: Community Svcs/Safety Arts Comm. Finance & Governance ❑ Parks Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: Planning & Community Dev. Planning Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONsoR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development Comm' I'I EE COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 11/6/2023 Application denial 10/21/2024 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/21/2024 Informational Memorandum dated 10/21/2024 Draft Ordinance Addendum to Staff Report dated 10/21/24 with attachments Original Staff Report dated 11/6/24 with attachments 181 182 Thomas McLeod, Mayor Department of Community Development - Nora Gierloff, AICP, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Nora Gierloff, Department of Community Development Director BY: Breyden Jager, Associate Planner CC: Mayor McLeod DATE: October 21, 2024 SUBJECT: Request for Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Map Change QUASI-JUDICIAL ISSUE Conduct a public hearing for a rezone and Comprehensive Plan map change request from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Following the hearing, the City Council should decide whether the application is consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4), per King County Superior Court's order issued on August 12, 2024 under case no. 23-2-24102-9 KNT. This is a quasi-judicial matter and any and all discussion related to this issue should occur during the Council meeting. Please do not communicate on this topic outside of the meeting. BACKGROUND Tukwila previously received an application for a rezone from LDR to MDR on a parcel located at 6250 S. 151 st St. City Council denied the application in November 2023. However, pursuant to the above - referenced order from King County Superior Court, City Council is now required to reconsider the application. If the zoning is changed, any MDR use would be permitted, subject to all City regulations. DISCUSSION See attached Staff Report and Addendum to the Staff Report for a detailed description of the proposal and findings of fact for the decision. FINANCIAL IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezone from LDR zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation to MDR. ATTACHMENTS • Addendum to Staff Report with Attachments A — C. • Staff Report with Attachments A — E. Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaA.gov {ADT4887-2824-9584;1/13175.000039/} 183 184 Citv of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6250 S. 151 ST STREET, TUKWILA, FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 1995 the City of Tukwila adopted the Zoning Code and Map based on consideration of existing conditions and long-term community goals, and these documents may be reviewed and updated as appropriate; and WHEREAS, as part of the City's 2022-2023 Comprehensive Plan docket of potential amendments, the City received an application for consideration of a change to the Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Maps for the property located at 6250 S. 151 st Street (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the zoning of the Property is currently Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to rezone the entirety of the Property to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City mailed a Notice of Application to the surrounding property owners and tenants, and on February 15, 2023, held the required public meeting regarding the proposed rezone and change to the Zoning Map (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has complied with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act by making a determination on June 15, 2023 that no significant environmental impact would occur as a result of the Zoning Map change; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was timely published in "The Seattle Times," posted onsite, and mailed to surrounding properties; and 2024 Legislation: Remand Hearing Rezone 6250 S 151st Version: 10/8/24 Staff: B. Jager Page 1 of 3 185 WHEREAS, on November 6, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on the application and, after receiving and studying staff analysis and comments from the public, passed a motion by a vote of 6-1 to deny the application to rezone the entirety of the Property to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2083, confirming the denial of the application to rezone the Property; and WHEREAS, after the City Council denied the application, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the denial to King County Superior Court; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2024, the King County Superior Court issued an order remanding the rezone application back to City Council to reconsider the merits of the application under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.84.020(4), and further ordered the City Council to hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's consistency with TMC Section 18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter, and issue a new decision based on the substantial evidence in the record (Exhibit D); and WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council has determined the public interest will be served by approving the rezone application, which is in compliance with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions Adopted. The City Council hereby adopts Findings and Conclusions, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Rezone Approved. The Property is located at 6250 S. 151 st Street, Tukwila, Washington. The site is further identified as King County tax parcel 3597000400, as legally described and shown in the attached Exhibit C. The site is hereby approved to be rezoned from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential across the entire parcel, as shown in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 3. Map Amendment Authorized. The Department of Community Development Director, or their designee, is hereby authorized to amend the City's official Zoning Map to show the zoning change as authorized in Section 2 of this ordinance. Section 4. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. 2024 Legislation: Remand Hearing Rezone 6250 S 151st Version: 10/8/24 Staff: B. Jager 186 Page 2 of 3 Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2024. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Andy Youn, CMC, City Clerk Thomas McLeod, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Attachments: Ordinance Number: Exhibit A — Addendum to Staff Report and exhibits thereto (Findings and Conclusions), dated October 21, 2024 Exhibit B — Original Staff Report and exhibits thereto (Findings and Conclusions), dated November 6, 2023 Exhibit C — King County Superior Court Land Use Petition Order 2024 Legislation: Remand Hearing Rezone 6250 S 151st Version: 10/8/24 Staff: B. Jager Page3of3 187 Department of Community Development - Nora Gierloff AICP, Director ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 21, 2024 NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBERS: REQUEST: LOCATION: 10/3/24: Mailed to properties within 500' radius 10/3/24: Site Posted 10/7/24: Notice of hearing published in the Seattle Times L19-0123 - Rezone E19-0013 - SEPA Thomas McLeod, Mayor Change Comprehensive Plan map and zoning designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) 6250 S. 151' St., Tukwila, WA (APN: 359700-0400) CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) STAFF: Breyden Jager, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. LUPA Remand Order B. Notice of Hearing comments received from public, through 10/11/2024 C. Notice of Hearing comments received from Applicant, through 10/11/2024 188 Tukwila City Hall o 6200 Southcenter Boulevard o Tukwila, WA 98188 a 206-433-1800 14febsite: TukwilaWAgov L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan - Staff Report Addendum Page 2 of 2 Background Information On November 6, 2023, the Tukwila City Council denied permit application no. L19-0123, which sought to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to rezone a 4.4-acre parcel located at 6250 S. 151st St. from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). The City Council's findings and conclusions of law supporting the denial were formalized by Council on November 20, 2023, by adoption of Resolution No. 2083. Following denial of the rezone application, the applicant filed an appeal under King County Superior Court Case No. 23-2-24102-9 KNT. The City defended Council's decision on appeal. However, the Superior Court granted the applicant's appeal and remanded it to Council to conduct a new hearing on the rezone application. A copy of the Court's Order is attached to this Addendum as "Exhibit A." The Court's remand order requires City Council "to reconsider the merits of the rezone application under TMC 18.84.020(4). The quasi-judicial decisionmaker, the Tukwila City Council, shall hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter, and issue a new decision based on substantial evidence in the record." Overview of Application and New Hearing The purpose of this hearing is to comply with King County Superior Court's remand order. City Council has been directed by the Court to "hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter, and issue a new decision based on substantial evidence in the record." TMC 18.84.020(4) requires that, in order to approve the rezone, Council must find that "[t]he proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located." Significantly, the application remains the same as it was when previously considered by the City Council on November 6, 2023. The applicant has not submitted any changes to the proposal. The only significant change is to the maximum number of dwelling units that can be potentially built on the property due to changes in the City's code. In the 2023 legislative session, the Washington State Legislature adopted House Bill 1337, which required all local jurisdictions (including Tukwila) to amend their development regulations to allow a minimum of 2 ADUs on all lots that that permit single-family homes. After the City Council denied the subject rezone application in 2023, the Council adopted significant changes to the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit Code to comply with the state law.' As a result of these changes to the ADU Code, the maximum number of total dwelling units that may be built on the property, under its current LDR zoning, is 87 potential dwelling units.2 But, if the property were to be rezoned to MDR, then the property would allow up to 112 potential dwelling units.3 These figures are entirely theoretical however, as the actual number of dwelling units that can be actually built on the property is likely to be far less than the maximum allowed because space on the property will be needed for roads, recreation areas, and parking. For additional information about the application, please refer to the Staff Report, dated November 6, 2023. ' A "single-family dwelling" is now defined as a single building or home plus two accessory dwelling units. TMC 18.06.248. (Previously, a "single-family dwelling" was defined as a single building or home plus one accessory dwelling unit). In addition, accessory dwelling units are now permitted in the MDR zone. TMC 18.12.070. 2 Per TMC 18.10.060, the LDR zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 6,500 SF. Therefore, if subdivided under the existing LDR zoning, a total of 29 new parcels could be created. Each parcel in the LDR district also allows a total of one single-family home, plus two accessory dwelling units (ADU), resulting in 87 total potential dwelling units. 3 Per TMC 18.12.070, the MDR zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 SF. Therefore, if subdivided under MDR zoning, a total of 64 new primary dwelling units could be created. Each dwelling unit in the MDR district is allowed one single- family home and two ADUs, resulting in 112 total potential dwelling units. 189 190 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11'. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM L. DIXON OR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING Schneider Homes, a Washington corporation, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent. NO. 23-2-24102-9 KNT ORDER G ` NTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND ' ANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Clerk's Action Required THIS MATTER having duly come on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the above -entitled Court upon Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition; all parties having been duly represented by counsel; and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, having heard oral arguments of counsel for the parties and having reviewed the pleadings, exhibits, and other documents in the court file: 1. The Land Use Petition; 2. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Opening Brief; 3. Respondent City of Tukwila's Response Brief; 4. Petitioner's Reply Brief; 5. The Certified Record; 6. Petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Certified Record; 7. Respondent's Response to Motion to Supplement; ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 1 OF 3 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUAKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11201 SE 8"' St., Suite 120 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451- 8 4 5 7 9 111 11 13 14 15 16 18 20 22 23 24 192 8. Petitioner's Reply in Motion to Supplement; 9. The Supplemental Records; and 10. The Transcript of Proceedings. ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition is GRANTED; 2. The City of Tukwila's Land Use Decision, set forth in Resolution 2083, is REVERSED; 3. The parties do not dispute that the rezone is consistent with the rezone criteria set forth in TMC 18.84.020(1)-(3). 4. Under Finding and Conclusion A, Resolution 2083 adopts the facts set forth in the November 6, 2023 Staff Report, pages 1-6, but denies the rezone for failure to be consistent with TMC 18.84.020(4); 5. Under Finding and Conclusion D, Resolution 2083 denies the rezone for failure to be consistent with TMC 18.84.020(4); 6. The foregoing two sections of Resolution 2083 are internally, fatally inconsistent and therefore constitute unlawful procedure under RCW 36.70C.130(a); 7. Substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Court does not support denial of the rezone under TMC 18.84.020(4) and therefore violates RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); 8. Likewise, the land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts, in violation of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d); and 9. This matter is REMANDED for the City of Tukwila Council to reconsider the merits of the rezone application under TMC 18.84.020(4). The quasi-judicial decisionmaker, the Tukwila City Council, shall hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 2 OF 3 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOIAKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11201 SE 8' St., Suite 120 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 24 consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter and issue a new decision based on substantial evidence in the record. .14 4 DATED this/2- day of LAy.ks+ 2024. THE HONORABLE Presented by: JO S MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUKOVA, PLLC By Duana T. Kolou§kova, WSBA #27532 Peter Durland, WSBA #61486 Attorneys for Petitioner Schneider Homes Approved as to form: OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE By James E. Haney, WSBA #11508 Andrew Tsoming, WSBA #42949 Attorneys for Respondent City of Tukwila ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 3 OF 3 I LIAM Dfc<oN JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11201 SE 811' St., Suite 120 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-4511-08 194 Breyden Jager From: Bonnie Wong <auntybon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:03 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: FileL19-0123 Rezone and E19-0013 (SEPA) Attention Mr Jager, As an original owner (1989) in the Mapletree Cul De Sac directly across the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone from LDR to MDR at 6250S 151st St Parcel #3597000400, I am concerned about the adverse impact to the neighborhood in general. 1. The main arterials from 58th and Interurban through the neighborhood as well as Southcenter Blvd. are heavily utilized by vehicles traveling to and from work places in the community as well as in the greater Seattle -Renton areas. Businesses in the community are expanding and increasing traffic (speeding and parking )issues in the morning and the late afternoons. Avoiding 1405,1-5 and 167 are the issue. IF REZONING FROM LDR TO MDR,AN ADDITIONAL 40-80 (AVERAGE 2 CARS PER HOUSEHOLD IS REALISTIC) VEHICLES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONGESTION ON THE HILL. There has been no change to the traffic mitigation when this issue was a concern before the pandemic. Additionally, the opening of the new fire department building will be a cause for delay at the peak hours too. And what about snow days? 2. Construction for the MDR will interrupt the flow for school buses in the afternoon and the increased car traffic for families who are driving their students. This is clearly a problem proven by the unfinished buildings next to the fire department building and the interruptions of the remodeling of the apartment buildings too. 3.How will existing neighbors be impacted by the increase water and sewer utility amendments? My water was interrupted when there was a break in the pipes on the hill last summer. I was told that I must be at the end of the pipelines which was the reason I had grey water for two days. 4. All of Tukwila learned about the danger of a large fire and access to emergency help a year and a half ago. This was a tragic mess! What are the safety measures for this project (approx.40 units) which is a bit bigger than Mapletree (14 units). 5. My neighbors and I are not against development and affordable housing. We oppose the Plan Amendments and especially the rezoning from LDR to MDR. Affordable housing is needed. 6. Tax dollars may be an advantage to the city and certainly to the developer, but does Tukwila have the foresight about solutions for increased pollution, safe play spaces for the community (homeless people are living amongst us on the hill),safe mitigation for the traffic on main boulevards, and bus services to encourage public transportation? I appreciate your attention to these matters. Bonnie Wong Tukwila resident 6341 S.151st Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 195 https://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... SEPA,Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Amendment,Hopper Townhomes Project PL19-0099 Bonnie Wong <auntybon@gmail.com> Sun 3/22/2020 12:08 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com>; Nhan Nguyen <ctplanner@gmail.com>; Mayor <Mayor@TukwilaWA.goy> Hello Max, Thank you for facilitating the public meeting on March 18,2020. I was virtually present from 4:30-6:15 and listened tomost of the comments. As I relayed to you, I am one of the original residents in the single family Mapletree Development which is directly opposite fromthe HopperTownhomes proposal. There are 14 homes in our cul de sac. I'm in opposition to changing the zoning! The Schneider proposal of the development plan is for about 35 "affordable houses.ln the meeting,the proposal is that these homes will most likely 3-bedrooms,one to two car garages .These homes would be attached to each other in 3 or 4 homes configurations dependent on the storm collection areas and tree lines. What I heard the average price of the homes would be $450,000 each. Even though the set plans are not decided. The zone change again is at a point where there have been discussions with the city planning commission and Tukwila City Council. I did hear that permitting for storm drain regulations is $38,000 and that the regulations for building is 1500 pages. There were a few comments regarding a $1,000,000 investment and profit margins being unreasonable if the zoning was not changed. The few neighbors that have invested in this neighborhood are focused on the impact of the the amount of homes that are primarily safety issues on the neighborhood,namely increase in the volume of traffic and capacity of utility infrastructure. So the obvious differences are dollars invested and cost by the investors and developers and traffic safety (65th Ave and Southcenter Blvd as well as school traffic (car and walking to and from Tukwila Elementary)and the environmental impact of use (water,sewage,gas and electric infrastructure and portables for Tukwila Elementary). The common thread for both sides (investors and neighbors) is agreement about affordable housing. I am in favor of sharing Tukwila with others. I am not in favor of changing the zoning. The five large buildings constructed to expand the Southcenter area(Holiday Inn, Interurban Hotel,Marvel,and the two facilities for elders on Andover East) are not filled because of the costs of each unit). When occupied,traffic will be very serious. The planning commission then has a responsibility to provide the answers and plans for this section of "town". 1. There needs to be a light for safety on 65th and Southcenter BLVD.high peak traffic on Southcenter Blvd absorbs cars from RENTON to avoid using backups on 1-405. 2. During school starts and endings ,traffic on Southcenter Blvd is traveling at 45 mph. Its dangerous to turn left from 65th Ave S . turning right is also as dangerous. 3. Emergency vehicles will also be using this route. 4. Parking on 65th Ave S. (due to condos and apts) also restricts north and south travel.lncreasing car traffic from the proposed development (on average based of 35 196 1 of 2 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM haps ://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... homes (50-70 cars) will need mitigation.(stop signs)Could guest parking overflow in the complex be a doable responsibility of the developer. 5. The tree viability assessment should be published. 6. With the pandemic of CoVid-19,Is this a time to propose a development that may begin but not finish if workers,city representatives and buyers being "put on hold "? Again , I do agree with affordable housing ($450,000 is not affordable for families earning less $75,000) and conservative expansion for Tukwila. I propose keeping the zoning as is and developers being patient and accommodating as we realistically head for a recession for sure and a possible depression. (So now ,I am considering the dollars just as the developers should). I would not want Tukwila to be a town with empty ,expensive housing. Thank you for your time, Bonnie Wong almost 30 year resident at 6341 S.151st Place TI • : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 197 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM March 30,Z02O David &LavaTomlinson 6360S151stP| Tukwila, VVA98l88 Tukwila City Council G2OD5outhcenterBlvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Members of the Tukwila City Council, Our names are David and Layla Tomlinson and we reside in Tukwila at 6360 S 151st Place. DMP Inc. and Schneider Homes Inc. have recently applied to rezone the property at 6250 S 151st Street (which is across the street behind our house) from low to medium density residential (File #s:Ll9-OlZS &E19-0013,Project Fi|e#:PL19-OO99). Weare adamantly opposed to the rezoning mfthis property, aswell asthe development plan put forward byDK4P and Schneider Homes. VVewill delve further into our reasons for opposing this rezone below, but hope you will listen to the objections and concerns of your constituents who would be most directly impacted by this proposed zoning change and vote in accordance with their interests. \A/ewant tnbegin hvassuhngyouthotvveanekeenk/axvareofourareasneedfnrnnore housing and making itclear that wveare not necessarily opposed tmthe development ofthis property in general, we simply believe that current and future residents of our particular area would be best served by the land remaining zoned as low density residential. Our foremost concern isthat allowing this development tmgo forward maproposed would destroy the natural, tree -filled character ofthe neighborhood that wwelove. The current zoning ofthe property would allow for up to 3Osingle-family units tn be built on it. Rezoning it to medium density would allow for up to 65 units to be placed on the property. The site plan submitted by Schneider Homes and DMP only calls for 38 units, but would still require the property tobeclear cut. Furthermore, their plan envisions building 120-foot-long, 30-foot- high buildings only lOfeet from the sidewalks along S 151st5treet and 62nd AveS. Leaving little to no room for vegetation between the street and the townhomes, we believe these structures would tower imposingly over these streets and the current homes across from them. We recently took the time to visit another townhome development built by Schneider homes, only tohave our fears ofwhat might come topass beconfirmed. While the buildings were not particularly unattractive, they were imposing on an otherwise naked skyline, and it was clear that not asingle tree had been spared during construction. VVehave included apicture below for your reference of what we can expect to see from our back porch if this development is allowed togoforward asproposed. Leaving the property zoned aslow density would require additional distancing from the road to any structures to be built and allow for more vegetation toremain orbesubsequently planted. VVebelieve this would honor and preserve the current character ofthe area that xvecall home. 1 198 A picture of the Copper Ridge townhome development in Kent built by Schneider Homes. it is clear that no trees were spared during construction. This is what we can expect to see along S 151st St and 62nd Ave S if this project is allowed to proceed as proposed. In the spirit of good faith, we plan to reach out to the developer and builder in the weeks ahead and further explore ways that we can come to agreement on a plan to which we and everyone else in the area is amenable. Until such a time as that has taken place, this rezone must not be allowed to go ahead. Another major concern of ours is the effect that adding such a development to our area would have on traffic and parking. Even with things as they currently are, cars often line up waiting to turn on to Southcenter Blvd from 65th Ave S. During drop-off and pick-up times at Tukwila Elementary, some residents of the area already have difficulty getting out of their driveways. The apartment and condo complexes along 65th Ave S were not built with adequate parking provided, resulting in the streets being continuously lined with cars and creating a hazard as people enter and exit these vehicles. All of this is to say that our area already faces significant traffic and parking challenges, and it is remains unclear how much a new development such as this would exacerbate these. it is my understanding that a public works review has been commissioned to evaluate the implications of allowing this proposed rezone to go ahead, but we have not yet been able to attain a copy of this review. Ultimately, we believe that this rezone should not even be considered by the council until the full traffic and parking implications are fully understood. Our final concern revolves around the implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic. This event has thrown a wrench into all of our lives and it remains to be seen what the ultimate societal, economic and housing market implications of this pandemic will be. The restrictions placed on public gatherings has already impacted the due process normally allowed prior to the consideration of a zoning change such as this as the town hall meeting with the builder and developer had to be conducted via phone conference. Even if you are not convinced that this rezoning application should be denied, we urge you to defer it to such a time as the full implications of this pandemic can be better understood and normal due process allowed to take place. Nothing would be worse than allowing the builder and developer to begin this project, clear cut the land, and then discover that they could not continue with it due to the economic environment. 2 199 We want toclose byensuring that you know we are not alone in our opposition to this rezone. VVehave taken the liberty ofcollecting the signatures of36 individuals from 17 residences in the immediate vicinity of this property who stand in opposition to this proposal. We did this in a manner consistent with the social distancing guidelines currently in effect, and it is likely that we could have garnered even more signatures if this had not been the case. We have provided copies of these signatures in a separate document that has also been provided tothe council, We believe the role of government is to protect the interests of all the people that it serves, not just those who stand to gain from maximizing their profit margin from a development such asthis. Ultimately, vvebelieve xvecan find apath forward that permits both the development of this property and the retention of the natural neighborhood feel that we so love about our area. However, xvedonot believe that this path should involve the rezoning of this property. Weurge you to listen tothe voices sfyour constituents who will bemost directly affected bythis proposal and vote against it. VVecan be contacted at7l9-76l-6S1O or andwould be happy to discuss this matter further and/or answer any questions you may have. We sincerely thank you for your valuable time and consideration inthis matter! David Tomlinson LavaTomn|inson 200 3 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/search/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5... Re: Public Meeting Minutes, Hopper Townhomes 3/18/2020 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 3:47 PM To: David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi David, The Public Works review is not complete, nor is it a formal document for dispersal; each department provides comments that are included in the staff report that goes before Planning Commission and/or City Council. As a Party of Record you will be notified of any staff reports, public hearings, etc. as they are completed and/or scheduled. The next steps for a Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone include finishing departmental reviews, attaining any additional information from the project applicant, and then presenting the findings as a staff report to the City Council. Between the end of the public comment period and the City Council public hearing the City usually budgets at least two months, but this is likely to be pushed back due to the COVID19 response. You and other Parties of Record will receive a Notice of Public Hearing at least 14 days ahead of the hearing with City Council. Just another reminder that Nancy Eklund will be taking over as the project manager for the proposal, she has been cc'ed on this email as well. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 2:18 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Re: Public Meeting Minutes, Hopper Townhomes 3/18/2020 Max, I just left you a voicemail and now following up with an e-mail. I had a couple of questions for you regarding the proposed Hopper Townhome Rezone: - On the call last week you mentioned a public works review. Has this been completed and is it available to the public? - What would be the normal process and timeline from here on something like this and how is it currently looking as a result of the COVID impacts? I would prefer to discuss all of this on the phone with you if at all possible, but e-mail also works if 201 3/30/2020, 3:47 PM https65— not. Thanks for your time! Respectfully, David Tomlinson 719-761-6516 OnMon, Mar 23,Z020Gt5l6PM Maxwell Baker <M3x.B8ier@tukwilawa.g{v> wrote: Hello, You are receiving this email because you are a party of record for the Hopper Townhomes Rezone, Attached to this email is a copy of the minutes for the public meeting held on 3/18/2020.P|eese|et me know if you have any questions. � Best Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICity of Tukwila 0300Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 1 Tukwila, WA98188 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. TI � : This email originated from outside the City ofTukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious Origin. 202 https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 6250 S 151st Street David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 1:48 PM To: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson<C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> JJ 2 attachments (5 MB) Letter of Oppositon to File L19-0123.pdf; Petition Letters Opposing File No L19-0123.pdf; Esteemed members of the Tukwila City Council & Co, My wife Layla and I are writing you to express our own opposition, as well as that of our neighbors, to the proposed rezoning of the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, (Reference Files L19-0123 & E19-0013, Project File 19-0099). Attached you will find a letter expressing our personal reasons for opposing this action, as well as letters of opposition signed a total of 36 individuals who live in 17 separate residences in the immediate vicinity of this property. We hope you will hear all of our voices and vote against this proposed rezoning. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have (contact info below). We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, thank you! Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151 st PI Tukwila, WA 98188 Cell: 719-761-6516 TIi : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 203 3/30/2020, 1:53 PM https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 6250 S 151st Street David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 3:00 PM To: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson<C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; Mayor <Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov> JJ 1 attachments (743 KB) Opposed rezone Thoelke.pdf; Sir/Ma'am, Our apologies for the multiple e-mails. We received one additional letter of opposition after we sent you our last e-mail, which you will find attached. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:48 PM David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> wrote: Esteemed members of the Tukwila City Council & Co, My wife Layla and I are writing you to express our own opposition, as well as that of our neighbors, to the proposed rezoning of the property at 6250 S 151st Street, (Reference Files L19-0123 & E19-0013, Project File 19-0099). Attached you will find a letter expressing our personal reasons for opposing this action, as well as letters of opposition signed a total of 36 individuals who live in 17 separate residences in the immediate vicinity of this property. We hope you will hear all of our voices and vote against this proposed rezoning. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have (contact info below). We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, thank you! Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151st P1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Cell: 719-761-6516 TI This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 204 lof1 3/30/2020, 3:08 PM Breyden Jager From: Breyden Jager Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:40 PM To: Geoff Hinton Subject: RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Geoff, Unfortunately, the tool only allows searches by address, parcel number, and permit number, which makes it a bit difficult to run a general search. To find the information you are looking for, my advice would be to submit a public records request. You can find instructions on how to do so on the City Clerk's website at the following link: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/city-clerks-office/public-records-requests/ Thank you, Breyden Jager I Associate Planner Pronouns: He/Him/His Department of Community Development 1 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov 1 206.431.3651 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoft.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Thanks for the details, Breyden! That was very comprehensive. Is there a way I can programmatically query the data in this database? I'm specifically interested in previous examples where zoning was either approved or declined in the last 5-10 years. Thanks, Geoff From: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWAgov> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:15 AM To: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoft.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Good morning, Geoff, In order to access the latest plans and documents, please navigate to the land use permits portal at the following link and use the search function to locate each application number L19-0123 & E19-0013: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/permit-center/land-use-permit-portal/ i 205 Once you have the permit file pulled up, just click on the attachments tab to view and download all associated files. The ones that are dated 2023, will be the newer, currently relevant documents. Everything older is superseded by the newer files at this point. There are no current decisions to view, as both applications are still in review at this point. Administrative appeals of the City Council's rezone decision are not allowed; however, the decision may be appealed to the King County Superior Court, pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. Administrative appeals of the SEPA decision follow the process outlined in TMC 21.04.280, and must be filed within 14 calendar days of the date of decision. It's important to note that in deciding to approve or deny any rezone application, the City Council utilize the criteria found in TMC 18.84.020 (shown below). This application is for a rezone only, which is a non -project action. No development proposal has been submitted at this time. The criteria simply assess whether the change in zoning, in this case from CDR to MDR, is appropriate for the subject property. The criteria do not assess the feasibility or impacts of a specific project proposal. The project design plans and documents that have been submitted by the applicant should be considered for reference only, and any preliminary project proposal is subject to change following the decision to approve or deny the rezone application. More concisely, the approval criteria simply ask whether any of the allowed uses within the MDR zoning district are appropriate for the property, not necessarily just townhomes. Specific design considerations would be reviewed during the Design Review land use process accompanying any multi -family proposal later on, if the rezone request is approved. Off-street parking for any future proposal will be required to meet the City's minimum parking requirements outlined in TMC Table 18-7. 18.84.020 Criteria Each determination granting a rezone and the accompanying Comprehensive Plan map change shall be supported by written findings and conclusions, showing specifically that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and purpose of TMC Title 18, "Zoning Code," and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for; 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map; and 4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. (Ord. 2368 §69, 2012; Ord. 2116 §1 (part), 2006) Thank you, Breyden Jager I Associate Planner Pronouns: He/Him/His Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3651 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 206 From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoftcom> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:43 PM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWAagov> Subject: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Dear Breyden, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to request more information regarding the proposed rezoning and building plans for the lot located across the street from my home. I understand that, according to the mailer, there are details available about the application, plans, and any current decisions, as well as information about any appeal rights regarding Parcel# 3597000400. It has been over a year since the last hearing on this, and I have not yet seen any updates on the status of the plans for the development. I am particularly concerned about the lack of parking that has been planned by Schneider Homes, as I do not want to see the overflow from their parking situation spilling into our cul-de-sac. I understand that commitments have been made by Schneider Homes in the previous hearing for expanding designated parking spaces inside the property, but I would like to understand more. I hope that you can provide me with the information I am seeking so that I may better understand the situation for preparing my comments. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 1 look forward to hearing back from you soon. Best regards, Geoff Hinton 6202 S 151' PI CAUTION: This email originated from`outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 3 207 Breyden Jager From: Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:56 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Re: L19-0123 Comments Comp Plan/Rezone Proposal L19-0123, 6250 151' St. I am writing to oppose City Council approval of this proposal for reasons stated below. If the Council decides to allow the upzone despite these matters, it should impose enforceable conditions, as discussed in the last section below. These comments are based on the information I have been able to review and obtain between recently learning of the revised materials submitted in 2022 and earlier this year and before the Feb. 21 deadline. The Neighborhood First, let's be clear about the nature of the neighborhood, which has been stable for many years. The applicant continues to assert that the proposed upzone would be consistent with multifamily developments in the "surrounding area," and at the 2/15/23 meeting stated again that the site was "surrounded" by multifamily property. In fact, the site is surrounded by LDR zoning and an unbuildable steep slope, and all developed land adjacent to the site is built to lower than LDR density, with much remaining wooded open space. The site is bounded on 3 sides (2 across streets) by LDR zones with housing at less than LDR density, often much less. What might appear on the zoning map to be high density property across 65' to the East is actually a steep wooded slope below a walking trail, which is zoned HDR but entirely undeveloped except for a 19-unit condo project with an Interurban Ave. address located well to the Northeast of the site as well as far downhill. That condo project sits on a 4- acre lot (thus is less dense than LDR allows), and in any case is not part of the same neighborhood as the subject site. The only multifamily -zoned lot adjacent to the site and at or near the same elevation, at the SE corner on the other side of 65' and Trail No. 3, was the scene of a tragic fire and is now bare land. To the North, three adjacent lots average one house to about 26,000 s.f., and just North of those is a 2-acre lot with only a small 1903 vintage house. Facing the entire South side of the site on 151sY is a single-family subdivision developed by the same applicant with lots of at least 12,000 s.f. each. South of that a large wooded wetland area separates the site vicinity from the multifamily development further South abutting 151' . Applicant cites the Sunwood condos as "surrounding" multifamily development, but these sit high on a hill, separated from the SW corner of the site by 4 homes on lots averaging 34,000 s.f. each. Sunwood does not even take access in the direction of the site. In short, the proposal would be a 4.45 acre intrusion of multifamily zoning into an area of very low -density single-family housing. Build -out of the site under MDR, allowing 1 unit per 3000 s.f., would be radically inconsistent with the existing nature of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Proposal Does Not Satisfy Rezone Criteria A Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone can be approved only if the Council can make specific findings to establish that all four criteria of TMC 18.04.020 are met. They are addressed by number below. It appears that the applicant did not address these criteria in its 2019 application, which used an incorrect form that called for different criteria. Only in August 2022 1 208 did it submit a letter trying to adapt some of its arguments on those criteria to those that apply, or simply repeating them even if not on point. 1. The main rationale for the rezone advanced in the August 2022 letter is that it is consistent with the Comp Plan because it would provide for more affordable home ownership due to a more efficient housing types. But that could apply to any LDR-zoned property. Comp Plan policy 3.2.2 provides: Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning less than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built. [emphasis added] Whether an upzone of this site is the appropriate way to provide opportunities depends on consistency with other Comp Plan policies; on whether the Council can find that all of the Code criteria are met; and on whether the alternative of revising the Code is a better way. Indeed, the City is starting to pursue that better way, to allow "middle housing" more broadly. The City published an RFQ in November of last year for a consultant to "analyze and consider the feasibility of adopting policies and code language that would allow a range of higher density housing types in single family zoned areas of the City; conduct extensive public outreach on housing issues to the general public and community based organizations in the City..." with work to be completed by June 30, 2023. That is more consistent with the Comp Plan strategy at p. 3-5, "Following the neighborhood outreach process, consider flexible zoning standards to promote housing options that meet current and future needs." It would also be a more efficient and equitable way to allow for different housing types in LDR zones than to grant upzones on an ad hoc basis. The applicant seeks to emphasize the access to transit as a reason why this site should be changed from from LDR. The same argument might support rezoning all of the LDR land in the area (such as ours, with theoretical capacity for 13 units in MDR), at similar distances from or closer to bus routes. But the idea that many would walk to transit from the site is not realistic. Unit owners would have cars. From the bus stop on the North side of Southcenter Blvd. it is a hike up a steep hill on 65`h, which I timed at 9 minutes to the proposed South entrance of the site at my rather brisk pace; to reach the westbound stop one must brave the unsignaled crosswalk and high-speed traffic, which I did not try. Using that stop would significantly increase the time on the 150 bus compared to boarding on the other side of the hill on Interurban. Having commuted to Seattle for many years from a home near the SW corner of the site, I can attest that the way to use transit to Seattle from here is to drive to it: down to Interurban for the 150 bus, or to the Sounder station (one would not walk there). Some commuters from the site would be dropped off by a family member, to avoid parking issues or keep a car in use; that would double the trips. Some would find current conditions on transit unacceptable and drive to work even if transit would get them there. Nor would homeowners at the site walk to work or shopping in Southcenter. They would have cars, and it is much easier to drive and park. There are no neighborhood retail business that one can reasonably walk to. The applicant says Fort Dent and Southcenter are in easy biking distance, but that overlooks the grueling climb home up 65`h, to which I can attest, as well as safety issues. Over many years we have never braved the traffic to Southcenter, and though we have biked down to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent, heavier traffic will make it riskier from here to the bottom of 65`h, and I think most would choose the ease and safety of driving the bikes down to the trail parking area. The applicant's August 2022 letter tries to support its proposal with policies for the Southcenter/Urban Center as a place for "living" (applicant's emphasis), but the site is not there. It is in the residential area called Tukwila Hill (Comp. Plan, p. 7-5), cut off from the Urban Center by I-405 and Southcenter Boulevard, as well as by the topography that provides its name. This is not a case in which rezoning would lead to transit -oriented development in the sense that residents might live without automobiles, nor would it put density in a walkable neighborhood. Comp Plan objectives, goals, policies, and strategies with which the proposal would not be consistent include: The first priority objective (p. 8): 2 209 1. To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability. GOAL 7.3 Neighborhood Quality: Stable residential neighborhoods ... 7.1.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the preservation and enhancement of single-family and stable multi -family neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible land uses; and clearly establishes applicable development requirements through recognizable boundaries. 7.3.4, p. 8: Use new development to foster a sense of community, and replace lost vegetation and open spaces with improvements of at least equal value to the community. I have seen no indication that such replacement would be done or how it could be done if substantially all of the vegetation is cleared. Continued emphasis on existing land use patterns to protect and preserve residential uses. (p. 7-10) 7.5.9 Support zoning densities that encourage redevelopment of existing multi -family properties. (p. 7-13). Allowing MDR density on greenfield sites by rezone to higher density tends to have the opposite effect. The Aug. 14, 2022 letter to Nancy Eklund emphasizes that the LDR designation allows only detached single-family housing, and that a choice of housing styles can allow more affordable home ownership. These are grounds to reform development standards for LDR, but the cure does not require applying all the MDR rules, including density, lot coverage, and permitted uses, to LDR lots generally or to this particular lot. The proposal is not an appropriate way to further housing goals and is predominantly inconsistent the Comp Plan. 2. The August 2022 letter does not explain how the proposal is consistent with the scope and purpose of Title 18. I am not sure what that means, but part of the purpose is stated in TMC 18.10.010 (LDR Zone): It is intended to provide low -density family residential areas together with a full range of urban infrastructure services in order to maintain stable residential neighborhoods, and to prevent intrusions by incompatible land uses. [emphasis added] The rezone would conflict with that purpose. 3. The applicant fails to identify any change in conditions since the existing zoning was adopted, though that is an essential requirement for a rezone under TMC 18.04.020.3. Having lived in this stable neighborhood over 15 years, I do not know what changes could be cited. The August 2022 letter, coming more than 2.5 years after the application, has a response to that item that does not relate to changed conditions. It merely recites supposed benefits and argues consistency with Comp Plan policies, referring back to another item that relates to an independent requirement. Even if somehow the need for affordable housing has increased over some relevant period, which is not claimed or documented (Seattle declared a housing emergency in 1995), that is a general issue that could merit general Code amendments, not the kind of changes affecting a site or its surroundings that would be relevant to a site -specific rezone. 4. A project at MDR density will have more negative affects on the surrounding neighborhood and its residents and properties than a project within maximum LDR density, which is less than half. All the traffic will have to use the single arterial, because there is not a normal street grid. Not only the residents' vehicles, but also deliveries, service trucks, visitors, contractors, etc., will all have to turn onto and off that arterial, and if entrances are congested they may stop in the road to await a turn. We will feel less safe biking from our home. 3 210 There will be more noise from the vehicles (including emergency vehicles or police when needed), equipment, alarms, and human activity generally. Vehicles that do not fit on site will park on the street and sounds from them will not be buffered. There will be more emissions to air, such as from vehicles and from any barbecues or wood -burning fireplaces (the SEPA checklist says the latter, "if permitted," will produce emissions). An LDR-density development would have some impacts of the same nature, but at a smaller scale. Humans who live in townhomes or triplexes are probably no better or worse neighbors on average than others, and equally variable. By arithmetic, more density will mean more who tend to cause negative impacts. I would expect to see more people drive into the dead end of 62nd — a rather secluded spot right by our property — to hang out at night. We already see this occasionally, and find the debris they leave. The increased impacts on some public infrastructure could be disproportionately greater than from an LDR project; i.e. could hit a tipping point. Sanitary sewer capacity is a concern, discussed separately. Traffic may reach the point at which the left turn lane at the bottom of 65t1' will frequently back up or a signal is required. Reductions in tree canopy are generally recognized as detrimental to a neighborhood, and we expect more loss from an MDR project, with the permitted and intended 75% lot coverage. See discussion below in the "Conditions" section. Trees retained in a steep slope area in the NE corner provide the least benefit in the neighborhood. I believe that the impacts above, together with the expectation that more land in the immediate vicinity may be similarly rezoned and developed, such as the large lots directly North of the site, are likely to be injurious to the values of single-family properties that are not suitable for MDR redevelopment even if rezoned. The impacts during construction would have to be worse for development to MDR density. More clearing, grading, infrastructure work, and unit construction would mean more noise, dust, emissions, heavy truck traffic, road obstructions, etc. If the street would have to be dug up for sewer work that would not be required for a less dense project, that would substantially increase the inconvenience. As with all types of impact, if we do not know, then Council has no basis to conclude there would be no adverse effect. I have made separate comments regarding some impacts under the SEPA matter, E19-0013, which should be considered incorporated here. The issue under 18.04.020.4 is not whether MDR density will make our lives unbearable, compared to the utopia of living by an LDR development. The applicant seeks a special change in rules for its property alone, enhancing its value with potential that we surrounding owners will not have, and appropriately it must show, on top of the other requirements, that the rezone "will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located." The Council could not rationally find that there will be no adverse or injurious effect. Sanitary Sewer and Concurrency Note: These comments are based on what I have been able to find out before the comment deadline. I am concerned that a high density development on the site not overtax the sanitary sewer system below where our 4-lot subdivision discharges to the main, and cause back-ups. At the 2/15/23 meeting the applicant or consultant dismissed the concern saying that it would discharge to an existing City 12-inch concrete sewer pipe under 151 st. But the "Existing Conditions" plan dated January 2023 from the applicant indicates that the only sewer main there is 8-inch (see also 2014 Sanitary Sewer Plan, Drainage Basin no. 4). I am no sewer expert, but I read that plan as showing that the slope of the pipe drops from .45% to .34% as it runs East from the manhole 4 211 slightly West of the middle of the site. I see that the City's Comprehensive Sewer System Plan linked in the online Comp Plan, at 1.3.3 on p. 1-12, includes a City policy that 8" pipe must have a minimum slope of .40% (a spot check of other sources, including one from Ecology, suggests that is a common minimum). If I follow all this correctly, the proposal is to increase potential density on a site that would discharge to sanitary sewer main that does not meet standards. The Comp Plan says: LEVEL -OF -SERVICE STANDARDS 40. Sufficient system capacity for surface water, water, sewer and transportation is required prior to approval of any new development. (Standards for surface water, water and sewer are codified in the City's Municipal Code, and the transportation standards are in the Transportation Element of this Plan.) New development must pass the concurrency tests before development may be permitted. TMC 14.36.020 provides in part: 3. Applications for Type 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions involving projects which will require sanitary sewer service from the City of Tukwila shall be referred by the Department of Community Development to the Department of Public Works, which shall determine whether the City has the necessary sewer system capacity, including such mains, pump stations and other facilities as may be necessary, to provide sanitary sewer service meeting City standards or that such capacity will be available by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued. If adequate service is not available, the Department of Public Works shall determine and shall advise the applicant of the improvements which are necessary to provide service meeting City standards. (Ord, 1769 §2 (part), The proposed rezone is a type 5 decision "involving" such a project. A City pre-app checklist for this site,under PRE20-0005, that I found online from 2020 has a note about the 8" sanitary sewer main, saying the applicant shall conduct a study as to capacity to handle "so many units." An email exchange from 2000 includes a City staffer who would "not feel confident telling you that we have enough sewer capacity for the new townhomes (38 currently?) that they plan to build." From a phone call with Public Works today (2/21), it appears no final determination has been made on that question; no study has been done over the last 3 years; and the City may not intend to require one. I think there should be a clear determination consistent 5 212 with the concurrency provision in the Code prior to a rezone vote, and if the infrastructure is already substandard or is of doubtful adequacy to support a project at MDR density, the City should have a clear plan for any necessary improvements and their funding, before the rezone decision. Conditions The proposal cannot satisfy Code requirements. But if the City Council decides to approve a zoning change, it should use its authority to impose conditions that will limit the impacts and make the development of the site more compatible with the surrounding low density housing than an unconditioned development under MDR. The Council has "the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in TMC 18.84.020." A Comp Plan policy relied on by the applicant, 3.2.3, says: "Provide sufficient appropriate zoning for housing of all types, including government -assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multi -family housing, and group homes and foster care facilities, subject to conditions that appropriately integrate them into existing neighborhoods [Emphasis added] The Council has imposed conditions on prior rezones. Conditions should include: Density limit A limit of 30 units would make the density roughly compatible with the theoretical maximum LDR density of 1/6500, though still several times greater than the actual average density of the surrounding property. That should allow the final design to minimize various impacts by allowing more land to be kept in a natural state rather than cleared and regraded. A 30-unit townhome subdivision should easily be able to preserve many of the mature trees on the site, if the conditions on the rezone so require, and with less impervious surface the extent of grading, filling and detention to deal with stormwater would be less. Note that the applicant's August 2022 letter emphasizes several times that the proposal would allow a different housing type that is more affordable and offers more options in housing style for homeowners; the problem is that LDR limits the style of housing to the most expensive. The letter does not even mention the LDR density limit or say that higher density than that is needed. But to preempt any claim that the rezone with conditions makes it less profitable to develop the site that before, the Council could leave open the option to develop under all LDR regulations instead. Impervious Surface Impervious surface should be limited to something determined by staff to be more consistent with the density limit suggested, and with reasonable tree preservation, than the 75% maximum (At one place the revised SEPA checklist says it will be about 65%, for a project at MDR density). Housing type The applicant represents that the project will be townhomes. A condition excluding other uses that the upzone to MDR might permit (which include boarding homes, senior living facilities, and fourplexes) would ensure that outcome, and housing more compatible with the surrounding single-family homes. Stormwater The change from a heavily wooded lot to one with mostly impervious surface will obviously increase annual stormwater flow from the site. The applicant has submitted a plan that shows stormwater generally routed to a new underground tank in the Southeast corner (though it is not clear how it gets there from the South auto entrance) and from there into the City system on 65`h Ave. S. A rezone condition should require that 6 213 solution, and that the developer pay for any necessary improvements to the City system. The earlier plan shown by the applicant had a detention pond in the SW comer, which would have to flow through the surface drainage (wetland) South of the 62nd Ave. S dead end, which would worsen flooding over City Trail No. 4 and adjacent private property, which is already a problem. Sanitary Sewer See the comments and citations above on this issue. Whether or not the City determines prior to the rezone decision that an upgrade is needed to support the density, if the main is substandard under policies incorporated in the Comp Plan, then if the applicant would have to upgrade it as a rezone condition, that would help make the rezone be consistent with the Comp Plan and serve the public health, safety, and welfare, and the issue would not have to be debated in later permitting decisions. Tree Preservation Although the SEPA checklist says in one place that 75% of the site will be cleared (pdf p. 16), in another it says flatly "the site will be cleared" and trees retained per "adopted standards" (pdf p. 8). At the public meeting on 2/15/23 I understood the intent was to clear the entire property, with the exception of the small portion in the NE corner with a slope exceeding 40%. The property is now heavily wooded, and includes tall cedars, firs and maples. The arborist's preliminary survey from early 2020 reported 257 trees of which he said 43 were "exceptional trees" under the Code. This figure may well be low, because others may have grown to the 18 inch diameter over 3 years, and the 43 are a subset of 125 trees the report calls "viable," from which it excludes all cottonwoods as well as some firs and maples that may merely be covered by excess ivy. Under Sec. 18.54.060 A, as many Exceptional Trees as possible are to be retained on a site proposed for development; however, based on what we heard from the applicant and staff at the public meeting, it seemed that the proposed upzone would lead to the near total clearing of the site, without even off -site planting or in -lieu payments except for any trees removed from critical areas. Whether or not proper application of the Code at the subdivision or project permit level would have that result, I think the rezone could cause a much greater loss of canopy and habitat than would be likely as a practical matter under LDR. If the rezone is allowed, the Council should condition it on the retention of at least half of the on -site Exceptional Trees, based on an updated survey that identifies them all using the TMC definition. From a sidewalk survey I see that several Exceptional Trees are near the perimeter, particularly along the western boundary where they may be within the landscape buffer, or in some cases the setbacks, shown on the latest site plan (p.3). These trees enhance the neighborhood and can buffer light and noise (both ways), and I suspect there is nothing wrong with most of them that removing English Ivy cannot cure. A landscape buffer will not prevent the buildings near the West perimeter from looming above the streetscape, absent mature trees. The condition should require the preservation of all Exceptional Trees wholly or partly in that buffer or wholly within the 20 foot setback, unless certified as Defective under the TMC by a qualified arborist. If there is no condition on the rezone I fear that DCD will be pressed to allow a cheaper approach than preserving them. There are also a few Exceptional Trees that must be in the City ROW, which I hope would have to be protected as a matter of course, but a rezone condition could remove any doubt. No Wood -burning Fireplaces or Stoves The SEPA checklist discloses the potential for emissions from wood -burning fireplaces "if allowed." They should not be. Their use would worsen the problem of particulate pollution in the area. If City regulations do not already prohibit them in new homes, a condition should do that here to reduce the impacts on the neighborhood and the environment. Respectfully submitted, Hugh Tobin 15165 62nd Ave. S 7 214 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO'NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 8 215 https://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Mon 3/30/2020 2:59 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Cc: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson <C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov> Dear Mr. Baker and Councilmembers: I am a resident (since 2007) and homeowner at 15165 62nd Ave. S., which is part of a 4-home subdivision on about 3 acres to the southwest of the proposal site, between it and the Sunwood Condominiums (this area of LDR zoning is omitted from the application's "General Description of Surrounding Land Uses", which states that Sunwood is to the southwest). I write first to address the range of alternatives that should be considered if the City is to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, and second to comment on the adequacy of the SEPA checklist for the specific proposal. Scope of alternatives and environmental review If the City is to consider changing the comp plan to allow greater density or more affordable housing, it should evaluate a range of options for the City as a whole, rather than merely respond to the desire of a single property owner for an upzone. Options could include changes in policies that drive development regulations for LDR zones, and/or creation of additional zoning categories, which might include density bonus options based on provision of housing that would be truly affordable to very low-income households. In some jurisdictions single-family zoning is being phased out, as in Oregon. Without changing the basic density limit for LDR, 6500 s.f. per unit, and perhaps without amending the comp plan, the City could change regulations that unduly limit density and affordability of development on larger lots. For example, Chapter 18.10 TMC arbitrarily limits development coverage and footprints on larger LDR lots (such as the Hopper tract) to much lower percentages than on smaller lots, and prohibits duplexes and triplexes, thereby encouraging subdivision into 6500 s.f. lots and more expensive housing. If an owner could achieve the same 1/6500 unit density on a larger LDR development site (whether or not divided for sale or made into a condominium), or could add to a partly developed site, with townhome development, then housing could be more affordable and climate -friendly, with more usable open space, and in many cases more of the site left undisturbed, than in a typical SF subdivision. Under present LDR zoning, even on a lot large enough for several units under that density (such as the one where I live), one may not have a duplex, even in an existing structure that could be converted without exterior changes ("ADU" unit rules, designed to make those acceptable on minimum size lots, have restrictions that would often require dysfunctional modifications, and do not accommodate family -friendly units). So the City should consider revisiting development restrictions more generally, and include 216 1 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... potential changes to them as reasonable alternatives to any proposed rezone for purposes of environmental analysis. SEPA Checklist for Hopper Lot Proposal My general comment on the SEPA checklist, as it relates to the specific rezone, is that it does not adequately respond to the questions in the form, and therefore does not provide a sufficient basis for a threshold determination — certainly not a DNS. In many cases responses have one or more of these defects: • Incomplete (e.g., checking "yes" but not answering the "if yes" question) • Admitting or revealing that insufficient study has been done to provide the answer • Entirely omitted (e.g., "N/A" for an item that does apply) • Contradicted by other statements in the checklist or by materials with the application • Inaccurate • Consisting of unsupported and implausible statements • Lacking any quantitative information • Based on assumptions or promises as to actual development for which no assurance exists • Inconsistent with information available in public records, including City maps • Merely stating that regulations (of the new zone) will be followed, as if that disclosed the impact of development under them Subjects on which these defects occur include stormwater runoff, sensitive areas, slopes, streets, traffic, public services and facilities, discharges, noise, tree preservation, wildlife, nearby historic buildings, and nearby recreational facilities. I could provide detail, but it is not the job of neighboring residents to prepare responses to the checklist. I notice also that two preliminary reports from consultants submitted with the application, as well as limited online information in eTRAKIT regarding open code violations, indicate that there have been unpermitted grading, filling, and other activities altering the conditions of the site prior to the submission of this application, all of which clearly were known to the present owner prior to a purchase completed on or about 3/13/2020. That raises the question, whether the full extent of those activities and the previously existing site condition need to be established and the evaluation of impacts done using that prior condition as a baseline for a threshold determination. Finally, although the proponent has indicated an intent to develop approximately 38 townhome units on the site and has provided a possible site plan, there is no proposed concomitant agreement that would limit development or provide any mitigation, so what must be evaluated is the potential maximum development of the site under MDR zoning. The new owner may be describing its intent in complete good faith, but the ultimate development could be done by someone else. 217 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. I understand from the virtual meeting held on 3/18 that if the proposal submitted is to be considered, then there will be public hearings and opportunity to comment. I am reserving any comments on the merits for a later stage, when I would expect there to be more information available about the conditions on the site than the 2 preliminary letters from consultants that were filed with the application. Sincerely, Hugh R. Tobin This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 218 3 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Re: L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Mon 3/30/2020 3:51 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Following up on my checklist comment with one example, re: stormwater: Under C.1 at p. 8 of the pdf, the checklist says the project will not create stormwater from impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site. Given the preceding statement that 75% of the lot will be made impervious, that is implausible and appears inconsistent with a later statement in the checklist, below. At p. 17, item c., the checklist asks about runoff, including where it will flow. The answer is evasive: it will be collected and infiltrated "to the greatest extent possible." That extent may be little or none, yet maximum MDR development will obviously add a lot of impermeable surface. The City's Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (2013), Section 2.3, identified this site as an area "where infiltration is not allowed as a surface water management approach due to steep slopes and/or high groundwater table (Figure 4)." I understand from City staff that this categorical prohibition has been removed, but the fact that the land was so mapped is a strong indication that very little infiltration could occur, so there would be a large increase in stormwater flowing offsite. At p. 30, 16.b, it is disclosed (notwithstanding the response to C.1, above) that development of the site would require stormwater discharge into the existing City system (presumably in 151St St.). Thus, the quantity of flow that could occur, including in extreme conditions, from a maximum development under MDR, with the site "cleared" as the applicant proposes, must be compared to the adequacy of the existing system to accept added flow in order to evaluate the impact of the proposal and whether it would cause a need for off -site stortnwater improvements. Quantitative analysis is required to make a determination as to significance. It is likely that much rainfall to the site is presently absorbed by the vegetation (300 trees according to the proponent on the conference call). Some may now drain easterly down toward Interurban; however, the site is mapped mainly or entirely in the the Gilliam Creek drainage basin, which implies a southerly flow. If flow would drain toward 62nd Ave. S., as does at least some from the Mapletree Park development across 151St from the site, that could exacerbate recent flooding along Tukwila Trail no. 4 (which the applicant evidently assumes residents will use to walk to Southcenter; else it would not be as close as claimed). A City stormwater map shows that the flow must pass through a 12-inch pipe (and associated catch basins) on the Terra Apts. property to reach larger pipe under 153rd Ave . S. and then Cottage Creek, which drains into Gilliam Creek. Within approximately the past year the water has backed up to make the trail, which is used by elementary school children, impassable, for approximately one day after a heavy rain in the Fall and for weeks after the snowfall in the winter of 2019. TI This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 219 3/30/2020, 3:54 PM Nancy Eklund From: Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 4:24 PM To: Nancy Eklund Cc: Maxwell Baker Subject: Re: L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Dear Ms. Eklund, I appreciate that you have posted online the recently received limited geotech report and "Tree Protection Plan", and I have downloaded those. I am writing to request any other consultant reports and other communications from the applicant that have been submitted (Max Baker did provide early letters from the wetland consultant and geotech attached to the application), and to renew and update my public records request in the 3/30 email below for copies of comments from residents received to date. I see from the website comments that you agreed to provide those to the applicant. Related to the SEPA analysis, I note from a brief look at the recently filed documents that (1) the geotech report confirms my earlier comment to the effect that infiltration of stormwater is not feasible, and proposes a pond that it appears would have to drain under 151st down the 62nd Ave. ROW into the recently overflowing wetland abutting Trail No. 4, and (2) the "Tree Protection Plan" seems to say that the effect of the rezone would be that the applicant would remove "most, if not all" the many significant trees. The Plan seems to assume that all cottonwood trees are per se "nonviable hazard trees" and holly trees are invasive, so neither need be considered for protection. I would like to know whether the City accepts those assumptions. I am puzzled by the documentation submitted as it relates to environmentally sensitive areas. The new geotech report describes only one area, a steep slope "along the eastern most margin" and then refers to the landslide hazard as "directly east of the site" (see also negative response to item 12 on pdf p. 12 of the SEPA checklist). The City's map at https://www.tukwilawa.gov/city-maps/ shows not only a Class 3 area in the northeasterly part of the site near the City's Trail No. 3, but also numerous other Class 3 areas, including one along most of S. 151st St. extending well into the site. Is that map current, please, or has the City updated that map to remove those classifications, or others in our area? Sincerely, Hugh Tobin 15165 62nd Ave. S. On 3/30/2020 4:46 PM, Maxwell Baker wrote: Hi Hugh, After today I will no longer be assigned to the project, you will want to coordinate with the new project manager, Nancy Eklund, who is cc'ed on this email. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 220 From: Hugh Tobin <htnbin (d)cnmcast. et> Sent: Monday, March 30,30ZU4:43PK4 To: Maxwell Baker <&1ax.Baker(d)Tukwi|aVVA.gov> Subject: Re: L19'U133,E19'U013:"Hopper Tovvnhomes"Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review HiMax — | infer from the message below that Jeff has submitted acomment. Could you please provide nneacopy ofthat, and any others from residents, and any further consultant reports? Hugh 0n3/3O/20203:56PM, Maxwell Baker wrote: Hi Jeff, Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the project file. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued oswell asofany public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila 6300Southcenter Blvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA98lD8 Max. Baker@Tukvvi|avva.gov1IO6.431.36D3 Tukwila: The City nfopportunity, the community nfchoice. CAUTIO"",,": This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. CAUTIO� This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. z 221 https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Opposition to L19-0123 jeff.thoelke@gmail.com <jeff.thoelke@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 3:32 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> March 30, 2020 Mr. Max Baker City of Tukwila Project Planner Regarding File #: L19-0123 Mr. Baker, I am a long time resident of Tukwila, having lived at my current residence for 28 years. My house is located at 14915 62nd Ave S, Tukwila WA 98168, which is across the street from the 4 % acre property formerly owned by Patricia Hopper and is the subject of the rezoning proposal from low -density - residential to medium -density -residential. I knew Pat Hopper and spoke with her often about her plans for her undeveloped property. She purposely held on to it to prevent it from being rezoned and overcrowded. I am adamantly opposed to this rezoning proposal. I understand why more families would want move into this neighborhood, as it is relatively isolated from the hustle and bustle of the many commercial enterprises surrounding it. But a person only has to turn the corner from South 151st Street onto 65th Avenue South to see why medium density housing is undesirable. Tenants of the existing medium density housing crowd 65th Avenue South with parked cars 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Those tenants apparently lack any pride in the community because litter is constantly thrown on the street and sidewalks by the owners of those cars. But, even if 65th Ave S wasn't already an eye -sore, the streets are often not safe for pedestrians to walk. My house butts up against Tukwila Elementary School and I am frequently appalled at the speed and quantity of cars that pass my house each day. I am not exaggerating when I say cars frequently wiz by my house at over 40 miles -per -hour, through the school zone. Many of these cars likely don't belong to residents of this neighborhood, but rather are taking a shortcut from Interurban Avenue to Southcenter. Regardless of the results of this rezoning effort, 62nd Avenue South needs to have permanent stop signs at the corner of South 149th Street. A traffic light needs to be installed at the corner of Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Avenue South. Increased traffic on Southcenter Boulevard frequently makes it difficult to exit from 65th Avenue South. Considering the new fire station being built near that intersection and the crosswalk feeding the bus stops at the intersection, Tukwila ought to be proactive and put a stoplight at the intersection. Additional homes in this neighborhood is going to exacerbate this problem. Thank you for your consideration, Jeff Thoelke 222 1 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... 206-579-3254 TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 223 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM Breyden Jager From: Sent: To: Subject: Henry Jesboneb <jesboneb@yahoo.com> Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:43 PM Breyden Jager Rezone 6250 S 151st St, Parcel #3597000400 File #s: L19-0123 comment echer I have lived for about 25 years in a home on a heavily wooded lot nearly adjacent to the SW corner of the Hopper tract. I place great value on the tree canopy that extends through our neighborhood and the many species of birds that inhabit and frequent it. I know that building any housing on the Hopper tract will involve cutting some trees, and I will not mourn the loss of holly or cottonwoods, but am disturbed that the City Council might approve a change in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning that could lead to that property being virtually clearcut, including towering conifers and maples. I can see that some of them have a lot of English Ivy, but I know from experience in our own back yard (and the City's work in Tukwila Park), that ivy can be cut and uprooted; it is not a reason to cut the tree. The August 2022 letter to Ms. Eklund says that within the "limits of the Tree retention ordinance,a numbers [sic] of existing trees will be removed." I fear that greatly understates the applicant's intent and the impact of a rezone. The site is heavily wooded, with about 55 trees per acre, many of which are "Exceptional Trees." The SEPA checklist says in places that about 75% of the site would be cleared, but at the February 15 public meeting (to which I phoned in) it was clear that the developer intended to clear the entire site except for the extreme slope in the NE corner, and the DCD staffer did not suggest that any ordinance would prevent that; rather I got the impression that even trees in other steep slope areas could be cut with a compensating payment, which would not be required for the rest. The current site plan shows a landscape buffer and setbacks, but does not show where any trees would be preserved, and from the "Existing Conditions" plan recently submitted it appears that many are clustered where buildings are intended according to the site plan, or where a large proposed detention facility would require a treeless cover. In addition, the intent of the applicant to conduct grading to change the natural direction of drainage, expressed at the meeting, may be inconsistent with keeping trees even where they would not conflict with buildings or infrastructure. The applicant asserts that certain impacts, particularly on trees, would be similar to development under LDR zoning. So far as I know, that assertion is not supported by analysis or any expert opinion. It is not consistent with a statement I heard at the meeting. that the same regulations as for LDR would not apply. Even if that is wrong — if the terms of TMC Ch. 18.54 would be applied to the same extent as under LDR -- logically it seems the impact on canopy would be greater under MDR. If the site were subdivided under LDR, even assuming addition of interior streets rather than having homes only on Tots abutting the existing 62nd Ave S and S 151st, I believe the lower limits on lot coverage and the lower density would provide more ability to condition the layout so as to fulfill the City policy and requirement to preserve Exceptional Trees when possible, and with less impervious surface the scale of any stormwater detention facility would be reduced. While I support the idea of allowing more affordable and energy efficient housing types, I think any change to rules to allow townhomes should be designed to result in less loss of tree canopy and less impervious surface than single-family development, not to enable or encourage more of these impacts. So 1 must oppose this rezone proposal, at least without very strict conditions to protect the tree canopy. i 224 Jessica Bonebright 206-679-4976 CAUTION. This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 225 226 227 https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 10:34 AM To: MICHAEL J. MOORE <hummingbirdking@msn.com>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi Michael, Thank you for your comment. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. To answer some of the questions that I have answers for at this time: • The City Public Works Department is reviewing the proposed layout of the project and is working to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Infrastructure Design Manual, as well as the ability for the project to accommodate any overflow parking onsite vs. on City streets. • The applicant's proposed townhomes will be sold individually, meaning that they will be purchased by individuals and not rented out by one entity. They have been described as being target towards middle -income earners. • The Tukwila School District has been notified of the proposed rezone and the potential increase in students. No comments have been received from them at this time. Additionally, Nancy Eklund, Senior Planner, will be taking over for meas the project manager for the City moving forward, she is cc'ed on this email. Any additional questions should be directed to her. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: MICHAELJ. MOORE <hummingbirdking@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 12:46 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Fw: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 Subject: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 To whom it may Concern I moved into my home over sixteen years ago and one of the reason I moved here is that it is a very quite community of well kept single family homes and I and my neighbors like it that way. I didn't 228 1 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... move here with the indentation of the city to rezone mine and my neighbors community to high density housing and change our quality of life here on the hill. If you allow the almost 40 homes that you are proposing that could add up to an additional 100 cars into the neighborhood. The traffic volume is already high enough with vehicles using the hill as a shortcut to the mall and this will just add to it . Then there is the parking issue, will parking be pushed out on to S 151st St or on 62nd Ave S which in my opinion would be an eyesore as it is on 65th Ave S. south of 151st. The town homes that you are proposing will they be high end which would hopefully keep it owner occupied as I would not want it to become a bunch of rentals which would probably start to become rundown looking which in turn would hurt the value of mine and my neighbors property. I did not buy my house to live in a crappy looking neighborhood. I like the that there is a pride ownership here. Next there will more an likely be family's with grade school kids which would attend Tukwila Elementary and will they have the capacity to absorb those children at this facility already as it already has close to 540 kids attending there now. So would there be room to add another 50 to 80 children or more into this school? I'm not oppose to development of the property but the area needs to stay zoned low to medium residential because if we let this go through then we have opened up Pandora's Box and more and more high density housing will get approved and there will be more and more traffic which in turn will continue to destroy the peace and tranquility here on the Old Hill. Please listen to your constituents and preserve our way of life here in our neighborhood. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS PLAN AND PLEASR DON'T RUIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD Thank you for you time Michael J. Moore Jacqueline L Spicer Malena C-Moore 206-794-2438 5936 S 149th St TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 229 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: L19-0123 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Fri 3/27/2020 9:40 AM To: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com> 0 3 attachments (4 MB) L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Comp Plan.pdf; L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Site Plan - No Notes.pdf; E19-0013 Hopper Townhome SEPA.pdf; Hi Miles, Thank you for your email. I've attached copies of the application materials to this email. I have also cc'ed Nancy Eklund, the new project contact for the City moving forward; I will be taking leave starting next week and will no longer be working on the project. Any future questions you may have should be directed to her. Just to clarify, the rezone theoretically could allow for 64 townhome lots on the site based solely on square footage; the minimum square footage for a townhome lot in the proposed MDR zone is 3,000 square feet and the current property is 193,705 sf; divided this equals 64 3,000 sf lots. However, the applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property into that many lots/units, and is instead proposing 38 dwellings (see attached site plan for proposal). It should be noted that the proposed site plan is only a proposal at this point and may change once it is officially submitted to the City, which could occur only after a successfully approved rezone. Thank you again for your email, please keep an eye out for future notices regarding public hearings for the project. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:17 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: L19-0123 Hi Max, Jennifer and I are against up to 65 units in this area. I think 30 would be max so we are against the zoning change. Thanks, Miles & Jennifer Mitchell C TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open 230 1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 231 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM Breyden Jager From: Nicholas Anderson <nanderson03@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 4:43 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Comments for Parcel# 3597000400 Hi Breyden, I received a postcard soliciting comments on the proposed rezoning of this lot at 6250 S 151 st St. from LDR to MDR. I am a current owner/resident at Sunwood Condominiums nearby, and walk by this property frequently. Rezoning to medium density residential is fine with me; however, I would like to see the mature conifers on the property preserved if possible. These trees provide natural services including habitat, hillside retention, and are aesthetically valuable to an urban neighborhood. Perhaps denser building in the already cleared areas of this lot would allow for some of these mature trees and understory to remain intact. Having a wooded area on the development with links to existing trails would make the developed property more desirable to prospective buyers, and it would allow a denser development to better fit in with the neighborhood. Sunwood condominiums has this sort of aesthetic with MDR nestled into mature conifers. It's great to live here! Those are my 2 cents. Thanks for listening. Nick Anderson Resident/owner, Sunwood Condominiums. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 232 Breyden Jager From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 1:52 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: L19-0123 & E19-0013 [Was: PL19-0099 Comment] Hi Breyden, I'm forwarding my prior 2020 comments on this parcel given the upcoming meeting. My stance is the same, I support this more dense development that is badly needed in our area. Schneider Homes also has a stellar reputation for building quality multifamily homes. Thanks, Nick 6247 S 153rd St. Forwarded message From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:39 AM Subject: PL19-0099 Comment To: <Max.Baker@tukwilawa.gov> Hi Max, I'd like to convey my support for adding additional housing in Tukwila, including the development at 6250 S 151st St, very near my own condo. The Seattle area continues to need more and more housing, especially lower end housing, and thus I applaud this development. My family, as a specific example, would like to move from a condo into a larger townhome or a single family home, but the selection in our area is quite constricted and prices are high, thus I'm in favor of adding more supply. Sincerely, Nicholas Webb 15165 Sunwood Blvd CC32, Tukwila, WA 98188 CAf1T1 : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 233 Breyden Jager From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:35 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: L22-0137 / E23-0005 Hi Breyden, As a Tukwila resident, I'd like to voice my approval of increases in densities within the city to provide more housing in general and for L22-0137 specifically. Sincerely, Nick Webb 6247 S 153rd St Tukwila, WA 98188 Nick Webb C: 206.755.2150 webbn@acm.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 234 http s: //o ut l o o k. o ffi c c3 6 5. co m/mail/in b o x/i d/AA Q kA G FhN D M xN zU 5 L .. . PL19-0099 Comment Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Mon 3/16/2020 8:40 AM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi Max, I'd like to convey my support for adding additional housing in Tukwila, including the development at 6250 S 151st St, very near my own condo. The Seattle area continues to need more and more housing, especially lower end housing, and thus I applaud this development. My family, as a specific example, would like to move from a condo into a larger townhome or a single family home, but the selection in our area is quite constricted and prices are high, thus I'm in favor of adding more supply. Sincerely, Nicholas Webb 15165 Sunwood Blvd CC32, Tukwila, WA 98188 TI This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 235 3/17/2020, 2:25 PM https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Hopper Townhomes Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Fri 3/27/2020 9:08 AM To: PATRICIA PERRY <patperry@comcast.net> Cc: Hans Korve <hans@dmp-inc.us>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> 0 3 attachments (4 MB) L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Site Plan - No Notes.pdf; E19-0013 Hopper Townhome SEPA.pdf; L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Comp Plan.pdf; Hi Patricia, Thank you for your email. I've attached copies of the application materials to this email. I've also cc'ed Hans Korve, the project applicant, on this email for you to contact regarding your plot of land adjacent to the project site. Hopefully the two of you can connect regarding the proposal. I have also cc'ed Nancy Eklund, the new project contact for the City moving forward; I will be taking leave starting next week and will no longer be working on the project. Any future questions you may have should be directed to her. Thank you again for your email. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: PATRICIA PERRY <patperry@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 4:29 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Hopper Townhomes HI Max, 1 would like to view the application for the Hopper Townhomes rezone. actually own the driveway , yes just the driveway, between the property of 6250 S 151st and 14920 65th Ave S. It goes to 6230 144th place south. Im trying to figure out what to do with the driveway.... Perhaps the townhomes could use it or the city or the people that it actually serves? Do you have any thoughts. think townhomes will be good there, hopefully preserving the wet area in the properties. Again, I would like to see the full application 236 1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Thanks Patricia Perry TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 237 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM Breyden Jager From: Minnie Dhaliwal Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:21 PM To: Laurel Humphrey; Maxwell Baker; Lynn Miranda; Nancy Eklund Cc: Jack Pace Subject: Re: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St Hi Laurel, This matter is a quasi-judicial matter so City Council members cannot discuss it outside of the hearing. Public comments should be directed to staff (Nancy Eklund is the planner working on this project). This item was tentatively scheduled for Aug 17th, but it is likely going to get postponed to Sept. Also, I think Councilmember Kruller had made a comment at one City Council meeting that community members had desired an in -person hearing for this project. It is not clear if we could have in -person hearing in Sept. Minnie From: Laurel Humphrey <Laurel.Humphrey@TukwilaWA.gov> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:05 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal<Minnie.Dhaliwal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; Lynn Miranda <Lynn.Miranda@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St Hi all, can you remind me of the timeline on this project and any further public hearings? Thanks, Laurel From: Peggy McCarthy <MCCARTHYJP@msn.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:02 PM To: CityCouncil <CityCouncil@TukwilaWA.gov>; Allan Ekberg <Allan.Ekberg@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St I stand in opposition of the proposed rezone of the property at 6250 S 151' St 98168 from low -density residential, LDR, to medium density residential, MDR. The owner of this 4.45 acre property, purchased in March 2020, has asked for a rezone so that up to 65 units of townhomes can be built on the property. Under the existing LDR zoning, approximately 30 single family homes could be built. The increased density created by MDR zoning and up to 65 new townhomes would add to the existing traffic, street parking and safety issues. Currently, even with the existing number of residents, 65th Ave S gets backed up with vehicles trying to turn left onto Southcenter Boulevard, especially at peak travel times. Because of insufficient parking at the multifamily complexes along 65th Ave S, the street is continuously lined with parked cars creating a hazard as people enter and exit those vehicles. The proposed up -zone site is located just a block or two from Tukwila Elementary school. Traffic congestion already occurs when students are being dropped off or picked up from school. The route 1 238 along 151' is used by school children to walk to the elementary school as well as by other pedestrians and bicyclists. Adding up to 65 new households to this area would increase traffic congestion and possibly street parking and would reduce safety for school children and other pedestrians. The housing element of the comprehensive plan was thoroughly vetted by the City Council over a two-year period from March 2013 through adoption in the spring of 2015. Community input was gathered through open houses and public comment and each section of the plan was reviewed and discussed. The plan addressed housing density and identified the Tukwila Urban Center, Tukwila International Boulevard and Tukwila South as three areas targeted for multifamily housing and increased density. This density has been and continues to be realized with at least three residential complexes developed in the Southcenter area, Tukwila Village on the boulevard and possibly apartment housing in Tukwila South. Rather than respond to the desire of a single property owner, the in-depth work of the Council on the comprehensive plan should be honored and the current low density residential zoning retained. At the March 2020 public meeting on this subject, the developer said the reason for requesting the zoning change is to increase their return on investment. As stated by one resident, "We believe the role of government is to protect the interest of all the people that it serves, not just those who stand to gain from maximizing their profit margin from a development such as this". Lastly, one of the stated goals of the comprehensive plan is to preserve neighborhoods. Adding this level of density would change the character of the neighborhood - forever. Please reject the request for a zoning change on this property. Thank you, Peggy McCarthy CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 239 Nancy Eklund From: Maxwell Baker Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:32 PM To: Nancy Eklund Subject: Fw: hopper townhouses E19-0013 FYI, may need a reply. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: rcwieser@comcast.net <rcwieser@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:03 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Cc: karenlenise@comcast.net <karenlenise@comcast.net>; CityCouncil <CityCouncil@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: hopper townhouses E19-0013 Mr. Baker: Regarding public comments for project #E19-0013, L19-0123, the Hopper Townhouses; though the comment period expired March 30, 2020, may I offer a couple of observations? As a proponent of the "New Urbanism," I welcome Hopper Townhouses to our neighborhood. The density of townhouses rather than the sprawl that has defined Tukwila is refreshing. As townhouses are more affordable it will encourage economic and ethnic diversity. As a neighborhood resident, I believe it important the design and placement of the homes fits the character of the neighborhood as "Foster Hill" has many early 20t' Century homes. Will this development enhance the neighborhood by mirroring design of these legacy homes? Will the design be open and inviting? Will it enhance neighbor interaction? Will it encourage walking, bicycling and space for children to play. I commend the developer for including recreation space. The proposed street design currently posted on the MUP sign does not address a question regarding placement of homes. It is unclear if front door access to those homes bordering S 151' St and 62nd Ave South will be from those streets. Or will the back of the houses be facing 151sY and 62nd. If the latter, there is strong probability a tall privacy fence will border those streets. Or, the homes will be defined by a garage/driveway sticking out like a pig snout. Privacy fences are a safety concern. Tukwila School is just one block away. Many children walk along those streets. Check out existing homes on 151' St. with tall fences. Imagine the same thing just across the street. Privacy fences on both sides can prove dangerous to a child's safety. Danger from cars, from bullies, and yes, danger from abduction. Privacy fences prevent homeowners from "keeping an eye on the street." i 240 Privacy fences, especially close to sidewalks, detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And impact resale values. Will existing sidewalks that border the street remain? A Mother remarked she will never walk along such streets with Baby in stroller. "Some car can be flying down the street, jump the curb and smack into us." Just a 2' to 3' buffer with low plantings between sidewalk and street can mitigate that. Regarding the storm pond, no doubt a fence will be required. What sort of landscaping is required to soften the barrier and provide wildlife habitat? Thank you for reading this letter and for your service to the City of Tukwila. A copy of this letter is forwarded to City Council and Karen Simmons as she on Planning Commission and is neighbor. Richard McLeland-Wieser 14234 58th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98168 206-229-6123 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click (inks from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 241 https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Opposition Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 9:58 AM To: kkoma yemo <morningscent12@Outlook.com> Hi Saehee, Thank you for your comment. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: kkoma yemo <morningscent12@Outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 11:06 AM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Opposition Max Baker My name is Saehee Yim and I'm residing at 6380 S. 151st PI. Tukwila 98188 for 20yrs. This mail for sending my voice to oppose the Re -Zoning of 6250 S 151stStreet, the file number L19-0123 (Comp Plan/Zoning Amend). Here I'm submitting my voice to strongly oppose the plan. Sincerely Saehee Ymi TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 242 loft 3/30/2020, 9:58 AM Breyden Jager From: Talia Long <Iong.talia@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:50 AM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Questions/Concerns - L19-0123 Rezone (6250 S 151 st St) - Hopper Townhomes Greetings Mr. Jager: We are the owners and residents of a property in the culdesac across S. 151 st Place from the development proposed by Schneider Homes, Inc. on parcel #3597000400. First, we are pleased that Schneider Homes is the owner and developer of the proposed project. Our culdesac is a vintage 1980s Schneider Homes development. We appreciate the quality and attention to detail that Schneider put into our development, and we hope that Schneider will do the same for the proposed development. However, we have the following concerns: 1. A little less than three years ago we added our signatures to a letter from our culdesac neighbors opposing the rezoning of the subject parcel from low to mid density. We continue to oppose this rezoning. The subject parcel is approximately the same size as the cumulative size of the 14 parcels making up our culdesac, yet the proposal calls for 38 townhomes! Our culdesac and the other properties immediately west and north of parcel #3597000400 are all single-family dwellings. The density proposed for this project significantly changes the nature of our neighborhood. 2. A project of this size will significantly increase the traffic on the adjacent streets. Thirty-eight townhomes will add huge volume of resident, visitor, service, and delivery vehicles entering and exiting neighboring streets and pouring forth on Southcenter Blvd. This was a burden recognized in our comments nearly three years ago and is even more of a concern now that the new, enlarged fire station has opened nearby and there has been other residential development adjacent to the fire station. Where will all these vehicles enter and exit the project? Have there been provisions for adding traffic and pedestrian controls in the immediate neighborhood as well as adding a traffic signal, including a left turn signal, on Southcenter Blvd.? The two -right angle (blind) turns at either end of S.151 st Place in front of our culdesac will only become more dangerous with the addition of so many more vehicles and people. Will parking be prohibited on these streets? If parking is allowed on S. 151 st Place, our visibility will likely be severely limited when exiting the culdesac. 3. The horrible fire that took three lives and destroyed the apartment building adjacent to the proposed project site highlighted the problem of accessing and fighting a fire on the bluff overlooking Interurban Avenue. Has emergency fire, medical, police access to the eastern most portion of the project been sufficiently and safely addressed? 4. We understand that development necessitates removal of some vegetation and tree canopy. However, hopefully huge heritage trees will be saved, and project landscaping will provide for large scale plantings to help mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat and provide screening and additional landscaping will provide maximum erosion control. Sincerely, Talia and B.J. Long, Jr. P.E. Nelson 1 243 6241 S. 151st Pl. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 244 Nancy Eklund From: Maxwell Baker Sent: Monday, March 30'202O4:G8PK4 To: Travis Boyd Cc: Nancy Eklund Subject: Re: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for 62S0S1S1stSt Hi Travis, Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the projectfi|e.Youorenoxva Party ufRecord onthe project andvvi||benotifiedvvhenstaffreporbaneissuedasvve||asofanypub|ic hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila 6300Southcenter Blvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA9DlD8 Max.Baker@Tukw/i|avva.gov1IO6.431.36D3 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Travis Boyd «traysboyd2018@gmaiioonnx Sent: Monday, March 3O,20204:53PK4 To: Maxwell Baker xMax.Baker@Tuhwi|aVVA.gov> Subject: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for 6250S151stSt Travis Boyd / Deb Sorensen 677}S15]" P| Tukwila, WA4RlRN (706)741-3471 30 March 2020 City of Tukwila Dept. Of Community Development 6300Snn+6,eDterBkd.,Suite 100 WA 98188 Max Baker City Project Planner RE: File: ElQ-0O13 ,T'|9_0|?3 T»ln` Zoning Applicant: Hans Korve,DMP,Inc. 1.r0��IT���\�O�T.' 1'�lTlClO.Hopper 1 245 Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099 Project Location: 6250 S 151' St Mr. Baker, The recent proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential for the property located at 6250 S 151 st St is concerning to us as residents of the cul de sac on S 151 st Pl. The proposed change to MDR would include a change from up to 30 single-family homes to up to 65 multi -family townhomes being built. We understand the need for housing in the greater Seattle area and are not opposed to the development of the property into an LDR area. However, we are opposed to the proposed change to MDR for a number of reasons. Traffic is already an issue in the immediate area. Between Tukwila Elementary, Southcenter Boulevard, 1-5 and I-405, the Southcenter Mall, City Hall, and soon the new fire station 52 and Tukwila FD headquarters, the area simply cannot handle the major increase in traffic that the change to MDR will create. With the condos and apartments on 65th Ave S already creating traffic and parking problems in the area, it will be a struggle to accommodate the traffic created by the addition of 30 new homes, let alone 65. Combine all this with the busy morning and afternoon work traffic, construction, emergency vehicle use, a school day at the elementary school, and add in the absence of traffic lights and you've pushed an already hectic commute to an unsafe capacity. The fact of the matter is that this area cannot handle the major increase in traffic that the proposed change to MDR will generate. Another concern of ours is the environmental impact this proposed development will have. The trees on the property should be assessed for viability. Any time there is a storm in the area, you are almost guaranteed to have one of those trees fall. The earth movement involved in the construction process will only add to this problem. How about the increase in water usage, sewer, run-off, and waste? What effect will this have on the surrounding area? It is our belief that it will take a great deal of work to accommodate 30 new homes, let alone 65. Recreation space is already at a premium in this area as the lone park, Tukwila Park, currently has a full or near -full parking lot and constant use. How would the city respond to the need for increased recreation space? We have not seen or heard anything regarding an environmental impact report, which is concerning to say the least. Lastly, just some other miscellaneous concerns we have. The plans we've seen have not included overflow parking (something that is already an issue in the area). What will be done to account for the increase in noise in the neighborhood? With the fire station moving down the hill and conceivably responding to more calls with the addition of more homes, how can the city justify the change to MDR and the massive increase in traffic with no new road accommodations? We ask that the Schneider Homes proposal to re -zone the area from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential be denied. We are supportive of building a small number of 2 246 single-family homes on the property but to change the zoning to MDR and build up to 65 townhomes would create a plethora of problems in an area that was not designed for and is not capable of housing that many residents. Sincerely, Travis Boyd Deb Sorensen CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 247 illiam James/Clotilde olina 14920 62nd Avenue South Tukwila, A 98168 (206) 375-1323 . .j es@co c . e (206) 383-2536 cleo oI@co c s . et arch 17, 2020 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard., Suite 100 Tukwila,Washington 98188 ax Baker/Department of Community Development (206) 431-3683 or . er@ u i1 . ov RE: File #: E19-0013 (SEPA), L19-0123 (Comp Plan, Zoning Amend) Applicant: Hans Korve, DMP, Inc. Property Owner: Patricia Hopper Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099 Project Location: 6250 South 151st Street, Rezone from LDR o DR. Develop a Maximum of 65 Townhomes. Dear Mr. Baker: Recently, we received a notice regarding a proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential for the area to the immediate south of our property, on which we have resided for twenty years. This change proposes multi -family dwelling units — specifically 65— townhomes, instead of what is currently in place in our neighborhood single family homes. We are very concerned about what this change could mean for our neighborhood and we are opposed to this proposal. 248 First, is the issue of increased vehicular traffic. 62nd Avenue South currently has as much traffic as it can bear, especially during school days when parents drop-off and pick up their children from school. There are also a multitude of cars using our street to come from our nearby freeways, South Center, Costco, and other shopping and restaurant areas to their homes in our surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, we have a fire station close by that uses this street to respond to calls. Adding 65 more housing units would add considerably more traffic to this immediate neighborhood and would pose a risk to the number of children and parents walking to/from school, residents walking to/from the bus stop on Southcenter Parkway, recreational and dog walkers, as well as, bike riders. This neighborhood was not designed nor can it tolerate this kind of increase in traffic. Second, we have heard nothing about an environmental impact statement. Our initial questions include: 1) how will 65 more housing units impact the amount of water usage — water run-off, sewer, etc.? 2) what will the impact of approximately 250 more people and automobiles have on our air quality? 3) how can our very small, lovely little Tukwila Park tolerate the level of ensuing overuse anticipated? 4) Assuming that at least some/most households will have a pet, how will the increase of pet waste and pet dander impact our land areas as well as our wild life — cats kill an enormous number of birds every single day and careless, inconsiderate dog owners leave piles of dog poop in our yard as well as on our neighbors' yards, let alone the amount of dog and cat urine that will naturally go into ground water. Finally, this neighborhood has been a relatively peaceful, quiet neighborhood with relatively low crime. We are very concerned that with the influx of so many more people, the quality of our neighborhood will be changed forever. We ask that this proposal be denied and that, instead, Schneider Homes build a small number of single-family homes, which is what we understood would originally happen to this property when it was sold. Sincerely, ZUelP.iaot PaHxe¢ eeatC2de NoPuia cc: Mayor Ekberg, Tukwila City Council 2 249 March 30,302O David &LavaTomlinson 6360S151s1P| Tukwila, WA 98188 Tukwila City Council 6ZODSouthcenterBlvd Tukwila, VVA98l8A Members of the Tukwila City Council, Please find attached 17 letters of opposition to the rezone of the property located at 6Z5OSl61stStreet (File #s:Ll9-OlZ3 &E19-OOl3).These letters are signed by36individuals who currently reside in the immediate vicinity of the property and were collected in accordance with the social distancing guidelines currently in place. We believe we could have collected even more signatures during normal times. VVehave provided amap onthe following page indicating the location of the property in question (yellow), as well as the location of those opposed tothe proposed rezone (red rnarkers\. VVehope you will hear the voices ofthose who will be most significantly impacted by this proposed measure and vote against it. VVethank you for your time and consideration inthis matter. 1 250 2 251 Subj t: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): and I (we) reside at: (2,2r'‘ kv IleVrigegikeisi 14 4 t As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I arn strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. 1 am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which 1 live. 1 urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this pr000sed measure and vote against it: I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter: Signed: Signed: Sign Sign viszieresev Date. 04‘1.,t4 2- Date: Date: Date: 252 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, y name is (our names are): _no and I (we) reside ati '16 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. 1 am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health. livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sionedm 7\0:: Sighed4 Signed:y_ Signed._ Date: Date: Date. Datei 253 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, S-Ve eixclot-3 04-5-1.3n My ame nis (r ame ouns are): \.)esst(c..„, k AU - and I (we) reside at: \Li 9 S) (92-11/44'4 A —It\ ;lid\ t11) As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Date: 3/26/2-0 Signed: Date: 1 i72/ Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 6 254 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): and I (we) reside at: /LH ilk C 4.„ 41.161M,J, As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: 7 Date: Date: Date: 255 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): — 114C-)cx L and I (we) reside at: ") As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighbcrhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signe : Signed :, Date: 27z2cL Date: e f / Date: 3"2 Signed: Date: 256 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are. '-<,1 and I (we) reside at: ) As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Date: -1 Signed: I: ,. , ‘„,. ',17 ,",,. Date: , ' Sig ned6) - ,.)„.„:„2._ , t: . tol ate. : , Signed: Date: 257 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): ex:rte.\ and I (we) reside at: (72 0 -2- -1" I ,,) As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Date: Date: 258 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): ?"). 1 and I (we) reside at: C 141 P As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: i ) Date: Signed: Date: Signed: D'2,ate: Date: 259 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): VA. and (we) reside at: L3 5 P nc-ei TV3Ck v3 t5 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed:, Signed: Signed: ate: 5- DAI RD ate: 3- 7.- - ate: 3 2(01202,0 Date: 260 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are). 1,1.14 and (we) reside at: ( $r/ /bre .11/7 rte./4 creer'r. As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. re',1 rtEfr-,;r4 I„ Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 261 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are t and I (we) reside at: • As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which 1 live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: . Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Date: Date: 262 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): S q's--% 1"71-1-111V-e- c- and I (we) reside at: 6 -3 1-S- 1 z As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: 5 Ae Signed: L-11 a4/4_, W Signed: Date: 3/Z/zz Date: Date: Signed: Date: 263 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): xt,,(....ct,1 1\4 and I (we) reside at: t i2 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 264 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): aa If - and I (we) reside at: \jea g_WOna vU49',WPS/ As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 5 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: (93/Q-7/6262-0 Date: (9:7 1,200 Date: Date: Signed: Date: 1 0 265 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): 7") ,21v2J / 4 "j,. C • V? and I (we) reside at: As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: 27 44--e62(2°'e Date: 3/ ,--1-1ZCZ.K., Date: Date: 266 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are). and I (we) reside at: 11; '5/ ) As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, 1 am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of ow density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. .?' Signed/- i' ___1,.., / i Signed: li,v', '''' / Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Date: 267 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): a eo ( 5(44- P and I (we) reside at: As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sign Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Signed: Date: 268 Breyden Jager From: Sheryl Havens <sherylhavens3@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 11:22 AM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Re: Schneider Homes rezone application Thank you, Breyden. Unfortunately, the over development in Tukwila is destroying our beautiful green spaces and habitats for our critters. They are being forced out and it's very sad. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 9, 2024, at 9:11 AM, Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@tukwitawa.gov> wrote: Hello Sheryl, Thank you for providing public comment on this matter. Your comments will be added to the record. Respectfully, Breyden Jager (He/Him) I Associate Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3651 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. Original Message From: Sheryl Havens <sherylhavens3@gmait.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 5:16 PM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwitaWA.gov> Subject: Schneider Homes rezone application Hello Brayden, I will be unable to attend the meeting regarding the rezoning application submitted by Schneider Homes at 6250 S 151 st St. Tukwila, WA 98188. Please consider this email in lieu of my presence at the meeting. As a 23-year resident in that neighborhood, I regularly walk by 6250 S 151 st St. and 1 can tell you that it is a nesting area for bald eagles and an ecosystem that supports wildlife. Therefore, I want to voice my disapproval. I do not think any development should happen on that property because it will destroy the wildlife habitat, especially that of our endangered bald eagles. As a Tukwila citizen, 1 say no to Medium Density Residential there and I say no to any kind of development on that property. Thank you, S. Havens 1 269 Sunwood Condominium community Sent from my iPad CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Notice: F ails and attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW), Ti This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 270 2 DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn,WA 98002 TEL: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 EMAIL: dmp@dmp-inc.us August 12, 2022 City of Tukwila. Nancy Eklund 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukvvila, VVA 98188 RE: Hopper Townhomes—Comprehensive Plan Alteration Request LDR to MDR 6250 S 151ST ST, Tukwila. — Parcel No. 359700-0400 Dear Ms. Eklund: Thank you for the opportunity to review the public comment received after the Neighborhood meeting. We would like to offer a reply to some of the comments. Many comments are either identical or similar enough that the information provided below should cover all the issues raised. Nicholas Webb - March 16, 2020 • Housing Choice - The resident expressed support for additional housing in Tukwila, and specifically for the proposed townhome development. " My family, as a specific example, would like to move from a condo into a larger townhome or a single family home, but the selection in our area is quite constricted and prices are high, thus I'm in favor of adding more supply" The Applicant appreciates the Residents support and recognition that the region needs increased ownership opportunities for the widest variety of families. Not everyone can afford a, large lot, single-family house. 2. William James — March 17, 2020 Increased Traffic- The resident is concerned about increased traffic during school hours. It is clear that some of the new residents will have school age children who will likely walk two blocks northwest to the adjacent 271 Elementary School. Children are currently dropped off on S 149th St. which is one block north and one block west of the project entrance. There are sidewalks on both sides of 62nd Ave S. and S. 151st St surrounding the proposed project. Sidewalks extend south to Southcenter Blvd. During school hours the speed limit in the area is reduced and crossing guards control traffic flow around the school. The proposed entrance point to the new community is located on the south end of the property. Assuming that most residents leaving for work will do so before school starts, and also assuming that the majority of residents would continue south, away from the school, the number of potential drivers traveling North during school drop off times is minimal. The same is true during school pick-up times. The majority of residents will still be working when school lets out and the entrance to the Community is located south of the school. A review of the available information indicates that the intersection at 65th Ave S. and Southcenter Blvd is operating well within standards and that no signalization of the intersection is planned. There is no indication of a capacity issue or identified safety concerns in the area. • Environmental Concerns — The residents refers to an EIS. We assume he is referring to a SEPA checklist. The concerns about sewer and water capacity relate to availability certificates from the service providers. To the best of our knowledge, there are no capacity issues in the City of Tukwila. The issues of traffic that are raised are addressed above. The issue of air quality is not generally regulated at the City level. The State Department of Ecology recently discontinued "SMOG" testing of cars because the State air quality has improved so much as to make it unnecessary. Concerns were also expressed about the overuse of Tukwila Park. We are unaware of any capacity issues with Tukwila Park. It is unlikely that residents of the new community will make use of the nearby facility simultaneously. The City code also requires that recreation facilities be provided within the project site. It is likely that these on -site facilities will meet most of the new residents needs. We are unclear how to respond to the concerns over pets. It is unlikely that this new community will precipitate such an influx of uncontrolled domestic animals as to create an ecological impact. • Quality of Life — While we sympathize with the resident and his desire to avoid change, we feel it is inappropriate to associate the creation of a new community with an increase in crime. The surrounding neighborhood is replete with Medium and High density residential projects. Canyon Estates, Parkview and Maple Crest Apartments are within 1 or 2 blocks of the project site. Terra Tukwila, Sunwood, North Hill, Hill Crest and Heatherwood Apartments are also in the immediate vicinity. The resident has identified the Neighborhood as peaceful, quiet and low crime. With the large number of high density communities in the area, we fully expect the proposed Townhomes to follow that proud tradition. 272 Page 12 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes 3. Bonnie Wong- March 22, 2020 • Traffic -As indicated above, the intersection at 65th Ave S and Southcenter Blvd is operating freely and there are no identified capacity issues. There are no plans to install a signalized intersection. • School Hours and Left Turns - The resident identifies speeding on Southcenter Blvd during school hours as an issue. It is unclear how the traffic on Southcenter Blvd impacts Tukwila Elementary a half mile to the northwest. The intersection in question has significant signage indicating heavy cross walk use. Two Rapid Ride stops are located at the intersection and transit users cross Southsenter Blvd on -foot on a regular basis without incident. It can be assumed that if pedestrians can cross Southcenter Blvd. during commute hours, then drivers should be able to make a left or right turn without significant trouble. • Emergency Vehicles- We are unclear how to respond to this comment. The addition of 30 to 40 townhome units should have no negative impact on the ability of Emergency units to navigate the surrounding streets with use of emergency lighting. • 65th Ave S. Parking — A review of 65th Ave S finds that the curb to curb measurement is approximately 38' wide. This allows for the provision of parking on either side of the roadway and two 11' or 12' travel lanes. There are no indications of any restriction of the traveled way. • Tree Viability — The tree report has been submitted to Staff and it is available for public review on the City Website. • CoVid 19 — We are unclear how to respond to this comment. We assume the business of City Government continues. • Affordability — The Applicant has not indicated that the proposed project is "Affordable Housing". The project proposes to construct fee -simple, owner occupied, townhomes that are more attainable by a larger segment of the population than large lot single-family homes. The project is middle ground between the Apartments in the surrounding area and exclusive single- family communities. 4. Joseph Roppo — March 25, 2020 • Ugly Building — This is a Comprehensive Plan /Rezone application. The design review application will follow once a successful rezone has been approved. The Applicant has no intension to construct "Ugly buildings". Page 13 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes 273 • Density —The resident is concerned about project density and maintaining a sense of community. As previously described the surrounding neighborhood is replete with Medium and High density residential projects. Canyon Estates, Parkview and Maple Crest Apartments are within 1 or 2 blocks of the project site. Terra Tukwila, Sunwood, North Hill, Hill Crest and Heatherwood Apartments are also in the immediate vicinity. The resident has identified the Neighborhood as peaceful and quiet. With the large number of high density communities in the area, we fully expect the proposed Townhomes to follow that proud tradition. • School Traffic — The resident is concerned with the traffic associated with the drop-off and pick-up for school children at Tukwila Elementary. There also is a reference to speeding. It is unclear if the speeding is associated with the School drop off or at a different time. The Residents driveway appears to be located directly across from the Elementary School exit driveway. It can be assumed that traffic from the school has been present since the school opened. 5. David Tomlinson — March 27, 2020 • No comments. Mostly process related questions. 6. Patricia Perry — March 26, 2020 • Ms. Perry is in support of the proposed Comp Plan change. 7. Miles Mitchell — March 26, 2020 • Alternatives - The Resident is opposed to 65 units on the property and supportive of 30 units with no explanation given. The Applicants original proposal was 38 units based on available information. 8. Hugh Tobin — March 30, 2020 • Alternatives — The resident proposes that the City complete a wholesale revision of its zoning code and development regulations rather than to review the disposition of a single lot that is surrounded by higher density housing and within walking distance of the largest employment and transit center in the area. The resident makes reference to "very low income households". The Applicant proposal is to create a more attainable housing option for residents while still maintaining the principal of home ownership. The Applicant proposes a middle income neighborhood and not a low income community. It is unclear why the comparison seems to be offered. The Resident goes on to propose what appears to be a cluster housing provision to the LDR zone. This proposal would not increase density but it would reduce unit size and required shared walls. With no reduction in development costs, utility costs, mitigation costs or improvement costs, it is difficult to see how creating a less marketable housing type, with no 274 Page 14 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes increase in unit count and no decrease in project cost would result in a more affordable housing option ? • SEPA —The resident makes general statements about "checking yes" without a specific reference. The same is true for the "insufficient study" comment. The Applicant has provided a full Geotechnical review, Arborist report and Wetland study. No other reports are required at this time. There are additional general statements with no clear reference to any relevant documentation that the Applicant can respond to. We have no additional response at this time. If the Resident would provide specific references or explanations, we will respond. We would also remind the Resident that this is a Comprehensive Plan Alteration /Rezone. It should also be noted that the original purpose of SEPA was to address environmental impacts at a time at which few environmental regulations were in place. Much of the SEPA process is rendered redundant by the current adopted codes. (shorelines, wetland, steep slope, grading, tree preservation, stormwater, traffic mitigation, endangers species act, Traffic Concurrency, water/sewer availability, etc) • Previous Owner — The Applicant was made aware of the dumping violations that occurred under the previous owner. The Applicant has worked with Staff to determine the extent of the dumping. Both the Wetland Biologist and Geotechnical Engineer found no evidence of contaminated soils. It is unclear what impact the minor soil imports would have on a Comp Plan /Rezone application? Any non-structural soil would be removed during the construction phase of the project. This previous condition has no impact on the SEPA determination. The issue is being addressed through the existing code enforcement process. • Commitment — The Resident identifies the difference between the Applicant's current proposal and the theoretical number of allowed units. The Applicants proposal is a Comp Plan / Rezone application to MDR based on the available urban services and surrounding land uses. The applicant proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and would further support public transit. The Applicant acknowledges the total allowable density and also calls attention to numerous elements of the development code that make attaining that number a "Catch 22". The Applicants impacts are addressed by the adopted codes under a 65 or a 38 unit development proposal. Page 15 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes 275 9. Hugh Tobin — March 30, 2020 (Storm water Email) • Stormwater - The Resident points to p.17, tem c. of the SEPA checklist related to stormwater flow. The Resident calls into question the statement that stormwater with be "infiltrated to the greatest extent possible". While the Resident is correct that portions of the site or adjacent properties contain a steep slope, that does not relieve the Applicant from following the Low Impact Development requirements of the adopted Stormwater Manual. As the resident is no doubt aware, all properties are required to infiltrate storm water on -site "to the greatest extent possible". When it is shown that such infiltration is not possible, the remainder of the Stormwater Manual dictates the extensive calculations, and analysis required to develop the on -site stormwater system to address all of the stormwater generated by the project. As with all development, projects discharge at the pre -development rate to the downstream system. The Applicant proposal will likely construct a massive underground tank structure to retain and treat the anticipated stormwater runoff under the proposed park. If it is determined during the Engineering design phase that downstream improvements are required, then those improvements will be installed per the adopted standards. As previously indicated, SEPA is not required to determine stormwater impacts in the presence of the adopted Stormwater Manual. • Trail no. 4 — In a continuation of the impromptu downstream analysis begun under the previous comment, the Resident indicates that there has been recent flooding on Tukwila Trail no. 4 and expressed concern for pedestrians who could use it during winter months. As previously indicated, the project will construct an on -site detention facility per the adopted manual, it will not discharge water beyond the predevelopment rate and the project will improve downstream facilities found to be deficient. It should also be noted that residents are unlikely to use this unpaved, unlit recreation trail during heavy rain events when 65th Ave S provides 2 paved and lit sidewalks connecting the project site to Southcenter Mall and 2 transit stops. 10. Jeff Thoelke - March 30, 2020 • Trash and Parking — The Resident expresses a concern over the current condition of 65th Ave S. As previously discussed, 65th Ave S. has designated parking lanes and ample travel width to accommodate unobstructed through traffic. Parking has no impact on vehicle travel. A review of the area also indicates that much of the area parking is overnight and on weekends. This is presumably because local residents are at work during the week. It should be restated that the Applicant proposal is specifically designed to promote home 276 Page i6 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes ownership and not transient housing as specifically indicated in the Comp Plan criteria response. • Speeding — The resident expresses a concern for pedestrian safety in the presence of "speeding "cars. 65th Ave S. has sidewalks on both sides that are lit and separated from the travel lanes by parked cars. We do not see a concern for pedestrian safety. The Resident goes on to describe cars speeding past his house in excess of 40 mph proceeding south. While we agree that some residents could be more respectful of the speed limit, it is difficult to understand cars proceeding towards two right angle intersections spaced 600' apart at such a speed. We are also assuming that these "speeding" incidents are not happening during school hours. We would recommend the City conduct a speed study at the S. 149th / 62nd Ave S. intersection. • Traffic Light — As previously indicated. Current information from the City of Tukwila indicates that no traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of 65th Ave S. and Southcenter Blvd. Some delays entering the traffic flow of a major arterial from a side street are expected. There have been no significant issues reported related to access to and from the Rapid Ride bus tops at the same intersection. It is also not clear how the construction of the new Fire Station relates to traffic in the area. When in use, emergency vehicles have the right of way and Fire Stations generally do not generate excessive traffic. 11. Dave Tomlinson — March 30, 2020 • Trees —The resident expressed a concern for the trees on the site and their enjoyment of the trees located on the Applicant's property. It should be noted that many of the trees on the subject property are diseased and ill health from years of neglect. It should also be noted that a majority of the on -site trees will be removed as the result of any development proposal. Given the required utility improvements, road construction, house placement and the required tree protection zones, few existing trees will remain under the current zoning. The site will be replanted with more appropriate trees that can grow safely and will not threaten to damage or destroy future homes. It must also be noted that the City requires a landscape buffer around townhome developments. It should also be pointed out that the commenter is living in a neighborhood that was cleared of trees when it was developed and that the existing trees were planted by Schneider Homes at the time of construction. Page 17 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes 277 • New Homes — The Residents states that 30 Single -Family homes can be placed on the property. It should be noted that under no scenario would it be possible to develop 30 SF homes on a parcel this size. This excludes the need for roads, slope setbacks, landscape buffers, storm water facilities, tree retention and recreation requirements. Developing the site with Single-family homes would result in a clearing of the site and the creation of fewer, more expensive homes. While this would increase the overall housing stock, it would not create homes that are more attainable by a wider segment of the working population. • Townhome Example — The Resident states that he toured a similar townhome development in an adjacent City and has determined that this is proof of the tree impacts. As previously stated, any development of this site will result in clearing of a large portion of the site. We would like to point out that the attached picture was taken from the far side of the storm water pond. It is clear that the image was staged for maximum visual effect. It is also clear that the Resident is not aware of the previous condition of the subject property. There was an incorrect assumption that the property was forested prior to construction. We feel it is always important to make accurate representation when making comparisons. • Traffic — The Resident referenced a number of traffic related issues. The first was a general comment about access to Southcenter Blvd. As previously stated, there are no identified issues with the subject intersection. The City Traffic Division has no plans to install a traffic light at this location. The Residents comment is purely anecdotal. The second comment related to the number of parents picking -up and dropping -off students at Tukwila Elementary and its impact on adjacent driveway access. Tukwila elementary is located northwest of the project site and well past the proposed access point of the project. Pick-up and drop-off times for the Elementary school are also generally outside normal commuting hours. It is unclear how the addition of 38 townhomes would have any impact on what is described as the existing condition adjacent to the Elementary School. The third identified issue related to existing parking patterns along 65th Ave S. The comment inferred that parking standards for the adjacent apartment complexes were insufficient to accommodate the existing number of cars. This results in on -street parking along 65th. The additional inference is that this parking situation in inherently dangerous. At this time, there are no known pedestrian safety issues in the area. There are no reported pedestrian accidents related to the described parking. The comments are then tied to a possible increase in parking issues as related to the proposed project. As previously indicated, the proposed 278 Page 18 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes parking will provide all required on -site parking. No on -street parking is proposed. It also needs to be said that it is inappropriate to do a detailed project review of a Comprehensive Plan alteration request. Once an alteration is approved, the Applicant still needs to develop and submit a detailed development proposal that is compliant with all the applicable development codes. • COVID- While we agree that Covid has caused disruption of what we all consider to be "Normal Life" society has adjusted and every municipality is currently using remote participation for development review meetings, City Council meetings and Public Hearings. The State Legislature also conducted business through remote access. Most communities have returned to normal operation at this time. It is inappropriate to think that normal City Business should be halted for an indefinite time period for this project while other elements of municipal life continue to move forward. It should also be noted that while the applicant appreciates the concerns expressed for his financial wellbeing, it is inappropriate to use speculative market analysis as the basis for public policy decisions. The Puget Sound area is experiencing an unprecedented housing crisis. Attainable housing is an issue faced by communities in every County. Providing housing options to the widest portion of the population is an adopted goal of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.The Applicant's proposal meets that goal and a number of others. The Comprehensive Plan is a tool to guide growth into the future. The Applicant's proposal is to meet the needs of the present by providing attainable homes for the future residents of Tukwila. The proposal is to include a more diverse segment of the population in the dream of homeownership and not support a continuation of the more exclusive development patterns of the past. 12. Michael J. Moore — March 29, 2020 • Quiet neighborhood — While we understand that no one likes change, the description of the area as a quiet single family residential neighborhood is not entirely accurate. As previously stated, the area has historically been a mixture of high, medium and lower density development. There are a number of existing apartment and townhome developments adjacent to the project site. • Traffic — As with many other residents, Mr. Moore identified traffic as a concern. As previously discussed, 65th Ave S. has designated parking lanes and ample travel width to accommodate unobstructed through traffic. Parking has no impact on vehicle travel. The proposed development will provide on - Pace 19 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes 279 site parking per the applicable code. S. 151st St. and 62nd Ave S, are public streets. The Applicant will rely on the City of Tukwila to determine if parking is appropriate in the ROW. The proposed community does not reply on street front parking. It should be restated that the Applicant proposal is specifically designed to promote home ownership and not transient housing as specifically indicated in the Comp Plan criteria response. Schools — We appreciate the Residents concern for the children of the proposed neighborhood. He is correct that the proposed development may someday house new school aged children. However the estimated number of children is likely exaggerated and the School District has not expressed any concerns over capacity in the school. I would remind the resident that School populations are not static and children regularly leave the school and move to Middle school. We thank Staff for this opportunity to review the public comments and provide our response. While we understand that change is sometimes unsettling, the proposed alteration is in keeping with the guidance provided by the Comprehensive Plan. Tukwila needs to provide housing options that can serve a variety of community needs. The proposal is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and will improve the overall quality of the neighborhood. Unlike some nearby communities, this proposal will offer home ownership to families at a more reasonable price point while protecting the nearby sensitive areas. In its current iteration, the proposed site plan has been altered to reflect Staffs desire for a large open space at the corner of S. 151st St. and 62nd Ave S. Approval of the proposed alteration will allow for the preservation of this large open area. If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 333-2200 Sinc rely, Hans Korve DMP. Inc. 280 Page 110 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes Breyden Jager From: Hans Korve <hans@dmp-inc.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 12:48 PM To: Breyden Jager; 'Zach Schneider' Cc: 'David Toyer' Subject: RE: Schneider Homes rezone application_Public Comment_Reply Breyden Thanks for the public comment. We have contacted the Biologist who did the original report. He does not recall finding any nest on site and he does not recall any nest listed with the WDFW Priority Habitats mapping website.(See Pg. 3 and 6 of his report dated April 20, 2020) We have asked him to make a site survey and confirm his original findings. We will forward his report when it is ready. Given that we were just informed of the issue, we are not confident of having the report before the 11th Please include this email as our reply until the report can be issued. Thanks Hans Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Engineering - Auburn Tel 253-333-2200 Cell 425-444-3240 Website: www.dmp-inc.us Original Message From: Sheryl Havens <sherylhavens3@gmait.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 5.16 PM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwitaWA.gov> Subject: Schneider Homes rezone application Hello Brayden, I will be unable to attend the meeting regarding the rezoning application submitted by Schneider Homes at 6250 S 151 st St. Tukwila, WA 98188. Please consider this email in lieu of my presence at the meeting. As a 23-year resident in that neighborhood, I regularly walk by 6250 S 151 st St. and I can tell you that it is a nesting area for bald eagles and an ecosystem that supports wildlife. Therefore, I want to voice my disapproval. I do not think any development should happen on that property because it will destroy the wildlife habitat, especially that of our endangered bald eagles. As a Tukwila citizen, I say no to Medium Density Residential there and I say no to any kind of development on that property. i 281 Thank you, S. Havens Sunwood Condominium community Sent from my iPad CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Notice: Emails and attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW), Ti This email originated from outside the City of Tukwita network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click tinks from an unknown or suspicious origin. Notice: Emais and attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW). This email originated from outside the City of Tukwita network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 282 TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. DAVID TOYER, PRESIDENT 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1 EVERETT, WA 98201 425-322-5226 I toyerstrategic.com HEARING MEMORANDUM October 10, 2024 Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 APPLICATION: L19-0123 (ON REMAND) REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Dear Councilors: Our land use and economic development planning firm represents the Applicant on its proposed rezone and land use map amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). We concur with November 2023 and October 2024 staff reports, which recommended approval of the rezone as consistent with the decision criteria for such amendments. In the lead up to the 2023 hearing on this proposal, the city received comments from the public expressing concerns that the rezone would lead to more undesirable development types (e.g. apartments) and that it would further impact area traffic, as well as wetlands on the site. Lastly, some commentors expressed concern about parking, the buffer between the project and adjacent residences, and the maximum development area of the site and related removal of trees. The Applicant has been clear about its intended development of the site for townhomes. The rezone to MDR enables the Applicant to create 64 townhomes on the site instead of what would otherwise be 29 single family homes (SFUs) and 29 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) permitted under the LDR zoning. While the difference between 64 townhomes and 58 SFUs/ADUs may seem small, the distinction between these product types is significant because townhomes are a needed middle housing type. In response to citizen comments regarding traffic and wetland impacts, the Applicant hereby submits a 2019 Critical Areas Report from Seawall Wetland Consulting and a 2024 Trip Generation Comparison Memorandum from TENW. These reports reach two significant conclusions that conclusively address public concerns and questions: • there are no critical areas on the site - i.e. no wetlands on site, despite public impression to the contrary • maximum development under the MDR rezone would result in 174 fewer daily vehicle trips than development under the current LDR zone due to the types of residential units While the Applicant does not necessarily plan to develop to the maximum extent allowed under the MDR zoning, if a rezone is approved, the Applicant has provided analysis with that assumption in mind so that there can be no mis-impression as to the development differences (or lack thereof) between the LDR and MDR zone. Were the rezone to be denied, the Applicant would anticipate developing the site to the maximum extent feasible, so therefore we have also analyzed all zoning considerations based on the maximum density allowed under that zone. Compatibility with Surrounding Zoning The larger area in which the Applicant's property is located contains a broad range of zoning. The property is bounded to the east by a roadway and High Density Residential (HDR). The properties to the north are zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) but immediately change to HDR just a few parcels north without any transition overlays or setbacks. The property to the west is LDR. To the south is a mix of LDR, arterial, and MDR. In their 2023 Staff Report, City Staff concluded that a rezone to MDR would have a "minimal difference in magnitude of [] impacts relative to what could occur under existing conditions" and the "impact is not expected to be significant." That remains the case today, under this remand review. 283 In its original review, the prior City Council discussed the theory of a transition or buffer area between zones. It has been nearly a year between that Council's review, the Court review finding that Council's decision to be erroneous, and this Council's review. Despite that passage of time, the City has chosen not to adopt any sort of transition or buffer between zones, to the contrary, the City is discussing increased zoning flexibility and density across the City. Granting the Applicant's rezone based on the years -old application is entirely consistent with the City's long-range planning direction. The idea of isolating the Applicant's property to create a transition between zones, especially given the mix of zoning, topography and existing uses, was and remains unsupported by City Code and the facts on the ground. Parking Figure 18-7 of the Tukwila Municipal Code shows that the requirement for parking is based on the number of bedrooms, not the underlying zone. Thus, the parking requirement for single and multifamily units, whether they are in the LDR or MDR zone is the same. Landscape Buffering Table A in Chapter 18.52 demonstrates that regardless of whether the site is zoned LDR or MDR, the side and rear landscaping requirements are that of a 10 foot, Type 1 landscape buffer. This constitutes the minimum buffer, actual development may vary to provide for larger buffers depending on topography, project design (including considerations such as impervious surfaces, yards, open space), and retained trees. Tree Removal Regardless of whether the property is zoned LDR or MDR, future development is allowed a maximum development area of 75%.1 Further, regardless of the zone any future development of the site must comply with Chapters 18.52 and 18.54, which address landscaping and tree protection and removal. The only major difference between the two zones is that the proposed MDR zone will require the Applicant to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of recreation space per unit. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, David Toyer President 1 Applicant wishes to point out that clearing and grading is a very complex matter primarily driven by establishing the grades necessary to support utility (water, sewer, stormwater, etc.) connections and pedestrian connectivity, as well as trying to "balance" the site (i.e. limit import/export of fill by using what exists on the site). L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 2 OF 12 284 Supplemental Applicant Analysis Tukwila Municipal Code JN{) at 18.84.020 establishes criteria for determining whether to grant rozone, which the Applicant must demonstrate it meets. The following provides Applicant analysis isshown inblue, demonstrating how this proposal meets the criteria. 1. The proposed amendment tothe Zoning Map |oconsistent with the goals, objectives, andpoUcjeoofthe Comprehensive Plan. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan has a clear Vision that includes the following statements: * VVevalue the diversity nfour residents. * We encourage home ownership, and support both owners and renters in maintaining and improving their homes. * We support our families so they can thrive as caretakers for all family monnhons. including elders. The proposed rezone to MDR is consistent with this vision as it provides greater flexibility in the creation of housing options that serve a broader range of household sizes, types, and incomes, which supports diversity, attainable housing options, and stronger families. Community Image & Identify Element Goal 1.1 - A Community of Inviting Neighborhoods and Vibrant Business Districts The proposed rezone is consistent with at least one of the implementation strategies for Goal 1.1: "Continue to implement the Walk & Roll P|an.^ Asnoted inthe staff report, the rezone site isinthe Tukwila Hill neighborhood where sidewalks already exist on both sides of the road around the site. These sidewalks connect to nearby transit and to the city's system of trails (Figure 2, Walk & Roll Plan). The proposed rezone allows for greater housing type diversity and could create additional density in an area that promotes connectivity within the neighborhood as well as nearby transit. Housing Element Goal 3.1 - The City of Tukwila provides the City's fair share of regional housing. The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with countywide planning policies and muWcountyplanning policies that guide allocation nfhousing within the region. Under the current regional growth strategy, Tukwila is one of 16 cities in the region designated as a Core Cities regional geography. These 16 cities are responsible for accommodating 28% of the region's population and 35% of the region's employment growth. Tukwi|a'sshare ofthe housing growth target among the 10cities inits regional geography As noted in the staff report, Tukwila has been behind in meeting its current housing targets for 2035. These housing growth targets will increase for the planning horizon in 2044 and rezones like this will be necessary to encourage and accommodate housing growth within the city. Housing Policy 3.1.1 Provide sufficient zoned housing potential to accommodate future single- and multi -family households to meet the regional growth target of 4,800 new housing units by 2031. As mentioned in the staff report, which cites the 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report,/ Tukwila grew by only 130 housing units between 2006 and 2018, achievingjust 6% of its 2035 regional housing growth target of 5.020 in a 12-year period. Looking out to 3044, the city has n preliminary housing growth target of 6,500 units. To accommodate this growth and encourage a diverse range of housing options, the city L1Q-0123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 3OF12 will require rezones like the one the Applicant has proposed. Housing Policy 312 Work with residents and property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. As mentioned in the Applicant's initial analysis, the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment would help meet the need to provide housing to moderate income families and increase housing choices close totransit and employment opportunities. Further, the Applicant agrees with staff analysis that Western Washington has an existing housing deficit that will worsen without more housing production in communities like Tukwila. We also agree that the proposed rezone is consistent with establishing zoning transitions (tapering) between low density residential zoning and high -density residential zoning. Further, as the Applicant points out above, Tukwila has made limited progress towards meeting its regional housing target for 2035 let alone its higher target for 2044. The city must begin to look at reasonable measures to identify solutions for more housing production, especially the production of more diverse housing. When cities fall behind in meeting housing targets, they are required to consider "reasonable measures" which measures can include considering rezones like the Applicant has proposed. For direction see DP'22inthe 2O21King County Countywide Planning Pn|inies.o This rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is an opportunity for the city and the landowner (the Applicant) to create needed middle housing options that will help the city meet current and future housing needs. Housing Element Goal 3.2 - The City of Tukwila has safe, healthy and affordable homes for all residents in Tukwila. Applicant's proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment will allow for a greater diversity of housing types and is likely to result in additional density achieved on the subject property. Both outcomes help Tukwila provide homes for current and future residents, including existing residents that maybe looking toswitch from one housing type tnanother. Housing Policy 3.2.1 Provide zoning that allows a variety of housing throughout the City to allow for diverse, equitable neighborhoods. The proposed MDR zoning would outright allow for a greater range of housing types, including single family detached housing, zero lot line detached housing, senior housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomms(up tV4units per Uui|din6). Also, assisted living facilities are oconditional use inthe MDR zone. Housing Policy 322 Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning less than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be As mentioned above, the housing types permitted in the MDR zone would provide for greater housing diversity and may help the city achieve these goals. Housing Policy 3.2.3 Provide sufficient appropriate zoning for housing of all types, including government assisted housing, housing for|ow'inoomefmnni|ies.menufeoturedhousing,mu|tifami|yhousinQ,mndgrouphomesandfosteroane fani|ities, subject to conditions that appropriately integrate them into existing neighborhoods. L1Q{)123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 4OF12 286 The proposed MDR rezone would allowfora greater range of housingtypesto be provided on this property. Housing Element Goal 3.5 The City of Tukwila includes a full range of housing for persons in all stages of life and for all members ofour community. As mentioned above the proposed MDR rezone would provide an expanded range of housing options that could be development on the subject property - each of which has the potential to appeal to various persons in various stages of their life. Housing Element Goal 3.6 - Increase long-term residency in the city. Most housing types allowed within the MDR zone promote ownership opportunities. That said, the diversity of the housing types allowed would provide for a greater range ofalternatives that may provide more affordable housing options tnalarger segment nfthe population. Housing Policy 3.0.2 Encourage long-term residency by providing a range of home ownership options for persons in all stages of life. As mentioned above, the housing types permitted within the MDR zone provide a greater range of housing options - some of which will appeal to a greater range of persons in varying stages of their lives. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policy 811 Create a system of close -to -home recreation opportunities, aiming for a 1/4-mile to 1/2-mile travel distance between most residential uses and parks and recreation areas. The proposed MDR rezone islocated within the 1/2mile wa|kshmdfor transit (See Figure 1m-attached) and is within 1/2 mile radius of Tukwila Park, the Green River Trail, and Fort Dent Park (See Figure 2iv - attached). Residential Neighborhoods Policy 7.4.2 Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment and services at densities sufficient to promote wa|kinQ, bioyc|ing, transit and other alternatives to auto travel. A 2019 King County Geographic GHG Emissions Inventoryv found that among sources of emissions, land use contributes 5% while buildings and transportation contribute 46% and 43%, respectively. Thus, optimization of land use and building footprints near alternative modes oftransportation (e.g., transit, we|king, biking, etc.) is vitally important toreducing greenhouse gas emissions. Zoning changes within high -capacity walksheds like the one the Applicant has proposed contribute to decreased greenhouse gas emissions inthree ways. First they optimize land use bypermitting more density (Uui|ding)within the same clearing and grading limits. Second, they encourage more efficient housing types, which reduces building related emissions. Third, they connect ahigher concentration ofresidents to alternative modes of transportation, including high'oapacitytransit, walking paths, and bike paths, which are intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled and single occupant vehicle trips - contributors to transportation related greenhouse gas emissions. As mentioned earlier, the proposed MDR rezone is located within the 1/2 mile walkshed for transit and is within a 1/2 mile radius of Tukwila Park, the Green River Trail, and Fort Dent Park, as well as other trails and bike lanes. See attached Figures 1 3. Residential Neighborhoods Policy 7.5.3 Support single-family residential in -fill housing that is in harmony with the existing neighborhood as a means of L1Q-0123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 5OFt2 achieving adequate, affordable and/or diverse housing. The MDR zone allows for attached and detached housing types that are very similar in character and scale to single family detached housing but at slightly higher densities. Thus, the proposed rezone will help achieve more affordable and diverse housing while being in harmony with the existing neighborhoods (some of which were pre-GMA). CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY & REGIONAL GOALS Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, while governing Tukwila, is developed in conjunction with other cities, King County, and the region in order to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement that local comprehensive plans be consistent with countywide planning policies (CPPs) as well as multicounty planning policies (MPPs).vi v11 The Applicant hereby provides the following analysis to demonstrate that the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment are not only consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, but also consistent with the CPPs and MPPs, furthering countywide goals and policies, as well as the adopted regional growth strategy. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES (CPPs) CPP Policy DP-2 Prioritize housing and employment growth in cities and centers within the Urban Growth Area, where residents and workers have higher access to opportunity and high -capacity transit. Promote a pattern of compact development within the Urban Growth Area that includes housing at a range of urban densities, commercial and industrial development, and other urban facilities, including medical, governmental, institutional, and educational uses and schools, and parks and open space. The Urban Growth Area will include a mix of uses that are convenient to and support public transportation to reduce reliance on single -occupancy vehicle travel for most daily activities. The proposed MDR rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is located within a Core Cities geography under the regional growth strategy and the rezone site is within a 1/2 walkshed of major high -capacity transit. The site is adjacent to Tukwila Elementary School and within a 1/2 distance radius of Tukwila Park, the Green River Trail, and Fort Dent Park, as well as other trails and bike lanes. In sum, the rezone supports housing growth within a part of an Urban Growth Area where a pattern of compact development can provide for urban densities proximate to schools, parks, open spaces, employment, etc. Rezones of this type can help reduce reliance on single -occupancy vehicle trips and reduce total vehicle miles traveled. CPP Policy DP-4 Focus housing growth in the Urban Growth Area within cities, designated regional centers, countywide centers, locally designated local centers, areas of high employment, and other transit supported areas to promote access to opportunity. Focus employment growth within designated regional and countywide manufacturing/industrial centers and within locally designated local centers. The proposed MDR rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is located within the 1/2 mile walk -shed for high -capacity transit. Additionally, the rezone is within a Core Cities geography and proximate to a designated regional manufacturing/industrial center and a regionally designated Growth Center (North Tukwila MIC and Tukwila Regional Growth Center). Additional housing near employment centers is a key principle within the Regional Growth Strategy. CPP Policy H-12 Identify sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to income restricted housing; housing for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households; manufactured housing; multifamily L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 6 OF 12 288 housing; group homes; foster care facilities; emergency housing; emergency shelters; permanent supportive housing; and within an urban growth area boundary, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. Consistent with this policy, the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a greater range of housing types to be built, including duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. CPP Policy H-15 Increase housing choices for everyone, particularly those earning lower wages, that is co -located with, accessible to, or within a reasonable commute to major employment centers and affordable to all income levels. Ensure there are zoning ordinances and development regulations in place that allow and encourage housing production at levels that improve jobs housing balance throughout the county across all income levels. Consistent with this policy, the proposed rezone would create additional housing options within a reasonable commute of major employment centers, including the North Tukwila MIC and the Tukwila Growth Center. CPP Policy H-16 Expand the supply and range of housing types, including affordable units, at densities sufficient to maximize the benefits of transit investments throughout the county. The proposed MDR rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is located within a Core Cities geography under the regional growth strategy and the rezone site is within a 1/2 walkshed of major high -capacity transit. The site is adjacent to Tukwila Elementary School and within a 1/2 distance radius of Tukwila Park, the Green River Trail, and Fort Dent Park, as well as other trails and bike lanes. CPP Policy H-18 Adopt inclusive planning tools and policies whose purpose is to increase the ability of all residents in jurisdictions throughout the county to live in the neighborhood of their choice, reduce disparities in access to opportunity areas, and meet the needs of the region's current and future residents by: a) Providing access to affordable housing to rent and own throughout the jurisdiction, with a focus on areas of high opportunity; The proposed rezone is consistent with H-18(a) as it would create additional, more affordable housing options in an area where infill development opportunities (like the one proposed) can add housing options near high - capacity transit and employment centers. b) Expanding capacity for moderate -density housing throughout the jurisdiction, especially in areas currently zoned for lower density single-family detached housing in the Urban Growth Area, and capacity for high - density housing, where appropriate, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy; The proposed rezone is consistent with H-18(b) as it proposes to expand the capacity for moderate/medium density housing within an area currently zoned for lower density single-family housing. c) Evaluating the feasibility of, and implementing, where appropriate, inclusionary and incentive zoning to provide affordable housing; and Not applicable to this proposed rezone. d) Providing access to housing types that serve a range of household sizes, types, and incomes, including 2+ bedroom homes for families with children and/or adult roommates and accessory dwelling units, efficiency studios, and/or congregate residences for single adults. The proposed rezone is consistent with H-18(d) as it would provide for a greater range of housing types L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 7 OF 12 289 allowed, including housing types that may bnmore accessible tna greater range nfhousehold sizes, types and incomes, aswell asthose having more specialized housing needs. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL GROWTH MULT|COUNTYPLANNING POLICIES (MPPa) [NPPRGS-4 Accommodate the region's growth first and foremost in the urban growth area. Ensure that development in rural areas isconsistent with the regional vision and the goals ofthe Regional Open Space Conservation Plan. The proposed rezone will support housing densities and types within the urban growth areas, which densities provide for greater housing choices city consistent with the Regional GrowthStratogy and adopted housing growth targets. N1PP'NGS-5 Ensure long-term stability and sustainability of the urban growth area consistent with the regional vision. The Regional Growth Strategy sets mgoal of directing 6596ofthe Nn'spopu|ation growth to be located within regionalgrowthoentersendvvithinwa|kingdistononofhigh'oapaohytransit The proposed rezone site is located within the 1/2mi|e walk -shed for high'oapooitytrunsit and its proximate to both the North Tukwila K4|C and the Tukwila regional growth center. K8PP'RGS-6 Encourage efficient use of urban land by optimizing the development potential of existing urban lands and increasing density in the urban growth area in locations consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The rezone to Medium Density Residential will allow for a greater density and permit a range of housing options, including single family, multifamily, senior, and other housing types, that encourage the efficient use of urban lands and optimize the site's development potential. MPP-DP1 Develop high -quality, compact urban communities throughout the region's urban growth area that impart a sense of place, preserve local character, provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. The proposed rezone will support housing densities and types that provide for more housing choices in the city and within the 1/2 walk -shed for high -capacity transit and 1/2 mile radius from a future LNIK station. Thus, the proposed rezone will encourage housing types that support walking, bicycling, and transit use. N1PP'H'1 Plan for housing supply, forms, and densities to meet the re8on's current and projected needs consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and to make significant progress towards jobs/ housing balance. The proposed rezone will help the city meet its projected housing needs by providing a greater range of housing options. Specifically, the proposed MDR zone allows for housing types that include duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, etc. - all of which are identified missing middle housing types. Further, the rezone would direct additional population growth near regional growth centers and within walking distance of high'napaoitytronsit. The proposed rezone site is located within the 1/2 mile walk -shed for high -capacity transit and its proximate to both the North Tukwila M|Cand the Tukwila regional growth center. MPP-H-2 Provide a range of housing types and choices to meet the housing needs of all income levels and demographic groups within the region. L1Q{)123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 8OF12 290 The proposed rezone allows for a greater range of housing, including detached and attached housing options, which ultimately help the city comply with the Regional Growth Strategy and new GK8A requirements for missing middle housing. MPP-H-3 Achieve and sustain - through p,ese,vaton, nehabi|itaton, and new development - a sufficient supply of houoingtomeettheneedsof|ow'inoome.moderate+inoome.midd|e'inoomo.andspeoia|needsindividua|smnd households that is equitably and rationally distributed throughout the region. The proposed rezone to MDR will allow for a greater range of housing types including single family detached and zero lot line units, dup|oxes, triplexes, fnurp|exoa, and townhnmes (4 units per building). It also allows for, bycondition use permit, assisted living facilities. This variety can help the city achieve its housing targets and sustain osufficient and timely supply ofhousing tomeet local needs. 2. The proposed amendment tothe Zoning Map |oconsistent with the scope and purpose ofTIVICTitle 18,"Zon|ng Code," and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for. The proposed rezone isconsistent with the purpose ofthe MDR zone asset forth inTIVIC18.26D1D,which states the intent is: ... to provide areas for family and group residential uses, and serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing and more intensively developed group residential housing and related uses. The proposed rezone would provide additional housing options for families and others who seek alternatives to more expensive lower -density housing. The site can support the range ofpermitted uses within the MDR zone, including duplexes, triplexes, tovvnhomes.etc. Additionally, the proposed rezone would create needed medium density housing types within a 1/2 mile walkshed of transit, as well as nearby designated regional employment centers. 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map. There are three primary changed conditions that support the proposed rezone. 1- There is a statewide, regional, and local housing shortfall that is negatively impacting the housing market and the broader economy. In some cases, the result is housing displacement and in other cases it's high percentages ofcost-burdened households. Allowing for increases indensity, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and near existing services like transit, is a growing trend across the region. Specifically, the 2022 Competitiveness Report for Washington (produced by the Lt. Governor and the Joint Legislative Committee onEconomic Deva|opment),which makes clear: w Washington State has the fewest number of housing units per household of any state in the country, and the housing crisis isgetting worse asthe number ofunits built has not kept pace with household formation over the last decade. � The lack of supply puts strong upward pressure on home prices and rents. 44% of Washington renter households are cost burdened and spend more than 30% of their income on housing; 22% of renters are severely cost burdened and spend more than 5O%nftheir income onhousing. � Chronically unde»supp|iedhousing isthe principal driver nfthe state'shomelessness crisis. Washington's homelessness rate-30 per 10,000 residents —is well above the U.S. average (18 per 10,000 residents). L1Q-0123REZONE & COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE QOF12 ° Homeownership is becoming more unattainable, particularly for BIPOC households. The Black homeownership rate is 11.5% lower than the national average, which ranks last among peer states, and the 7th lowest nationally. * Homeownership is becoming more unattainable, particularly for BIPOC households. The Black homeownership rate is 11.5% lower than the national average, which ranks last among peer states, and the 7th lowest nationally. 0 There are only 1.06 housing units per household Washington State compared to 1.14 nationally. Further, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) published a Regional Housing Needs Assessment in January 2022, which found: * The Puget Sound Region needs a total of 810,000 new housing units to accommodate the region's population growth by2050. Yet, the region istwo years behind inhousing production (approximately 4O,0OOhousing units that weren't created between 2O1Oand 2O2O). * The region's current housing stock provides limited middle density housing options, including townhomes and triplexes. Core cities, like Tukwila, have an existing housing stock that is primarily (57%) single family detached housing as compared to an average of 25% of their housing stock in moderate (medium density) housing types. 0 Over 30% of white households and 40% of people of color households are cost burdened today. � The region needs 254,000 units now to address cost burdened households and a total of 520,000 units to address both current and future housing cost burdens. 2. The 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report demonstrates that the City of Tukwila has been substantially behind in meeting its housing targets, which means it needs to explore reasonable measures (including rezones like that proposed) toincrease housing production and accommodate ebroader range nfhousing needs. Exhibit 13 of the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report shows that Tukwila only added 130 housing units between 2006 and 2018, accounting for a mere 2.3% of its allocated housing target of 5,626 net new units by2035. And according to Exhibit 55, the preliminary housing target for Tukwila by 2044 is now 6,500 housing units, which increase will require the city to enact zoning changes (such as that proposed by the Applicant) to ensure sufficient housing production and housing options. 3. Infill housing, and in particular missing middle and medium density housing, has become a primary focus of recent Legislative actionviii and adjustments in the Regional Growth Strategy. The proposed rezone in consistent with the state's missing middle housing bill that passed in the most recent session, which law requires duplexes, triplexes, and other housing options to be available in all single-family zones. Thus, the proposed recent implements the spirit of these legislative changes without delay associated with broader code updates. This isimportant given the pressing need for housing today. In conclusion, current conditions now warrant the city to take full advantage of infill development opportunities like that proposed in this MDR rezone. The subject rezone will help the city create a sufficient and diverse housing stock toaddress immediate and long-term housing needs. 4.The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. L1y-0123REZONE 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 1UOF12 292 The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment will be in the interest of furthering the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare based on the following: * The region, including the city of Tukwila, has an urgent need to encourage housing production to address a shortage of at least 46,000 housing units needed today. 0 Tukwila has historically underperformed in creating sufficient housing to meet its housing targets. � Middle housing (including duplexes, triplexes and townhomes) are needed housing options that are not permitted in the existing zoning. � The proposed rezone would create more housing options near two regionally designated employment centers (the North Tukwila MIC and the Tukwila Regional Growth Center), creating a more balanced and localized housing -jobs balance that reduces transportation congestion and expenses. � The subject rezone site is located within a 1/2 mile walkshed of high capacity transit, parks, and other key community amenities that promote transit and walkability consistent with regional goal. The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood nor bminjurious toother properties inthe vicinity based onthe following: � The proposed MDR zone allows for housing types that are considered compatible with the existing single-family housing within the vicinity. Further, in the adoption of HB 1110 this past legislative session, State Law now requires jurisdictions to allow medium density housing types as permitted uses within low -density single-family zones. Thus, the subject proposal (and future infill development in the area) will be consistent and compatible to address changes in state law, the regional growth strategy, and housing needs. � The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment would create moderate density housing options in a neighborhood area (half -mile radius) that currently includes over a dozen apartments and condominium complexes. * The proposed rezone is situated at the boundary between low density residential and high -density residential zones. Thus, the proposed rezone will create a zoning transition between less intense and more intense residential development. � The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment are mapping changes only, they do not approve a development project. Thus, specific development review (including design review) will still be required, which review will evaluate the specific impacts of a future development proposal, identify mitigation (if any is required), and ensure design standards are met consistent with local requirements. L1y-0123REZONE 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 11OF12 ENDNOTES: 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report, Adopted December 14, 2021, Ratified April 6, 2022. 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies, Adopted December 21, 2021, Ratified April 6, 2022. King County Draft Comprehensive Plan Map (June 2023) Showing Half -Mile Walk -Shed to High Capacity Transit Tukwila iMap GIS King County Communitywide Geographic Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Cascadia Consulting Group, August 2022 RCW 36.70A.100 - Comprehensive Plans Must Be Coordinated The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall be coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other counties or cities with which the county or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues. See RCW 36.70A.210, particularly subsections (1) and (7). See HB 1110 L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 12 OF 12 294 Figure 1: Half Mile Walk -Shed to High Capacity Transit 2024 King County Comprehensive Plan Appendix B — Housing Needs Assessment PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT — June 2023 Note: this map will be updated with the most recent available data in the final transmittal. Map 5: Housing Development Capacity within a half mile of high capacity or frequent transit, Unincorporated King County Data Source KCOPEDAH UGC 1 KCOPFDAH Inc UGC UGC UGC KCOPFDAH UGC Total Potential Annexation Area Development Capacity 48 Kent North Green River Park 4: Klump 65 1,073 N Highline Area Y 1,138. 31 NE 97th Street 31 491 3 t North Federal Way Shyer by the River West Hill 491 15 15 32 2,414 2,446 Total 4,173 UGC: Urban Growth Capacity data provided try KC PS8 KCOPFDAH: King County -owned Parcels Potentially Feasible for Development of Affordable Housing Data provided by KC DC&HS : 4 ' ; - - ns -- „A. Sliver y .. s• S Pi r r " .4 King County GIS CENTER s s PA IPIC osts, 704,00 0,'000,0,000000s,00.0,D0000,000,0u0g,0ss0.,Asss0000xgg0.04 0000'0 ii1.75;r7 6966 ff' NE glirl greet iI4zone Site <R‘” sNen; NeRth Go40, s River P.M, ! 4. s 07—ffn s s SATINAIAISH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY In Unincorporated KC within a half mile of High Capacity or Frequentrransit Parcels with Housing Development Capacity High Capacity & Frequent Transit Stops Half Mile Wilik-Shed et High Capacity & Frequent Transit Stops Land in Unincorporated King County Se&a.ed Potential &rims...Art-as (PAA) -sr-- Urban Growth Area Boundary incorporated City cftrieR000Aeoa si Tribal Lands -- King Coanty 'Boundary Data Saunas: Kin &Am.& ta&rem abr.& Priv., King Com' .00,00 of P0051010 101g C000 0,00,0 .1,10,01 ft 01000 ami ing 00, tk 000;0, r00000m audga K Cooney 0,000, of 0,00.0 03.010 Se.rvic0 Pag, 00.1 Regional C000 Nams R0000080090t09050y99090ooS900o0090yo0th90S9000goo.0g base 00,sg d04,000, MRS, 0 s High 000ity T00.1,018 .140100s, 0000 1.0,0v00000 A-10.,3TRA-TARA-APA-10 - RA00 De0ity 10,400 witt folloving 00,0[010,0 Am ,001,0rn P0100, 0v0e4Cour, gavernment 001 010,0001 r0, tie feas10,0 F00ing Own. by Ole 1.100,150:0 For0t Service (0.0041 VV0hington Sts0 Far. 0000700W050000900 0000000 0100 0,/00. Ovim, V0M1c4,1,1, 00,0 5010,000 Kin 0,0, 0,0f0 00,0,00 000 0erg0m 0,011. tl,e Parn0nti 000vation Havo 003001.10, 00000 owned 41,0g C000 P.Its Open v00,0015 thxt. da not have v0,1,01 0000 The 01010,0r, 000e4 0110109 0p90900009809rK5C0W09000009 nri, of .00004 ix 0.0000 00nge siiernice. 101g 0000 sos4.0 re,0010ti09 wan-00, 0000 or 010103, 00,0cy, 00100vt0, ti0e0e00.0 0500 to 0, ka0 06 infornsabor, 10,00000A900 0&6k0ooy 0000. 000021, o0000,001.0n0g0 00000 but 100,100,[0 101. 0000 000,0. 0,001g from ti0 0,00 Pt the infort0,00 01.4,001 on 015 n0p.. 000509900000580000069 qop p000,0d ex,C. ,000 ,0000,0 at King 00, 10 B-162 295 DATE: September 20, 2024 TO: Zach Schneider Schneider Homes Inc. FROM: Spenser Haynie TENW SUBJECT: Trip Generation Comparison Memo Hopper Townhomes - Tukwila, WA TENW Project No. 2024-262 The purpose of the memo is to summarize preliminary trip generation information related to the proposed rezone of the Hopper Townhomes site in Tukwila, WA. This memo includes a project description, trip generation estimate for two land use alternatives (current vs requested zoning), and a brief discussion of the existing traffic concerns expressed in the project vicinity. roject escri tion The proposed Hopper Townhomes site is located on a 4.45-acre parcel at 6250 S 151st Street in Tukwila, WA as shown in the vicinity map in Attachment A). Allowable development on the site consistent with current City development code and with the requested rezone include: Low Density Residential (Current Zoning): Under the current zoning, development of up to 6.7 dwelling units (DU) per net acre is allowed. The Low Density Residential (LDR) district requires a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet (SF) and allows a total of one (1) single family home per parcel as well as one (1) accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Under the existing LDR zoning, a total of 29 parcels could be created with 29 single-family units, as well as 29 accessory dwelling units per parcel, equating to the equivalent of 58 dwelling units. 1Med um_Density. Residential _(Requested Rezone): The requested rezone would allow for the development of up to 14.5 dwelling units per net acre. The Medium Density Residential (MDR) district allows for the development of single-family homes, ADUs, detached zero -lot line units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses with up to four (4) attached units. With the requested rezone, the project site would allow up to 64 townhome units. Tr! . eneration Co arison The weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for both development alternatives (maximum development under existing zoning, and the requested rezone) were based on methodology documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. For the current zoning (LDR), the trip generation estimates were based on Land Use Code (LUC) 210 (Single - Family Detached Housing). For the requested rezone (MDR), the trip generation estimates were based on LUC 215 (Single -Family Attached Housing). Table 1 summarizes the new weekday trip generation for both the current zoning (LDR) and requested zoning (MDR). Detailed trip generation calculations are provided in Attachment B. 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 100, Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 889-6747 www.tenw.com 297 As shown in Table 1, development of the property with the requested rezone would generate fewer trips than if the site were developed to max potential units under current zoning. Table 1 Trip Generation Comparison - LDR vs MDR Weekday Time Period Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Current Zoning (LDR) Requested Rezone (MDR) In Out Total In Out Total 305 11 38 306 34 22 611 45 60 218 7 20 219 21 14 437 28 34 Existing Traffic Concerns We are aware of a couple of traffic concerns that have been expressed in the vicinity of the project site. The first concern is at the 65t" Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection and the potential that there will be an increase in southbound left -turn queuing. The second concern is related to the potential increase in congestion on 62nd Ave S particularly during the Tukwila Elementary School arrival and dismissal peak hours. The existing 65t" Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection is located a few blocks south of the project site. The southbound approach from 65t" Street is stop controlled while Southcenter Blvd running east/west operates as free flow. This is an existing condition that results in extended queues during peak traffic times. Based on review of the City's current FY 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City has future plans to construct a new traffic signal at this intersection and is expected to be funded by a combination of grant funding and Traffic Impact Fees collected from new developments within the City. Existing traffic conditions on 62nd Ave S in the proximity of the elementary school is also an existing condition that is mostly limited to the peak morning time period when there are parent drop-offs. The City's plans to construct a new traffic signal at the 65th Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection will improve operations over existing conditions. Additionally, it should be noted that maximum buildout of the site with the requested rezone is estimated to generate 174 fewer vehicle trips per day than maximum buildout of the current zoning with 17 less trips during the AM peak hour and 26 less trips during the PM peak hour. Conclusion With the current Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning, development of the site is estimated to generate more trips when compared to the requested Medium Density Residential (MDR) rezone, with more trips during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, buildout of the site with the requested rezone would generate less traffic than the development under existing zoning, thereby reducing potential traffic and safety concerns in the project vicinity. Additionally, the City has plans to install a new traffic signal at the 65t" Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection, which will improve operations. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this memorandum, please contact me at senser@tenw.com or (206) 390-7253. cc: Jeff Schramm - TENW Principal Attachments: A - Project Site Vicinity B - Trip Generation Calculations Trip Generation Comparison Memo September 20, 2024 Hopper Townhomes (Tukwila) Page 2 298 TT Project Site Vicinity 520 Kirkland Way, Suite 100, Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 889-6747 www.tenw.com 299 N Attachment A: Project Site Vicinity Trip Generation Comparison Memo Hopper Townhomes (Tukwila) 300 September 20, 2024 Page 4 TT • Trip Generation Calculations Trip Generation Comparison Memo September 20, 2024 Hopper Townhomes (Tukwila) Page 5 301 Hopper Townhomes Weekday Trip Generation Summary - Existing Low Density Residential Zoning Land Use DAILY Proposed Use: Single Family Detached Housing Size/Units1 ITE LUC 2 Trip Rate or Equation 2 Directional Distribution Trips Generated n Out In Out Total 58 DU 210 Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X)+2.68 50% 50% 305 306 611 AM PEAK HOUR Proposed Use: Single Family Detached Housing 58 DU 210 Ln(T) = 0.91 Ln(X)+0.12 25% 75% 11 34 45 PM PEAK HOUR Proposed Use: Single Family Detached Housing eA Peak HourTi 4 58 DU 210 Ln(T) = 0.94Ln(X)+0.27 63% 37% 38 22 60 New PM Peak Hour Trips = R ;2 Notes: 1 DU = Dwelling Units. 2 Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition, 2021. 302 9/13/2024 Hopper Townhomes Weekday Trip Generation Summary - Proposed Medium Density Residential Rezone Land Use DAILY Proposed Use: Single Family Attached Housing ITE Trip Rate or Directional Distribution Trips Generated Size/Units 1 LUC 2 Equation 2 In Out In Out Total 64 DU 215 T = 7.62(X) - 50.48 50% 50% 218 219 437 AM PEAK HOUR Proposed Use: Single Family Attached Housing New Daily Tf 2'18 2 437 64 DU 215 T = 0.52(X) - 5.70 25% 75% 7 21 28 PM PEAK HOUR Proposed Use: Single Family Attached Housing New A Peak Hour Trips = 7 21 2 64 DU 215 T = 0.60(X) - 3.93 59% 41% 20 14 34 New PM Peak HourTi 20 14 34, Notes: DU = Dwelling Units. 2 Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition, 2021. 9/13/2024 303 (A) 0 trt David Toyer Toyer Strategic Advisors Applicant Representative k WOO t ONO Pis uu , . - . - - - - - - 6 - - - IttItttAiie About the Applicant W 0 • Schneider Family Homes owns the property • A Tukwila business for >45 years • Developer -builder of single family, townhome and apartments • Built the Maple Tree neighborhood (just to the south) in 1980s Overview of the Rezone • Originally presented to Council in November 2023 and denied. Remanded back to the City by King County Superior Court. • Proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). • 64 townhomes proposed vs. 58 units (29 single family, 29 ADUs). • Rezone and comprehensive plan amendment does not approve a specific development project. • Future development must still go through full project review FAMILY` IOMES Decision Criteria • Found in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.84.020 • Four criteria: • Is proposed amendment consistent with goals, policies and objectives of Comprehensive Plan? • Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of Title 18 and the description and purpose of the zoning designation sought? • Have there been changed conditions? • Does the amendment further the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and not be injurious to other properties? W 00 Compliance with Criterion 1 Is proposed amendment consistent with goals, policies and objectives of Comprehensive Plan? ✓ Yes The proposed amendment is consistent with Goals 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6 and policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.6.2, 6.1.1, 7.4.2 and 7.5.3. Additionally, its consistent with applicable countywide planning policies and the Regional Growth Strategy (multi -county planning policies). FAMILY` IOMES Compliance with Criterion 2 Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of Title 18 and the description and purpose of the zoning designation sought? ✓ Yes The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the Medium Density Residential zone to "... provide areas for family and group residential uses, and serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing ..." FAMILY` IOMES Compliance with Criterion 3 Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of Title 18 and the description and purpose of the zoning designation sought? ✓ Yes According to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) the region has a shortfall of two -years of housing production (about 46,000 units) and the latest King County Urban Growth Capacity Report shows Tukwila's housing production from 2006 to 2018 did not keep pace with its housing target. The rezone directly addresses current and future middle housing needs. Compliance with Criterion 4 Does the amendment further the public health, safety, comfort convenience and general welfare, and not be injurious to other properties? ✓ Yes The MDR zoning would allow townhouse development which would generate fewer total daily vehicle trips than development under the existing LDR zone. The site does not have wetlands, the rezone does not impact applicable requirements for trees and landscaping, the site is proximate to transit options, and it addresses the city's housing shortage. FAMILY` IOMES Transportation/Traffic A trip generation comparison memorandum by TENW indicates: • This rezone (and the proposed townhomes) results in 174 fewer daily trips than development under the current zone. Prior public comments have expressed concern about traffic at the intersection of 65th Ave S. & Southcenter BLVD. • A new traffic signal at the intersection was approved in 2025-2030 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The project is funded and will start construction in 2025. • Future development will be required to complete a project specific traffic impact analysis. Wetlands/Trees/Landscaping Prior public comments expressed concern about wetlands on the site. • Seawall Wetland Consulting evaluated the site and determined it did not have any wetlands. Prior public comments have expressed concern about tree removal and landscaping. • The maximum development area allowed under either zone is same (75%). • Future development, regardless of the zone must comply with the city's tree protection and removal requirements, and its landscaping requirements. • Regardless of the zone, a future development's footprint will be the same. FAMILY` IOMES Housing Needs • Tukwila's current housing target (for 2035) was 5,626 net new units • Tukwila's new housing target (for 2044) is 6,500 net new units • Tukwila added only 130 housing units from 2006 to 2018 • The region has housing shortage of approximately 46,000 units • Proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment help city address its housing targets, accommodate local and regional housing needs, and respond to new GMA requirements Regional Growth Strategy & Transit Compatibility • Tukwila is a Core Cities geography under the Regional Growth Strategy • Regional Growth Strategy calls for directing 65% of population growth within walking distance of high -capacity transit and within regional growth centers • Rezone site is within the 1/2 mile walk -shed for high -capacity transit • Rezone site is within 1/2 mile radius of future planned LINK station • Rezone site is nearby two regional growth centers (North Tukwila MIC & Tukwila Regional Growth Center) FAMILY` IOMES ENT CAPACI FmgmeitTrin KC within a half ,of r Frequent ,q n Tr rs;t- Roo ' hCap,710 Ari i El riritamiri MEAL (rAikkj ATM. nr ir( T1 City Ftiii4 Arta i ., Lid. Cary BoJrdary Conclusions The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan map amendment EETS the criteria for approval under TMC 18.84.020 • MDR zoning promotes additional housing production • MDR zoning allows greater housing variety, including townhomes • MDR zoning fits the site's location within a 1/2 walk -shed of high -capacity transit and proximate to designated regional employment centers • The proposal is consistent with and promotes the comprehensive plan, the countywide planning policies and the regional growth strategy (Vision 2050). (� I Depurtmentoy[onnmonityQevelopment-NunaGierloff, A/CP,Directmr STAFF REPORT TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 2023 NOTIFICATION: 1/31/2]:Mailed toproperties within 5UU'radius 1/31/23:Site Posted 2/15/2]:Public Information Meeting Notice ofhearing published inthe Seattle Times Allan Ekberg, Mayor FILE NUMBERS: L19'O1l3-Rezone E19'0013'SEPA APPLICANT: Hans Korve, Daley-MorrowPob|ete Inc. REQUEST: Change Comprehensive Plan map and zoning designation from Low Density Residential (LDR)to Medium Density Residential (MDR) LOCATION: 6250S.151"5t,Tukwila, VVA(APN: 359780'0400) CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION Low Density Residential (LDR) 8EPA DETERMINATION: STAFF: Determination of Nonsignificance issued June 15, 2023 BreydenJager, Associate Planner A. Site + Current Zoning Map B. Proposed Zoning Map C. Applicant Response tuCriteria D. MDR Zoning Development Standards (TK8C18.12) E. Public Comments Tukwila City Ho8° 6200 Southeenter Boulevard ° Tukwila, v&AqS18S °20s-43,3-1*00° 319 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 2 of 12 BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL Summary of Proposed Actions The applicant has submitted a proposal to amend the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map and the Tukwila Zoning Map to rezone a 4.4-acre parcel located at 6250 S. 151st St. from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). This non -project proposal is a quasi-judicial change to the land use designation on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code maps. If the zoning is changed, any MDR use would be permitted, subject to all City regulations. The proposed action does not meet the exemptions from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) listed under WAC 197-11-800. Rezone requests that require a Comprehensive Plan amendment are subject to SEPA review. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 15, 2023. Land Use - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning The site is classified as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance. To the immediate north, west, and south of the subject parcel are properties also zoned LDR. To the east of the parcel is an area of vegetation and significant slope zoned High Density Residential (HDR), the eastern developed portion of which is accessed off of Interurban Avenue S. Further to the southeast of the property is an area zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) and there is also a small pocket of MDR located behind LDR zoned lots to the southwest. See Figure 1 below for zoning map. Allowed uses under the existing LDR zoning are enumerated in TMC Table 18-6, and primarily include detached single-family dwellings, garages, greenhouses, and domestic shelters. Allowed uses under the proposed MDR zoning are largely similar, with the notable addition of detached zero lot line dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, daycare centers, senior housing, and townhomes with up to four attached units. Site and Vicinity Conditions The subject site is located at the northeast corner of South 151st Street and 62nd Avenue South. The site contains a single-family home located near the center of the parcel, accessed by a gravel driveway off of S. 149th PI. The site includes areas of open gravel and disturbed land with abandoned cars and various debris and junk piles. The site is bordered to the north by residential development, to the east by forested land and a steep, natural slope, and to the south and west by South 151st Street and 62nd Avenue South, respectively. Public Services and Utilities A review by City of Tukwila Development Review Engineering staff was completed and noted that project design considerations will be evaluated for feasibility at the time of Design Review, Project SEPA, and development permitting. No relevant comments pertaining to the rezone action itself were received. 320 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 3 of 12 LD 593)6 ft 5246 4 2023, 3:1 4:31 P 14920 I4495.4Z 14 6211 6216 6214 A. 4m1046215204 6216 201 '6216309. LUR 06 1510025 '151001" 600 A15 M�1R A 02 15156 1011 151561017 15138 111 15138 108 15140216 1514,9 219 Parcels MDRMedium Density Residential 1=2`257 0 0.01 0.03 G.06 tni ®City Ei(nlls ._-..UDR High Density Residential 0.03 0.06 0.11 km Buildings r . ,RCM Radismal Comm Ibused Use cuy d rang aWnG g-^-^-1 Source, EDN, Nmus DS, NS.,, N., DASA, csr,6 i. N Robins Addresses (Tukwila) C . -I(iv S. , t-.Latastyrslaen, DON.Nrstaet_ G Zoning ee0 cwunry DEMON wmaq and tna ci.s user main INNIN LDR. Low Devts:ty Residential numAggeuneertwancis Figure 2: Zoning Map Environmental Conditions Site topography generally descends to the north/northeast with a total elevation change of about 20 feet occurring within the property. To the east of the site is a large, natural downward slope to the northeast, having more than 40% slope in areas. The Tukwila environmentally critical areas map classifies this area, and an area on the southern parcel boundary, as having a Class 3 (High) landslide potential. The City's critical area data also suggests the presence of a potential uncategorized wetland in the southwest corner of the site. However, the applicant submitted a wetland study in April, 2020, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, which found that no wetlands, streams, or critical area buffers were present on the subject site. 321 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 4 of 12 The tree -forested areas of the site to the west are a mix of fir and big leaf maple and some cedar with an understory of Himalayan blackberry, snowberry, vine maple, hazelnut, sword fern, bracken fern and Oregon grape and scattered holly. The remainder of the site is a mix of native Douglas fir forest and disturbed shrub covered areas. Ltlo Naa.aro tWz �Pu�*'� 14 A08 Ai 1:2,257 041 0.08 qG6 rni ,03 R4a6 o.11 km wrra.hr.�a.* ty4ns P.e4trt.3.Natt_uN.q, Ct&Na ui'egC 0,1 fLW"mxa r. Figure 1: Environmentally Critical Areas Map Development Regulations Comparison, LDR vs. MDR Height The rezone action would not result in an increase in maximum height allowance for the existing parcel. The maximum height of 30 feet in the MDR zoning district is consistent with the existing 30-foot height limit in the LDR zoning district. Unit Density Per TMC 18.10.060, the LDR zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 6,500 SF. Therefore, if subdivided under the existing LDR zoning, a total of 29 new parcels could be created. Each parcel in the LDR district allows a 322 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 5 of 12 total of one single-family home, as well as one accessory dwelling unit (ADU), equating to 58 total potential dwelling units. If rezoned to MDR, based on the size of the parcel, the site would allow up to 64 primary housing units, recognizing that the final number of units could be fewer to accommodate space needed for roads or other utilities. This number does not account for ADUs, and per TMC 18.50.220(2), ADUs may only be permitted on parcels containing a single-family dwelling, not multi -family uses. Scale and Design It is expected that a modest increase in bulk and scale could result from a multi -family dwelling proposal on the subject parcel under MDR zoning. However, due to the minimal difference in magnitude of these impacts relative to what could occur under existing conditions, the impact is not expected to be significant. Bulk and scale impacts of any project developed pursuant to the proposed rezone will be addressed by the City's design review process. Specific scale and design impacts of proposed development will be determined at the time of project review, pursuant to TMC 18.12.070. Transportation The proposed rezone will increase development capacity on the subject parcel. Projects developed pursuant to the proposed rezone may generate higher volumes of traffic and have greater transportation impacts than projects proposed under the current zoning. The subject parcel is approximately 4.45 acres, and it is not possible to accurately determine the location and/or intensity of individual projects that may be proposed under MDR zoning. The subject site lies along 62nd Ave S and S 151' St, which currently serve vehicular, bike, and pedestrian traffic from both single- and multi -family developments in the immediate Tukwila Hill neighborhood. Sidewalks are provided along both streets for the entire project location frontage. The nearest transit stop is the RapidRide line along Southcenter Blvd, approximately 0.5 miles down the hill from the project site. It is not expected that the number of housing units allowed under MDR zoning would result in a significant impact on traffic and transportation. However, the transportation impacts of individual projects developed subsequent to a rezone to MDR would be evaluated through construction permitting at the time of project level permit applications. A traffic concurrency review would be required for any new proposed housing units and findings would result in traffic impact fees under the authority of TMC 9.48.010. The traffic concurrency program is a mechanism to charge and collect fees to ensure that new development bears its proportionate share of the capital costs of transportation facilities necessitated by new development. Public Comment Public notice for this rezone proposal was posted on site and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on January 31st, 2023. On February 15th, 2023, staff held a public information meeting for residents to ask questions and provide feedback to the applicant. Comments received as a result of the public comment period are contained in attachment E. The key issues raised include, but are not limited to: • Noise impacts from additional residents. • Traffic impacts to the neighborhood. • The potential displacement of trees, vegetation, wildlife living on the site. • Property tax impacts on neighboring properties from a future development. 323 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 6 of 12 • Water, sewer, stormwater infiltration, and other utility impacts. • On -site and off -site parking impacts. • Lack of recreation space. • Increase of recreation space. • Multi -family homes encourage affordability and diversity. • Neighborhood character and design. • Safety considerations related to privacy fences. • Geotechnical engineering considerations. • MDR zoning could threaten the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood. • Potential impacts to property values. • Student capacity impacts to the nearby elementary school. • Potential litter and trash impacts. • City should explore zoning code amendments and alternatives to site -specific rezones. • Opposition to increased unit density. • Support for townhomes in this area. • Miscellaneous environmental impacts (other). • Concerns regarding affordability of dwelling units. • Potential to increase emergency vehicle response times. • COVID-19 impacts to the public process. • Air quality impacts from vehicles and fireplaces/wood stoves. • Pet waste concerns. • Overuse of Tukwila Park. • Potential increase in crime. • Support for additional affordable housing throughout the greater Seattle area. • Fire safety and mitigation measures. • Need for increased public transportation service in the area. • MDR zoning is inconsistent with surrounding LDR-zoned properties. • Concerns regarding adequacy of applicant's responses to rezone approval criteria. It should be noted that this rezone request is not tied to any specific project proposal and no approval or denial of any development plan would be granted or denied by the approval of this rezone request. Development - specific items, including project design, would be addressed at the time of a formal project proposal. FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Criteria Four broad -reaching objectives are the basis for the elements, goals and policies for Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's primary objective is preserving and enhancing Tukwila's neighborhoods. The following will summarize the elements, goals, and policies the applicant has cited to support their rezone request, along with a staff response. The applicant's response to the decision criteria is attached hereto as Attachment C. 1. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and] zoning map is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant cites the following Comprehensive Plan elements: 324 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 7 of 12 Element 3: Housing Goal 3.1.2: Work with residents and property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.1.2- directs that the City work with property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. The Applicant proposal will help to meet the needs of moderate -income families and increase housing choice close to transit and employment opportunities. Staff Response: Western Washington is experiencing a housing shortage that will worsen if housing production within Tukwila, and across the region, is not increased. Housing scarcity leads to higher housing costs and limited options for residents. Construction of new housing creates more energy efficient units built to higher standards, provides more options for residents, and also encourages other investment in the community. This rezone proposal would increase the residential density potential of the subject parcel. Under the existing LDR zoning, based on the size of the parcel, the site could accommodate up to 58 housing units, if subdivided. If rezoned to MDR, based on the size of the parcel, the site would allow up to 64 housing units, recognizing that the final number of units could be fewer to accommodate space needed for roads or other utilities. The City utilizes medium and high density residential zoning districts as transitional areas between single-family neighborhoods and commercial districts, both near the subject site and in other areas of Tukwila Hill. For example, an HDR zoned parcel near the intersection of 58th Ave S and S 142nd street lies between the LDR and the RCM districts, and is developed with a 3 story, 13-unit building. The subject site for this rezone request is currently situated adjacent to HDR-zoned parcels which also act as transitional areas along Interurban Ave S, extending to its intersection with Southcenter Boulevard. This rezone would be similar in nature to those existing transitional housing zones, which provide a tapering in use intensity from Interurban westward. See Figures 3 and 4 on the following page of this report. 325 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 8 of 12 77: ciSato on PUNM AAA, Figure 3: Existing HDR Zoned Parcel on Tukwila Hill (14081 58th Ave 5) t, 4 01, 0 0,A4,,40 AAAAL,,,AAAA1,, " Figure 4: Existing HDR Zoned Parcels on Tukwila Hill (East of 62nd Ave S) 326 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 9 of 12 Goal 3.2.1: Provide zoning that allows a variety of housing throughout the City to allow for diverse, equitable neighborhoods. Goal 3.2.2: Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning Tess than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built. • Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.2.1 and 3.2.2 — Also support a variety of housing opportunities through revisions to the zoning map and development regulations to promote more attainable housing. • Staff Response: As stated previously, a zoning designation of MDR would increase the development capacity of the subject parcel and allow for additional housing types in the Tukwila Hill neighborhood, which has traditionally featured both single-family homes and small multifamily residences. Multifamily homes are, on average, more affordable than single family homes, primarily due to the ability to share land costs between units and their smaller unit sizes. Additionally, Tukwila's single family home stock is less diverse than its multi -family home stock. Approximately 57% of Tukwila's single-family homes are occupied by households that identify as white, exceeding the percentage of Tukwila's overall white population (33%). Conversely, approximately 19% of Tukwila identifies as Black or African American, while households with that racial identity occupy only 8% of Tukwila's single- family homes. These statistics highlight racially disparate impacts that put single family homes, on average the most expensive form of housing, out of reach for many of Tukwila's residents. Goal 3.6.1: Encourage long-term residency by improving neighborhood quality, health and safety. Goal 3.6.2: Encourage long-term residency by providing a range of home ownership options for persons in all stages of life. • Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 — encourage longer term residency through a range of home ownership options that maintain and strengthen neighborhood quality. The applicant alteration proposal will increase housing choice and affordability while maintaining the opportunity for home ownership. Home ownership creates a sense of investment in the community and supports long-term residency. • Staff Response: The proposed MDR zoning district would allow for a greater range of housing types to be constructed than currently allowed under LDR zoning. Housing units permitted in the LDR district include single-family homes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Housing units permitted in the MDR district include single-family homes, ADUs, detached zero -lot line units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses with up to four attached units. As previously discussed, multifamily homes are, on average, more affordable than single family homes, primarily due to the ability to share land costs between units and their smaller unit sizes. These less costly housing options provide an avenue for home ownership to be enjoyed by buyers of a wider age range, on average. Construction of new 327 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 10 of 12 housing also creates more energy efficient units built to higher standards, provides more options for residents, and also encourages other investment in the community. Element 7: Residential Neighborhoods Goal 7.4.2: Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling, transit and other alternatives to auto travel. Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Polices 7.4.2- seeks to community enhancement through long-term residency and environmental sustainability. This is to be achieved through a mix of housing at sufficient density to promote walking and bicycling and the use of transit. Increased pedestrian activity and transit use decrease carbon emissions. The applicant's proposal will create a higher density residential option that supports long-term residency while maintaining compatibility with the existing single-family homes in the area. The project site is within walking distance of Tukwila Park and Tukwila Elementary. It is also within Biking distance of Fort Dent Park and the Southcenter commercial & transit center. Staff Response: Rezoning this property to the MDR zoning district would permit housing at a higher density and wider range of forms than is currently allowed, within short walking distance of major transit stops and biking distance to several public amenities. 2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for. Per TMC 18.26.010, the purpose of the MDR zoning district is, "...intended to provide areas for family and group residential uses, and serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing and more intensively developed group residential housing and related uses. Through the following standards this district provides medium -density housing designed to provide: 1. Individual entries and transition from public and communal areas to private areas; 2. Building projections, level changes and so forth to effectively define areas for a variety of outdoor functions as well as privacy; and 3. Landscaping and open space to serve as extension of living areas." (Attachment d) The proposed MDR zoning is consistent with the neighborhood character and uses in the site's vicinity. MDR zoning would allow development that is moderately more intensive than some neighboring single- family homes, but of similar or lesser intensity than nearby multi -family residential properties. See Attachment C for applicant response to criteria. 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map There have been no zoning changes in this area since 1995 when the current zoning was instituted. Since 1995, fewer housing units have been constructed in the City of Tukwila than have been set by our housing goals. Under the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), King County is required to assign housing targets to each jurisdiction in order meet current and projected housing demands. For the 328 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 11 of 12 period between 2019 to 2044, the housing target for production of new net housing units in Tukwila is 6,500 units. Based on the rate of housing development in Tukwila from 2019 to present, it will be necessary to build approximately 250 net units each year until 2044 to meet this target. However, from 2006 to 2018 Tukwila grew by only 130 housing units. The 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report states that "Since 2006, Tukwila has grown at 6% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 5,626 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Tukwila grew by roughly 2%. At this current rate, Tukwila is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 3.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035." King County recommends the City of Tukwila take reasonable measures to achieve additional housing growth, including taking "action to encourage and/or incentivize residential development". One way to incentivize residential development is to permit rezones on undeveloped properties to higher residential densities. 4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoods, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. A rezone from LDR to MDR would increase the potential for small multifamily buildings to be constructed on the property. Increasing housing capacity is in the furtherance of public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. Residential development is unlikely to adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, which is largely dominated by other residential uses of similar intensities. Additionally, higher residential densities provide additional support to local businesses, and promote pedestrian scale neighborhoods within walking and biking distance of major transit stops and a large commercial core. CONCLUSIONS Criteria 1: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: • The rezone is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals: o Goal 3.1.2: Work with residents and property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. ■ Tukwila is experiencing a housing shortage that will worsen if housing production is not increased. Housing scarcity leads to higher housing costs and limited options for residents. This rezone proposal would increase the residential density potential of the subject parcel. o Goal 3.2.1: Provide zoning that allows a variety of housing throughout the City to allow for diverse, equitable neighborhoods. o Goal 3.2.2: Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning less than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built. This rezone proposal would enable a wider variety of housing types to be built in an established neighborhood, increasing housing opportunities. Multifamily homes are, on 329 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 12 of 12 average, more affordable than single family homes, primarily due to the ability to share land costs between units and their smaller unit sizes. o Goal 3.6.1: Encourage long-term residency by improving neighborhood quality, health and safety. o Goal 3.6.2: Encourage long-term residency by providing a range of home ownership options for persons in all stages of life. Increased housing options provide an avenue for home ownership to be enjoyed by buyers of a wider age range, on average. Construction of new housing also creates more energy efficient units built to higher standards, provides more options for residents, and also encourages other investment in the community. o Goal 7.4.2: Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling, transit and other alternatives to auto travel. Rezoning this property to MDR would permit housing at a higher density and wider range of forms than is currently allowed, within short walking distance of major transit stops and biking distance to several public amenities. Criteria 2: Consistency with Zone: • The proposed MDR zoning is consistent with the neighborhood character and uses in the site's vicinity. MDR zoning would allow development that is moderately more intensive than some neighboring single-family homes, but of similar or lesser intensity than nearby multi -family residential properties. Criteria 3: Changed conditions: • There have been no zoning changes in the vicinity since the LDR zoning was instituted in 1995. • Since 2006, Tukwila has, according to King County, produced housing at a rate 94% slower than is necessary to meet our 2035 housing growth target. • Since 2015, the median sale price of a single-family home in Tukwila has increased 97%, from $303,000 to—$594,000. The median sale price of a unit in a multi -family home in Tukwila has increased 182%, from—111,000 to —$313,000. • Tukwila's housing production has been determined by King County to be the lowest of all jurisdictions within the core metropolitan area, both in total number and in percentage of growth target. Criteria 4: Benefit to community: • The proposed rezone would positively affect the community by providing needed housing capacity on an undeveloped parcel in a location near an existing commercial core and a variety of single- and multi -family structures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). 330 Current Zoning Map Attachment A 10/25/2023, 5:16:54 PM 1 Parcels Zoning LDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential , l'111aa:le"Vq 4,M,;;, ;ttlAmore°ta1011tk °r,nA.a; lrap wqpNi,;,, t,.41.+¢,A 9SINAMIT,ai',m yq��,ro�B,M" ncea�+,�9'�W»a°tS 66a�w�d»ro v'�4 HDR High Density Residential RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use Overlay Area 0 0.01 0 0.03 1:2,257 0.03 0.06 461 0.06 mi 0.11 km City of Tukwila, King County Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community King County Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS 331 Proposed Zoning Map Attachment B 10/25/2023, 5:16:54 PM 1 Parcels Zoning LDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use Overlay Area 0 0.01 0 0.03 1:2,257 0.03 0.06 0.06 mi 0.11 km City of Tukwila, King County Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community King County 332 Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS SUR;II" ,11114: NINO DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 TEL: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 EMAIL: dmp@dmp-inc.us August 14, 2022 City of Tukwila. Nancy Eklund 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Hopper Townhomes-Comprehensive Plan Alteration Request LDR to MDR 6250 S 151ST ST, Tukwila. - Parcel No. 359700-0400 Dear Ms. Eklund: A. Project Background The project site is located in the Tukwila Hills Neighborhood, North of Tukwila Park and east of Tukwila Elementary. The property is currently undeveloped with the exception of a small home, to be removed. Within the limits of the Tree retention ordinance, a numbers of existing trees will be removed to support development of the site. The amount of impact would be similar under either the current LDR or the proposed MDR designation. The number of Peak Hour Trips will likely increase in accordance with the final number of permitted residence. With the payment of impact fees, these impacts are considered mitigated. The proposed alteration is expected to have a positive impact on the neighborhood by increasing the amount of attainable housing in close proximity to employment and recreation opportunities and increasing access to Transit for more residence. B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.020) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re -designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 333 1. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and ] Zoning map is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? The Applicant proposes to re -designate a 4.5 acres parcel from LDR to MDR. The current LDR designation limits the style of housing to the most land intensive and costly form of development (Single -Family). This limits the number of new potential home owners and reduces support for Transit. Increased use of Public Transit reduces carbon output per unit. The proposed MDR designation will allow for the creation of zero -lot -line, fee simple townhomes that will increase the opportunity for home ownership at a more modest price point without diminishing the quality of the neighborhood. This will increase the choices of housing styles in close proximity to one of the region's largest employment / transit centers. The proposed alteration will also not result in the loss of an extensive amount of existing housing stock to achieve its goal. The subject property contains only one existing house which is schedule for demolition to address a continuing transient situation. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan is a flexible framework that adapts to changing conditions over time. One of the Comprehensive plans basic objectives is to support "A thriving Southcenter/Urban Center for shopping, working, living and playing". Another purpose of the comprehensive plan is to reduce barriers that prevent low- and moderate -income households from living near their work or transit, and to support housing that is affordably priced for all households. Tukwila is striving to be a community of choice because increasing home ownership, in turn, supports long term residency and neighborhood stability. According to the Comprehensive plan and the 2010 US Census, home ownership in Tukwila is just above 40%. The applicant's proposal will increase housing choice, decrease housing cost and maintain an ownership option for Tukwila residents. For these reasons, the Applicants proposal supports the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as well as these specific policies: ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.1.2- directs that the City work with property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. The Applicant proposal will help to meet the needs of moderate income families and increase housing choice close to transit and employment opportunities. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.2.1 and 3.2.2 — Also support a variety of housing opportunities through revisions to the zoning map and development regulations to promote more attainable housing. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 - encourage long-term residency through a range of home ownership options that maintain and strengthen neighborhood quality. The applicant alteration proposal will increase housing choice and affordability while maintaining the opportunity for home ownership. Home ownership creates a sense of investment in the community and supports long-term residency. 334 Page 12 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request 18.84 Hopper Townhomes ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policies 7.4.2 — seeks to community enhancement through long-term residency and environmental sustainability. This is to be achieved through a mix of housing at sufficient density to promote walking and bicycling and the use of transit. Increased pedestrian activity and transit use decrease carbon emissions. The applicant's proposal will create a higher density residential option that supports long-term residency while maintaining compatibility with the existing single-family homes in the area. The project site is within walking distance of Tukwila Park and Tukwila Elementary. It is also within Biking distance of Fort Dent Park and the Southcenter commercial & transit center. 2. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and ] Zoning map is consistent with the scope and purpose of the TMC Title 18, Zoning Code, and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for? There is a need for more attainable home ownership options. More often, higher density development supports a more transient population. The Proposed alteration from LDR to MDR will allow development of a fee - simple townhome neighborhood that will open up home ownership to a broader population base while supporting long-term residency. The applicants proposal is a market based approach to achieving the Comprehensive Planning Policies described above. Other option for increasing housing attainability involves private/public partnerships and grant funding of low cost housing. These programs are complicated, expensive and require long term management. The applicant's proposal is an organic approach and requires only minimal city oversight during the review processes. Smaller, zero -lot -line, fee simple townhomes are, by their nature, a more attainable housing option. 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and ] Zoning Map? As indicated above. The applicant's proposal will increase housing attainability options, strengthen long-term residency and place workforce housing in close proximity to employment and recreation opportunities. With proper design review, the proposed structures can complement the existing neighborhood. Please refer to the specific Comprehensive Plan Policies discussed in Section#1 above. 4. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and] Zoning map will be in the interest of and furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare; and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood; nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. Page 13 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request 18.84 Hopper Townhomes 335 The Applicant proposes to re -designate a 4.5 acres parcel from LDR to MDR. The current LDR designation limits the style of housing to the most land intensive and costly form of development (Single-family). This limits the number of new potential home owners. The proposed MDR designation will allow for the creation of zero -lot -line, fee simple townhomes that will provide the opportunity for home ownership at a more modest price point. This will increase the choices of housing styles in close proximity to one of the region's largest employment centers. The proposed alteration will also not result in the loss of an extensive amount of existing housing stock to achieve its goal. The proposed use is also a middle ground between the areas higher density apartment complexes and the intermixed single-family homes. If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 333-2200 Sincerely, Hans Korve DMP. Inc. 336 Page 14 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request 18.84 Hopper Townhomes Return to Title Page Return to Chapter 18.10 ttc t TITLE 18 — ZONING 2 T ITY '' I T T 1 T Sections: 18.12.010 Purpose 18.12.020 Land Uses Allowed 18.12.030 Recreation Space Requirements 18.12.060 Design Review 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards 18.12.010 Purpose A. This district implements the Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation, which allows up to 14.5 dwelling units per net acre. It is intended to provide areas for family and group residential uses, and serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing and more intensively developed group residential housing and related uses. Through the following standards this district provides medium -density housing designed to provide: 1. Individual entries and transition from public and communal areas to private areas; 2. Building projections, level changes and so forth to effectively define areas for a variety of outdoor functions as well as privacy; and 3. Landscaping and open space to serve as extension of living areas. B. Certain MDR properties are identified as Commercial Redevelopment Areas (see Figures 18-10 or 18-9) to encourage aggregation with commercial properties that front on Tukwila International Boulevard. Aggregation and commercial redevelopment of these sites would implement the Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan and provide opportunities to redefine and create more uniform borders between the commercial corridor and adjacent residential neighborhoods. C. Certain MDR properties are located in the Urban Renewal Overlay (see Figure 18-15). Existing zoning and development standards will remain in place, although multi -family buildings would be permitted. The overlay provides additional alternate development standards that may be applied to development within the Urban Renewal Overlay upon request of the property owner and if the development meets certain qualifying criteria. Urban Renewal Overlay district standards would implement the Tukwila International Boulevard Revitalization Plan through more intensive development. (Ord, 2257 §6 (part) 2009; Ord. 1865 §8, 1999; Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-40 337 Return to Title Page Re urn to Chapter 18.12 TITLE 18 — ZONING 18.12.020 Land Uses Allowed Refer to TMC Chapter 18.09, "Land Uses Allowed by District." (Ord. 2500 §5, 2016) 18.12.030 Recreation Space Requirements In the MDR zoning district, any proposed multiple -family structure, complex or development shall provide, on the premises and for the use of the occupants, a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple - family development and detached zero -lot -line type of development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple -family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 square feet of the 400 square feet of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension. c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space. However, these setback areas can qualify as recreation space for townhouses if they are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. 2. Indoor or Covered Space. a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi -family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi -family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. a. Multiple -family complexes (except senior citizen housing, detached zero -lot -line and townhouses with nine or fewer units), which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms, shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5-to-12-year-old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space required under TMC Section 18.12.030 (1), and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. (Ord, 2525 §2, 2017) 18.12.060 Design Review Design review is required for all new multi -family structures, mobile or manufactured home parks, developments in a Commercial Redevelopment Area that propose the uses and standards of an adjacent commercial zone, and in the shoreline jurisdiction, if new building construction or exterior changes are involved and the cost of the exterior work equals or exceeds 10% of the building's assessed valuation. Multi -family structures up to 1,500 square feet will be reviewed administratively. (See TMC Chapter 18.60, Board of Architectural Review.) (Ord. 2368 §7, 2012, Ord. 2251 §16, 2009, Ord. 2005 §1 2002; Ord. 1865 §11, 1999; Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) reduced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-41 Return to Title Page Re urn to Chapter 18.12 TITLE 18 — ZONING 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi -family) 3,000 sq. ft. (For townhouses the density shall be calculated based on one unit per 3000 sq. ft. of parent lot area. The "unit lot" area shall be allowed to include the common access easements). Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR; 10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR; 10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Refer to TMC Chapter 18.52, "Landscape Requirements," Table A, for perimeter and parking lot landscaping requirements. Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 30 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off-street parking: • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See TMC Section 18.50.220 • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations (Ord, 2678 §24, 2022; Ord. 2581 §3, 2018; Ord. 2199 §12, 2008; Ord, 1976 §23, 2001; Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-42 339 Breyden Jager From: Bonnie Wong <auntybon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:03 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: FileL19-0123 Rezone and E19-0013 (SEPA) Attention Mr Jager, As an original owner (1989) in the Mapletree Cul De Sac directly across the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone from LDR to MDR at 6250S 151st St Parcel #3597000400, I am concerned about the adverse impact to the neighborhood in general. 1. The main arterials from 58th and Interurban through the neighborhood as well as Southcenter Blvd. are heavily utilized by vehicles traveling to and from work places in the community as well as in the greater Seattle -Renton areas. Businesses in the community are expanding and increasing traffic (speeding and parking )issues in the morning and the late afternoons. Avoiding 1405,1-5 and 167 are the issue. IF REZONING FROM LDR TO MDR,AN ADDITIONAL 40-80 (AVERAGE 2 CARS PER HOUSEHOLD IS REALISTIC) VEHICLES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONGESTION ON THE HILL. There has been no change to the traffic mitigation when this issue was a concern before the pandemic. Additionally, the opening of the new fire department building will be a cause for delay at the peak hours too. And what about snow days? 2. Construction for the MDR will interrupt the flow for school buses in the afternoon and the increased car traffic for families who are driving their students. This is clearly a problem proven by the unfinished buildings next to the fire department building and the interruptions of the remodeling of the apartment buildings too. 3.How will existing neighbors be impacted by the increase water and sewer utility amendments? My water was interrupted when there was a break in the pipes on the hill last summer. I was told that I must be at the end of the pipelines which was the reason I had grey water for two days. 4. All of Tukwila learned about the danger of a large fire and access to emergency help a year and a half ago. This was a tragic mess! What are the safety measures for this project (approx.40 units) which is a bit bigger than Mapletree (14 units). 5. My neighbors and I are not against development and affordable housing. We oppose the Plan Amendments and especially the rezoning from LDR to MDR. Affordable housing is needed. 6. Tax dollars may be an advantage to the city and certainly to the developer, but does Tukwila have the foresight about solutions for increased pollution, safe play spaces for the community (homeless people are living amongst us on the hill),safe mitigation for the traffic on main boulevards, and bus services to encourage public transportation? I appreciate your attention to these matters. Bonnie Wong Tukwila resident 6341 S.151st Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 340 https://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... SEPA,Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Amendment,Hopper Townhomes Project PL19-0099 Bonnie Wong <auntybon@gmail.com> Sun 3/22/2020 12:08 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com>; Nhan Nguyen <ctplanner@gmail.com>; Mayor <Mayor@TukwilaWA.goy> Hello Max, Thank you for facilitating the public meeting on March 18,2020. I was virtually present from 4:30-6:15 and listened tomost of the comments. As I relayed to you, I am one of the original residents in the single family Mapletree Development which is directly opposite fromthe HopperTownhomes proposal. There are 14 homes in our cul de sac. I'm in opposition to changing the zoning! The Schneider proposal of the development plan is for about 35 "affordable houses.ln the meeting,the proposal is that these homes will most likely 3-bedrooms,one to two car garages .These homes would be attached to each other in 3 or 4 homes configurations dependent on the storm collection areas and tree lines. What I heard the average price of the homes would be $450,000 each. Even though the set plans are not decided. The zone change again is at a point where there have been discussions with the city planning commission and Tukwila City Council. I did hear that permitting for storm drain regulations is $38,000 and that the regulations for building is 1500 pages. There were a few comments regarding a $1,000,000 investment and profit margins being unreasonable if the zoning was not changed. The few neighbors that have invested in this neighborhood are focused on the impact of the the amount of homes that are primarily safety issues on the neighborhood,namely increase in the volume of traffic and capacity of utility infrastructure. So the obvious differences are dollars invested and cost by the investors and developers and traffic safety (65th Ave and Southcenter Blvd as well as school traffic (car and walking to and from Tukwila Elementary)and the environmental impact of use (water,sewage,gas and electric infrastructure and portables for Tukwila Elementary). The common thread for both sides (investors and neighbors) is agreement about affordable housing. I am in favor of sharing Tukwila with others. I am not in favor of changing the zoning. The five large buildings constructed to expand the Southcenter area(Holiday Inn, Interurban Hotel,Marvel,and the two facilities for elders on Andover East) are not filled because of the costs of each unit). When occupied,traffic will be very serious. The planning commission then has a responsibility to provide the answers and plans for this section of "town". 1. There needs to be a light for safety on 65th and Southcenter BLVD.high peak traffic on Southcenter Blvd absorbs cars from RENTON to avoid using backups on 1-405. 2. During school starts and endings ,traffic on Southcenter Blvd is traveling at 45 mph. Its dangerous to turn left from 65th Ave S . turning right is also as dangerous. 3. Emergency vehicles will also be using this route. 4. Parking on 65th Ave S. (due to condos and apts) also restricts north and south travel.lncreasing car traffic from the proposed development (on average based of 35 341 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM haps ://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... homes (50-70 cars) will need mitigation.(stop signs)Could guest parking overflow in the complex be a doable responsibility of the developer. 5. The tree viability assessment should be published. 6. With the pandemic of CoVid-19,Is this a time to propose a development that may begin but not finish if workers,city representatives and buyers being "put on hold "? Again , I do agree with affordable housing ($450,000 is not affordable for families earning less $75,000) and conservative expansion for Tukwila. I propose keeping the zoning as is and developers being patient and accommodating as we realistically head for a recession for sure and a possible depression. (So now ,I am considering the dollars just as the developers should). I would not want Tukwila to be a town with empty ,expensive housing. Thank you for your time, Bonnie Wong almost 30 year resident at 6341 S.151st Place TI • : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 342 2 of 2 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM March 30,Z02O David &LavaTomlinson 6360S151stP| Tukwila, VVA98l88 Tukwila City Council G2OD5outhcenterBlvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Members of the Tukwila City Council, Our names are David and Layla Tomlinson and we reside in Tukwila at 6360 S 151st Place. DMP Inc. and Schneider Homes Inc. have recently applied to rezone the property at 6250 S 151st Street (which is across the street behind our house) from low to medium density residential (File #s:Ll9-OlZS &E19-0013,Project Fi|e#:PL19-OO99). Weare adamantly opposed to the rezoning mfthis property, aswell asthe development plan put forward byDK4P and Schneider Homes. VVewill delve further into our reasons for opposing this rezone below, but hope you will listen to the objections and concerns of your constituents who would be most directly impacted by this proposed zoning change and vote in accordance with their interests. \A/ewant tnbegin hvassuhngyouthotvveanekeenk/axvareofourareasneedfnrnnore housing and making itclear that wveare not necessarily opposed tmthe development ofthis property in general, we simply believe that current and future residents of our particular area would be best served by the land remaining zoned as low density residential. Our foremost concern isthat allowing this development tmgo forward maproposed would destroy the natural, tree -filled character ofthe neighborhood that wwelove. The current zoning ofthe property would allow for up to 3Osingle-family units tn be built on it. Rezoning it to medium density would allow for up to 65 units to be placed on the property. The site plan submitted by Schneider Homes and DMP only calls for 38 units, but would still require the property tobeclear cut. Furthermore, their plan envisions building 120-foot-long, 30-foot- high buildings only lOfeet from the sidewalks along S 151st5treet and 62nd AveS. Leaving little to no room for vegetation between the street and the townhomes, we believe these structures would tower imposingly over these streets and the current homes across from them. We recently took the time to visit another townhome development built by Schneider homes, only tohave our fears ofwhat might come topass beconfirmed. While the buildings were not particularly unattractive, they were imposing on an otherwise naked skyline, and it was clear that not asingle tree had been spared during construction. VVehave included apicture below for your reference of what we can expect to see from our back porch if this development is allowed togoforward asproposed. Leaving the property zoned aslow density would require additional distancing from the road to any structures to be built and allow for more vegetation toremain orbesubsequently planted. VVebelieve this would honor and preserve the current character ofthe area that xvecall home. 1 343 A picture of the Copper Ridge townhome development in Kent built by Schneider Homes. it is clear that no trees were spared during construction. This is what we can expect to see along S 151st St and 62nd Ave S if this project is allowed to proceed as proposed. In the spirit of good faith, we plan to reach out to the developer and builder in the weeks ahead and further explore ways that we can come to agreement on a plan to which we and everyone else in the area is amenable. Until such a time as that has taken place, this rezone must not be allowed to go ahead. Another major concern of ours is the effect that adding such a development to our area would have on traffic and parking. Even with things as they currently are, cars often line up waiting to turn on to Southcenter Blvd from 65th Ave S. During drop-off and pick-up times at Tukwila Elementary, some residents of the area already have difficulty getting out of their driveways. The apartment and condo complexes along 65th Ave S were not built with adequate parking provided, resulting in the streets being continuously lined with cars and creating a hazard as people enter and exit these vehicles. All of this is to say that our area already faces significant traffic and parking challenges, and it is remains unclear how much a new development such as this would exacerbate these. it is my understanding that a public works review has been commissioned to evaluate the implications of allowing this proposed rezone to go ahead, but we have not yet been able to attain a copy of this review. Ultimately, we believe that this rezone should not even be considered by the council until the full traffic and parking implications are fully understood. Our final concern revolves around the implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic. This event has thrown a wrench into all of our lives and it remains to be seen what the ultimate societal, economic and housing market implications of this pandemic will be. The restrictions placed on public gatherings has already impacted the due process normally allowed prior to the consideration of a zoning change such as this as the town hall meeting with the builder and developer had to be conducted via phone conference. Even if you are not convinced that this rezoning application should be denied, we urge you to defer it to such a time as the full implications of this pandemic can be better understood and normal due process allowed to take place. Nothing would be worse than allowing the builder and developer to begin this project, clear cut the land, and then discover that they could not continue with it due to the economic environment. 2 344 We want toclose byensuring that you know we are not alone in our opposition to this rezone. VVehave taken the liberty ofcollecting the signatures of36 individuals from 17 residences in the immediate vicinity of this property who stand in opposition to this proposal. We did this in a manner consistent with the social distancing guidelines currently in effect, and it is likely that we could have garnered even more signatures if this had not been the case. We have provided copies of these signatures in a separate document that has also been provided tothe council, We believe the role of government is to protect the interests of all the people that it serves, not just those who stand to gain from maximizing their profit margin from a development such asthis. Ultimately, vvebelieve xvecan find apath forward that permits both the development of this property and the retention of the natural neighborhood feel that we so love about our area. However, xvedonot believe that this path should involve the rezoning of this property. Weurge you to listen tothe voices sfyour constituents who will bemost directly affected bythis proposal and vote against it. VVecan be contacted at7l9-76l-6S1O or andwould be happy to discuss this matter further and/or answer any questions you may have. We sincerely thank you for your valuable time and consideration inthis matter! David Tomlinson LavaTomn|inson 3 345 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/search/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5... Re: Public Meeting Minutes, Hopper Townhomes 3/18/2020 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 3:47 PM To: David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi David, The Public Works review is not complete, nor is it a formal document for dispersal; each department provides comments that are included in the staff report that goes before Planning Commission and/or City Council. As a Party of Record you will be notified of any staff reports, public hearings, etc. as they are completed and/or scheduled. The next steps for a Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone include finishing departmental reviews, attaining any additional information from the project applicant, and then presenting the findings as a staff report to the City Council. Between the end of the public comment period and the City Council public hearing the City usually budgets at least two months, but this is likely to be pushed back due to the COVID19 response. You and other Parties of Record will receive a Notice of Public Hearing at least 14 days ahead of the hearing with City Council. Just another reminder that Nancy Eklund will be taking over as the project manager for the proposal, she has been cc'ed on this email as well. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 2:18 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Re: Public Meeting Minutes, Hopper Townhomes 3/18/2020 Max, I just left you a voicemail and now following up with an e-mail. I had a couple of questions for you regarding the proposed Hopper Townhome Rezone: - On the call last week you mentioned a public works review. Has this been completed and is it available to the public? - What would be the normal process and timeline from here on something like this and how is it currently looking as a result of the COVID impacts? I would prefer to discuss all of this on the phone with you if at all possible, but e-mail also works if 346 1 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:47 PM https65— not. Thanks for your time! Respectfully, David Tomlinson 719-761-6516 OnMon, Mar 23,Z020Gt5l6PM Maxwell Baker <M3x.B8ier@tukwilawa.g{v> wrote: Hello, You are receiving this email because you are a party of record for the Hopper Townhomes Rezone, Attached to this email is a copy of the minutes for the public meeting held on 3/18/2020.P|eese|et me know if you have any questions. � Best Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICity of Tukwila 0300Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 1 Tukwila, WA98188 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. TI � : This email originated from outside the City ofTukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious Origin. 347 https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 6250 S 151st Street David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 1:48 PM To: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson<C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> JJ 2 attachments (5 MB) Letter of Oppositon to File L19-0123.pdf; Petition Letters Opposing File No L19-0123.pdf; Esteemed members of the Tukwila City Council & Co, My wife Layla and I are writing you to express our own opposition, as well as that of our neighbors, to the proposed rezoning of the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, (Reference Files L19-0123 & E19-0013, Project File 19-0099). Attached you will find a letter expressing our personal reasons for opposing this action, as well as letters of opposition signed a total of 36 individuals who live in 17 separate residences in the immediate vicinity of this property. We hope you will hear all of our voices and vote against this proposed rezoning. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have (contact info below). We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, thank you! Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151 st PI Tukwila, WA 98188 Cell: 719-761-6516 TIi : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 348 lof1 3/30/2020, 1:53 PM https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 6250 S 151st Street David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 3:00 PM To: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson<C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; Mayor <Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov> JJ 1 attachments (743 KB) Opposed rezone Thoelke.pdf; Sir/Ma'am, Our apologies for the multiple e-mails. We received one additional letter of opposition after we sent you our last e-mail, which you will find attached. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:48 PM David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> wrote: Esteemed members of the Tukwila City Council & Co, My wife Layla and I are writing you to express our own opposition, as well as that of our neighbors, to the proposed rezoning of the property at 6250 S 151st Street, (Reference Files L19-0123 & E19-0013, Project File 19-0099). Attached you will find a letter expressing our personal reasons for opposing this action, as well as letters of opposition signed a total of 36 individuals who live in 17 separate residences in the immediate vicinity of this property. We hope you will hear all of our voices and vote against this proposed rezoning. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have (contact info below). We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, thank you! Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151st P1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Cell: 719-761-6516 TI This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 349 3/30/2020, 3:08 PM Breyden Jager From: Breyden Jager Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:40 PM To: Geoff Hinton Subject: RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Geoff, Unfortunately, the tool only allows searches by address, parcel number, and permit number, which makes it a bit difficult to run a general search. To find the information you are looking for, my advice would be to submit a public records request. You can find instructions on how to do so on the City Clerk's website at the following link: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/city-clerks-office/public-records-requests/ Thank you, Breyden Jager I Associate Planner Pronouns: He/Him/His Department of Community Development 1 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov 1 206.431.3651 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoft.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Thanks for the details, Breyden! That was very comprehensive. Is there a way I can programmatically query the data in this database? I'm specifically interested in previous examples where zoning was either approved or declined in the last 5-10 years. Thanks, Geoff From: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWAgov> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:15 AM To: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoft.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Good morning, Geoff, In order to access the latest plans and documents, please navigate to the land use permits portal at the following link and use the search function to locate each application number L19-0123 & E19-0013: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/permit-center/land-use-permit-portal/ i 350 Once you have the permit file pulled up, just click on the attachments tab to view and download all associated files. The ones that are dated 2023, will be the newer, currently relevant documents. Everything older is superseded by the newer files at this point. There are no current decisions to view, as both applications are still in review at this point. Administrative appeals of the City Council's rezone decision are not allowed; however, the decision may be appealed to the King County Superior Court, pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. Administrative appeals of the SEPA decision follow the process outlined in TMC 21.04.280, and must be filed within 14 calendar days of the date of decision. It's important to note that in deciding to approve or deny any rezone application, the City Council utilize the criteria found in TMC 18.84.020 (shown below). This application is for a rezone only, which is a non -project action. No development proposal has been submitted at this time. The criteria simply assess whether the change in zoning, in this case from CDR to MDR, is appropriate for the subject property. The criteria do not assess the feasibility or impacts of a specific project proposal. The project design plans and documents that have been submitted by the applicant should be considered for reference only, and any preliminary project proposal is subject to change following the decision to approve or deny the rezone application. More concisely, the approval criteria simply ask whether any of the allowed uses within the MDR zoning district are appropriate for the property, not necessarily just townhomes. Specific design considerations would be reviewed during the Design Review land use process accompanying any multi -family proposal later on, if the rezone request is approved. Off-street parking for any future proposal will be required to meet the City's minimum parking requirements outlined in TMC Table 18-7. 18.84.020 Criteria Each determination granting a rezone and the accompanying Comprehensive Plan map change shall be supported by written findings and conclusions, showing specifically that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and purpose of TMC Title 18, "Zoning Code," and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for; 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map; and 4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. (Ord. 2368 §69, 2012; Ord. 2116 §1 (part), 2006) Thank you, Breyden Jager I Associate Planner Pronouns: He/Him/His Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3651 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 351 From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoftcom> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:43 PM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWAagov> Subject: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Dear Breyden, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to request more information regarding the proposed rezoning and building plans for the lot located across the street from my home. I understand that, according to the mailer, there are details available about the application, plans, and any current decisions, as well as information about any appeal rights regarding Parcel# 3597000400. It has been over a year since the last hearing on this, and I have not yet seen any updates on the status of the plans for the development. I am particularly concerned about the lack of parking that has been planned by Schneider Homes, as I do not want to see the overflow from their parking situation spilling into our cul-de-sac. I understand that commitments have been made by Schneider Homes in the previous hearing for expanding designated parking spaces inside the property, but I would like to understand more. I hope that you can provide me with the information I am seeking so that I may better understand the situation for preparing my comments. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 1 look forward to hearing back from you soon. Best regards, Geoff Hinton 6202 S 151' PI CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 3 352 Breyden Jager From: Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:56 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Re: L19-0123 Comments Comp Plan/Rezone Proposal L19-0123, 6250 151' St. I am writing to oppose City Council approval of this proposal for reasons stated below. If the Council decides to allow the upzone despite these matters, it should impose enforceable conditions, as discussed in the last section below. These comments are based on the information I have been able to review and obtain between recently learning of the revised materials submitted in 2022 and earlier this year and before the Feb. 21 deadline. The Neighborhood First, let's be clear about the nature of the neighborhood, which has been stable for many years. The applicant continues to assert that the proposed upzone would be consistent with multifamily developments in the "surrounding area," and at the 2/15/23 meeting stated again that the site was "surrounded" by multifamily property. In fact, the site is surrounded by LDR zoning and an unbuildable steep slope, and all developed land adjacent to the site is built to lower than LDR density, with much remaining wooded open space. The site is bounded on 3 sides (2 across streets) by LDR zones with housing at less than LDR density, often much less. What might appear on the zoning map to be high density property across 65' to the East is actually a steep wooded slope below a walking trail, which is zoned HDR but entirely undeveloped except for a 19-unit condo project with an Interurban Ave. address located well to the Northeast of the site as well as far downhill. That condo project sits on a 4- acre lot (thus is less dense than LDR allows), and in any case is not part of the same neighborhood as the subject site. The only multifamily -zoned lot adjacent to the site and at or near the same elevation, at the SE corner on the other side of 65' and Trail No. 3, was the scene of a tragic fire and is now bare land. To the North, three adjacent lots average one house to about 26,000 s.f., and just North of those is a 2-acre lot with only a small 1903 vintage house. Facing the entire South side of the site on 151sY is a single-family subdivision developed by the same applicant with lots of at least 12,000 s.f. each. South of that a large wooded wetland area separates the site vicinity from the multifamily development further South abutting 151' . Applicant cites the Sunwood condos as "surrounding" multifamily development, but these sit high on a hill, separated from the SW corner of the site by 4 homes on lots averaging 34,000 s.f. each. Sunwood does not even take access in the direction of the site. In short, the proposal would be a 4.45 acre intrusion of multifamily zoning into an area of very low -density single-family housing. Build -out of the site under MDR, allowing 1 unit per 3000 s.f., would be radically inconsistent with the existing nature of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Proposal Does Not Satisfy Rezone Criteria A Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone can be approved only if the Council can make specific findings to establish that all four criteria of TMC 18.04.020 are met. They are addressed by number below. It appears that the applicant did not address these criteria in its 2019 application, which used an incorrect form that called for different criteria. Only in August 2022 1 353 did it submit a letter trying to adapt some of its arguments on those criteria to those that apply, or simply repeating them even if not on point. 1. The main rationale for the rezone advanced in the August 2022 letter is that it is consistent with the Comp Plan because it would provide for more affordable home ownership due to a more efficient housing types. But that could apply to any LDR-zoned property. Comp Plan policy 3.2.2 provides: Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning less than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built. [emphasis added] Whether an upzone of this site is the appropriate way to provide opportunities depends on consistency with other Comp Plan policies; on whether the Council can find that all of the Code criteria are met; and on whether the alternative of revising the Code is a better way. Indeed, the City is starting to pursue that better way, to allow "middle housing" more broadly. The City published an RFQ in November of last year for a consultant to "analyze and consider the feasibility of adopting policies and code language that would allow a range of higher density housing types in single family zoned areas of the City; conduct extensive public outreach on housing issues to the general public and community based organizations in the City..." with work to be completed by June 30, 2023. That is more consistent with the Comp Plan strategy at p. 3-5, "Following the neighborhood outreach process, consider flexible zoning standards to promote housing options that meet current and future needs." It would also be a more efficient and equitable way to allow for different housing types in LDR zones than to grant upzones on an ad hoc basis. The applicant seeks to emphasize the access to transit as a reason why this site should be changed from from LDR. The same argument might support rezoning all of the LDR land in the area (such as ours, with theoretical capacity for 13 units in MDR), at similar distances from or closer to bus routes. But the idea that many would walk to transit from the site is not realistic. Unit owners would have cars. From the bus stop on the North side of Southcenter Blvd. it is a hike up a steep hill on 65`h, which I timed at 9 minutes to the proposed South entrance of the site at my rather brisk pace; to reach the westbound stop one must brave the unsignaled crosswalk and high-speed traffic, which I did not try. Using that stop would significantly increase the time on the 150 bus compared to boarding on the other side of the hill on Interurban. Having commuted to Seattle for many years from a home near the SW corner of the site, I can attest that the way to use transit to Seattle from here is to drive to it: down to Interurban for the 150 bus, or to the Sounder station (one would not walk there). Some commuters from the site would be dropped off by a family member, to avoid parking issues or keep a car in use; that would double the trips. Some would find current conditions on transit unacceptable and drive to work even if transit would get them there. Nor would homeowners at the site walk to work or shopping in Southcenter. They would have cars, and it is much easier to drive and park. There are no neighborhood retail business that one can reasonably walk to. The applicant says Fort Dent and Southcenter are in easy biking distance, but that overlooks the grueling climb home up 65`h, to which I can attest, as well as safety issues. Over many years we have never braved the traffic to Southcenter, and though we have biked down to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent, heavier traffic will make it riskier from here to the bottom of 65`h, and I think most would choose the ease and safety of driving the bikes down to the trail parking area. The applicant's August 2022 letter tries to support its proposal with policies for the Southcenter/Urban Center as a place for "living" (applicant's emphasis), but the site is not there. It is in the residential area called Tukwila Hill (Comp. Plan, p. 7-5), cut off from the Urban Center by I-405 and Southcenter Boulevard, as well as by the topography that provides its name. This is not a case in which rezoning would lead to transit -oriented development in the sense that residents might live without automobiles, nor would it put density in a walkable neighborhood. Comp Plan objectives, goals, policies, and strategies with which the proposal would not be consistent include: The first priority objective (p. 8): 2 354 1. To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability. GOAL 7.3 Neighborhood Quality: Stable residential neighborhoods ... 7.1.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the preservation and enhancement of single-family and stable multi -family neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible land uses; and clearly establishes applicable development requirements through recognizable boundaries. 7.3.4, p. 8: Use new development to foster a sense of community, and replace lost vegetation and open spaces with improvements of at least equal value to the community. I have seen no indication that such replacement would be done or how it could be done if substantially all of the vegetation is cleared. Continued emphasis on existing land use patterns to protect and preserve residential uses. (p. 7-10) 7.5.9 Support zoning densities that encourage redevelopment of existing multi -family properties. (p. 7-13). Allowing MDR density on greenfield sites by rezone to higher density tends to have the opposite effect. The Aug. 14, 2022 letter to Nancy Eklund emphasizes that the LDR designation allows only detached single-family housing, and that a choice of housing styles can allow more affordable home ownership. These are grounds to reform development standards for LDR, but the cure does not require applying all the MDR rules, including density, lot coverage, and permitted uses, to LDR lots generally or to this particular lot. The proposal is not an appropriate way to further housing goals and is predominantly inconsistent the Comp Plan. 2. The August 2022 letter does not explain how the proposal is consistent with the scope and purpose of Title 18. I am not sure what that means, but part of the purpose is stated in TMC 18.10.010 (LDR Zone): It is intended to provide low -density family residential areas together with a full range of urban infrastructure services in order to maintain stable residential neighborhoods, and to prevent intrusions by incompatible land uses. [emphasis added] The rezone would conflict with that purpose. 3. The applicant fails to identify any change in conditions since the existing zoning was adopted, though that is an essential requirement for a rezone under TMC 18.04.020.3. Having lived in this stable neighborhood over 15 years, I do not know what changes could be cited. The August 2022 letter, coming more than 2.5 years after the application, has a response to that item that does not relate to changed conditions. It merely recites supposed benefits and argues consistency with Comp Plan policies, referring back to another item that relates to an independent requirement. Even if somehow the need for affordable housing has increased over some relevant period, which is not claimed or documented (Seattle declared a housing emergency in 1995), that is a general issue that could merit general Code amendments, not the kind of changes affecting a site or its surroundings that would be relevant to a site -specific rezone. 4. A project at MDR density will have more negative affects on the surrounding neighborhood and its residents and properties than a project within maximum LDR density, which is less than half. All the traffic will have to use the single arterial, because there is not a normal street grid. Not only the residents' vehicles, but also deliveries, service trucks, visitors, contractors, etc., will all have to turn onto and off that arterial, and if entrances are congested they may stop in the road to await a turn. We will feel less safe biking from our home. 3 355 There will be more noise from the vehicles (including emergency vehicles or police when needed), equipment, alarms, and human activity generally. Vehicles that do not fit on site will park on the street and sounds from them will not be buffered. There will be more emissions to air, such as from vehicles and from any barbecues or wood -burning fireplaces (the SEPA checklist says the latter, "if permitted," will produce emissions). An LDR-density development would have some impacts of the same nature, but at a smaller scale. Humans who live in townhomes or triplexes are probably no better or worse neighbors on average than others, and equally variable. By arithmetic, more density will mean more who tend to cause negative impacts. I would expect to see more people drive into the dead end of 62nd — a rather secluded spot right by our property — to hang out at night. We already see this occasionally, and find the debris they leave. The increased impacts on some public infrastructure could be disproportionately greater than from an LDR project; i.e. could hit a tipping point. Sanitary sewer capacity is a concern, discussed separately. Traffic may reach the point at which the left turn lane at the bottom of 65t1' will frequently back up or a signal is required. Reductions in tree canopy are generally recognized as detrimental to a neighborhood, and we expect more loss from an MDR project, with the permitted and intended 75% lot coverage. See discussion below in the "Conditions" section. Trees retained in a steep slope area in the NE corner provide the least benefit in the neighborhood. I believe that the impacts above, together with the expectation that more land in the immediate vicinity may be similarly rezoned and developed, such as the large lots directly North of the site, are likely to be injurious to the values of single-family properties that are not suitable for MDR redevelopment even if rezoned. The impacts during construction would have to be worse for development to MDR density. More clearing, grading, infrastructure work, and unit construction would mean more noise, dust, emissions, heavy truck traffic, road obstructions, etc. If the street would have to be dug up for sewer work that would not be required for a less dense project, that would substantially increase the inconvenience. As with all types of impact, if we do not know, then Council has no basis to conclude there would be no adverse effect. I have made separate comments regarding some impacts under the SEPA matter, E19-0013, which should be considered incorporated here. The issue under 18.04.020.4 is not whether MDR density will make our lives unbearable, compared to the utopia of living by an LDR development. The applicant seeks a special change in rules for its property alone, enhancing its value with potential that we surrounding owners will not have, and appropriately it must show, on top of the other requirements, that the rezone "will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located." The Council could not rationally find that there will be no adverse or injurious effect. Sanitary Sewer and Concurrency Note: These comments are based on what I have been able to find out before the comment deadline. I am concerned that a high density development on the site not overtax the sanitary sewer system below where our 4-lot subdivision discharges to the main, and cause back-ups. At the 2/15/23 meeting the applicant or consultant dismissed the concern saying that it would discharge to an existing City 12-inch concrete sewer pipe under 151 st. But the "Existing Conditions" plan dated January 2023 from the applicant indicates that the only sewer main there is 8-inch (see also 2014 Sanitary Sewer Plan, Drainage Basin no. 4). I am no sewer expert, but I read that plan as showing that the slope of the pipe drops from .45% to .34% as it runs East from the manhole 4 356 slightly West of the middle of the site. I see that the City's Comprehensive Sewer System Plan linked in the online Comp Plan, at 1.3.3 on p. 1-12, includes a City policy that 8" pipe must have a minimum slope of .40% (a spot check of other sources, including one from Ecology, suggests that is a common minimum). If I follow all this correctly, the proposal is to increase potential density on a site that would discharge to sanitary sewer main that does not meet standards. The Comp Plan says: LEVEL -OF -SERVICE STANDARDS 40. Sufficient system capacity for surface water, water, sewer and transportation is required prior to approval of any new development. (Standards for surface water, water and sewer are codified in the City's Municipal Code, and the transportation standards are in the Transportation Element of this Plan.) New development must pass the concurrency tests before development may be permitted. TMC 14.36.020 provides in part: 3. Applications for Type 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions involving projects which will require sanitary sewer service from the City of Tukwila shall be referred by the Department of Community Development to the Department of Public Works, which shall determine whether the City has the necessary sewer system capacity, including such mains, pump stations and other facilities as may be necessary, to provide sanitary sewer service meeting City standards or that such capacity will be available by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued. If adequate service is not available, the Department of Public Works shall determine and shall advise the applicant of the improvements which are necessary to provide service meeting City standards. (Ord, 1769 §2 (part), The proposed rezone is a type 5 decision "involving" such a project. A City pre-app checklist for this site,under PRE20-0005, that I found online from 2020 has a note about the 8" sanitary sewer main, saying the applicant shall conduct a study as to capacity to handle "so many units." An email exchange from 2000 includes a City staffer who would "not feel confident telling you that we have enough sewer capacity for the new townhomes (38 currently?) that they plan to build." From a phone call with Public Works today (2/21), it appears no final determination has been made on that question; no study has been done over the last 3 years; and the City may not intend to require one. I think there should be a clear determination consistent 5 357 with the concurrency provision in the Code prior to a rezone vote, and if the infrastructure is already substandard or is of doubtful adequacy to support a project at MDR density, the City should have a clear plan for any necessary improvements and their funding, before the rezone decision. Conditions The proposal cannot satisfy Code requirements. But if the City Council decides to approve a zoning change, it should use its authority to impose conditions that will limit the impacts and make the development of the site more compatible with the surrounding low density housing than an unconditioned development under MDR. The Council has "the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in TMC 18.84.020." A Comp Plan policy relied on by the applicant, 3.2.3, says: "Provide sufficient appropriate zoning for housing of all types, including government -assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multi -family housing, and group homes and foster care facilities, subject to conditions that appropriately integrate them into existing neighborhoods [Emphasis added] The Council has imposed conditions on prior rezones. Conditions should include: Density limit A limit of 30 units would make the density roughly compatible with the theoretical maximum LDR density of 1/6500, though still several times greater than the actual average density of the surrounding property. That should allow the final design to minimize various impacts by allowing more land to be kept in a natural state rather than cleared and regraded. A 30-unit townhome subdivision should easily be able to preserve many of the mature trees on the site, if the conditions on the rezone so require, and with less impervious surface the extent of grading, filling and detention to deal with stormwater would be less. Note that the applicant's August 2022 letter emphasizes several times that the proposal would allow a different housing type that is more affordable and offers more options in housing style for homeowners; the problem is that LDR limits the style of housing to the most expensive. The letter does not even mention the LDR density limit or say that higher density than that is needed. But to preempt any claim that the rezone with conditions makes it less profitable to develop the site that before, the Council could leave open the option to develop under all LDR regulations instead. Impervious Surface Impervious surface should be limited to something determined by staff to be more consistent with the density limit suggested, and with reasonable tree preservation, than the 75% maximum (At one place the revised SEPA checklist says it will be about 65%, for a project at MDR density). Housing type The applicant represents that the project will be townhomes. A condition excluding other uses that the upzone to MDR might permit (which include boarding homes, senior living facilities, and fourplexes) would ensure that outcome, and housing more compatible with the surrounding single-family homes. Stormwater The change from a heavily wooded lot to one with mostly impervious surface will obviously increase annual stormwater flow from the site. The applicant has submitted a plan that shows stormwater generally routed to a new underground tank in the Southeast corner (though it is not clear how it gets there from the South auto entrance) and from there into the City system on 65`h Ave. S. A rezone condition should require that 6 358 solution, and that the developer pay for any necessary improvements to the City system. The earlier plan shown by the applicant had a detention pond in the SW comer, which would have to flow through the surface drainage (wetland) South of the 62nd Ave. S dead end, which would worsen flooding over City Trail No. 4 and adjacent private property, which is already a problem. Sanitary Sewer See the comments and citations above on this issue. Whether or not the City determines prior to the rezone decision that an upgrade is needed to support the density, if the main is substandard under policies incorporated in the Comp Plan, then if the applicant would have to upgrade it as a rezone condition, that would help make the rezone be consistent with the Comp Plan and serve the public health, safety, and welfare, and the issue would not have to be debated in later permitting decisions. Tree Preservation Although the SEPA checklist says in one place that 75% of the site will be cleared (pdf p. 16), in another it says flatly "the site will be cleared" and trees retained per "adopted standards" (pdf p. 8). At the public meeting on 2/15/23 I understood the intent was to clear the entire property, with the exception of the small portion in the NE corner with a slope exceeding 40%. The property is now heavily wooded, and includes tall cedars, firs and maples. The arborist's preliminary survey from early 2020 reported 257 trees of which he said 43 were "exceptional trees" under the Code. This figure may well be low, because others may have grown to the 18 inch diameter over 3 years, and the 43 are a subset of 125 trees the report calls "viable," from which it excludes all cottonwoods as well as some firs and maples that may merely be covered by excess ivy. Under Sec. 18.54.060 A, as many Exceptional Trees as possible are to be retained on a site proposed for development; however, based on what we heard from the applicant and staff at the public meeting, it seemed that the proposed upzone would lead to the near total clearing of the site, without even off -site planting or in -lieu payments except for any trees removed from critical areas. Whether or not proper application of the Code at the subdivision or project permit level would have that result, I think the rezone could cause a much greater loss of canopy and habitat than would be likely as a practical matter under LDR. If the rezone is allowed, the Council should condition it on the retention of at least half of the on -site Exceptional Trees, based on an updated survey that identifies them all using the TMC definition. From a sidewalk survey I see that several Exceptional Trees are near the perimeter, particularly along the western boundary where they may be within the landscape buffer, or in some cases the setbacks, shown on the latest site plan (p.3). These trees enhance the neighborhood and can buffer light and noise (both ways), and I suspect there is nothing wrong with most of them that removing English Ivy cannot cure. A landscape buffer will not prevent the buildings near the West perimeter from looming above the streetscape, absent mature trees. The condition should require the preservation of all Exceptional Trees wholly or partly in that buffer or wholly within the 20 foot setback, unless certified as Defective under the TMC by a qualified arborist. If there is no condition on the rezone I fear that DCD will be pressed to allow a cheaper approach than preserving them. There are also a few Exceptional Trees that must be in the City ROW, which I hope would have to be protected as a matter of course, but a rezone condition could remove any doubt. No Wood -burning Fireplaces or Stoves The SEPA checklist discloses the potential for emissions from wood -burning fireplaces "if allowed." They should not be. Their use would worsen the problem of particulate pollution in the area. If City regulations do not already prohibit them in new homes, a condition should do that here to reduce the impacts on the neighborhood and the environment. Respectfully submitted, Hugh Tobin 15165 62nd Ave. S 7 359 CALITION:This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 8 360 https://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Mon 3/30/2020 2:59 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Cc: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson <C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov> Dear Mr. Baker and Councilmembers: I am a resident (since 2007) and homeowner at 15165 62nd Ave. S., which is part of a 4-home subdivision on about 3 acres to the southwest of the proposal site, between it and the Sunwood Condominiums (this area of LDR zoning is omitted from the application's "General Description of Surrounding Land Uses", which states that Sunwood is to the southwest). I write first to address the range of alternatives that should be considered if the City is to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, and second to comment on the adequacy of the SEPA checklist for the specific proposal. Scope of alternatives and environmental review If the City is to consider changing the comp plan to allow greater density or more affordable housing, it should evaluate a range of options for the City as a whole, rather than merely respond to the desire of a single property owner for an upzone. Options could include changes in policies that drive development regulations for LDR zones, and/or creation of additional zoning categories, which might include density bonus options based on provision of housing that would be truly affordable to very low-income households. In some jurisdictions single-family zoning is being phased out, as in Oregon. Without changing the basic density limit for LDR, 6500 s.f. per unit, and perhaps without amending the comp plan, the City could change regulations that unduly limit density and affordability of development on larger lots. For example, Chapter 18.10 TMC arbitrarily limits development coverage and footprints on larger LDR lots (such as the Hopper tract) to much lower percentages than on smaller lots, and prohibits duplexes and triplexes, thereby encouraging subdivision into 6500 s.f. lots and more expensive housing. If an owner could achieve the same 1/6500 unit density on a larger LDR development site (whether or not divided for sale or made into a condominium), or could add to a partly developed site, with townhome development, then housing could be more affordable and climate -friendly, with more usable open space, and in many cases more of the site left undisturbed, than in a typical SF subdivision. Under present LDR zoning, even on a lot large enough for several units under that density (such as the one where I live), one may not have a duplex, even in an existing structure that could be converted without exterior changes ("ADU" unit rules, designed to make those acceptable on minimum size lots, have restrictions that would often require dysfunctional modifications, and do not accommodate family -friendly units). So the City should consider revisiting development restrictions more generally, and include 361 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... potential changes to them as reasonable alternatives to any proposed rezone for purposes of environmental analysis. SEPA Checklist for Hopper Lot Proposal My general comment on the SEPA checklist, as it relates to the specific rezone, is that it does not adequately respond to the questions in the form, and therefore does not provide a sufficient basis for a threshold determination — certainly not a DNS. In many cases responses have one or more of these defects: • Incomplete (e.g., checking "yes" but not answering the "if yes" question) • Admitting or revealing that insufficient study has been done to provide the answer • Entirely omitted (e.g., "N/A" for an item that does apply) • Contradicted by other statements in the checklist or by materials with the application • Inaccurate • Consisting of unsupported and implausible statements • Lacking any quantitative information • Based on assumptions or promises as to actual development for which no assurance exists • Inconsistent with information available in public records, including City maps • Merely stating that regulations (of the new zone) will be followed, as if that disclosed the impact of development under them Subjects on which these defects occur include stormwater runoff, sensitive areas, slopes, streets, traffic, public services and facilities, discharges, noise, tree preservation, wildlife, nearby historic buildings, and nearby recreational facilities. I could provide detail, but it is not the job of neighboring residents to prepare responses to the checklist. I notice also that two preliminary reports from consultants submitted with the application, as well as limited online information in eTRAKIT regarding open code violations, indicate that there have been unpermitted grading, filling, and other activities altering the conditions of the site prior to the submission of this application, all of which clearly were known to the present owner prior to a purchase completed on or about 3/13/2020. That raises the question, whether the full extent of those activities and the previously existing site condition need to be established and the evaluation of impacts done using that prior condition as a baseline for a threshold determination. Finally, although the proponent has indicated an intent to develop approximately 38 townhome units on the site and has provided a possible site plan, there is no proposed concomitant agreement that would limit development or provide any mitigation, so what must be evaluated is the potential maximum development of the site under MDR zoning. The new owner may be describing its intent in complete good faith, but the ultimate development could be done by someone else. 362 2 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. I understand from the virtual meeting held on 3/18 that if the proposal submitted is to be considered, then there will be public hearings and opportunity to comment. I am reserving any comments on the merits for a later stage, when I would expect there to be more information available about the conditions on the site than the 2 preliminary letters from consultants that were filed with the application. Sincerely, Hugh R. Tobin This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 363 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM http s : //o ut l oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L... Re: L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Mon 3/30/2020 3:51 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Following up on my checklist comment with one example, re: stormwater: Under C.1 at p. 8 of the pdf, the checklist says the project will not create stormwater from impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site. Given the preceding statement that 75% of the lot will be made impervious, that is implausible and appears inconsistent with a later statement in the checklist, below. At p. 17, item c., the checklist asks about runoff, including where it will flow. The answer is evasive: it will be collected and infiltrated "to the greatest extent possible." That extent may be little or none, yet maximum MDR development will obviously add a lot of impermeable surface. The City's Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (2013), Section 2.3, identified this site as an area "where infiltration is not allowed as a surface water management approach due to steep slopes and/or high groundwater table (Figure 4)." I understand from City staff that this categorical prohibition has been removed, but the fact that the land was so mapped is a strong indication that very little infiltration could occur, so there would be a large increase in stormwater flowing offsite. At p. 30, 16.b, it is disclosed (notwithstanding the response to C.1, above) that development of the site would require stormwater discharge into the existing City system (presumably in 151St St.). Thus, the quantity of flow that could occur, including in extreme conditions, from a maximum development under MDR, with the site "cleared" as the applicant proposes, must be compared to the adequacy of the existing system to accept added flow in order to evaluate the impact of the proposal and whether it would cause a need for off -site stortnwater improvements. Quantitative analysis is required to make a determination as to significance. It is likely that much rainfall to the site is presently absorbed by the vegetation (300 trees according to the proponent on the conference call). Some may now drain easterly down toward Interurban; however, the site is mapped mainly or entirely in the the Gilliam Creek drainage basin, which implies a southerly flow. If flow would drain toward 62nd Ave. S., as does at least some from the Mapletree Park development across 151St from the site, that could exacerbate recent flooding along Tukwila Trail no. 4 (which the applicant evidently assumes residents will use to walk to Southcenter; else it would not be as close as claimed). A City stormwater map shows that the flow must pass through a 12-inch pipe (and associated catch basins) on the Terra Apts. property to reach larger pipe under 153rd Ave . S. and then Cottage Creek, which drains into Gilliam Creek. Within approximately the past year the water has backed up to make the trail, which is used by elementary school children, impassable, for approximately one day after a heavy rain in the Fall and for weeks after the snowfall in the winter of 2019. TI This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 364 1 of 1 3/30/2020, 3:54 PM Nancy Eklund From: Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 4:24 PM To: Nancy Eklund Cc: Maxwell Baker Subject: Re: L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Dear Ms. Eklund, I appreciate that you have posted online the recently received limited geotech report and "Tree Protection Plan", and I have downloaded those. I am writing to request any other consultant reports and other communications from the applicant that have been submitted (Max Baker did provide early letters from the wetland consultant and geotech attached to the application), and to renew and update my public records request in the 3/30 email below for copies of comments from residents received to date. I see from the website comments that you agreed to provide those to the applicant. Related to the SEPA analysis, I note from a brief look at the recently filed documents that (1) the geotech report confirms my earlier comment to the effect that infiltration of stormwater is not feasible, and proposes a pond that it appears would have to drain under 151st down the 62nd Ave. ROW into the recently overflowing wetland abutting Trail No. 4, and (2) the "Tree Protection Plan" seems to say that the effect of the rezone would be that the applicant would remove "most, if not all" the many significant trees. The Plan seems to assume that all cottonwood trees are per se "nonviable hazard trees" and holly trees are invasive, so neither need be considered for protection. I would like to know whether the City accepts those assumptions. I am puzzled by the documentation submitted as it relates to environmentally sensitive areas. The new geotech report describes only one area, a steep slope "along the eastern most margin" and then refers to the landslide hazard as "directly east of the site" (see also negative response to item 12 on pdf p. 12 of the SEPA checklist). The City's map at https://www.tukwilawa.gov/city-maps/ shows not only a Class 3 area in the northeasterly part of the site near the City's Trail No. 3, but also numerous other Class 3 areas, including one along most of S. 151st St. extending well into the site. Is that map current, please, or has the City updated that map to remove those classifications, or others in our area? Sincerely, Hugh Tobin 15165 62nd Ave. S. On 3/30/2020 4:46 PM, Maxwell Baker wrote: Hi Hugh, After today I will no longer be assigned to the project, you will want to coordinate with the new project manager, Nancy Eklund, who is cc'ed on this email. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 365 From: Hugh Tobin <htnbin (d)cnmcast. et> Sent: Monday, March 30,30ZU4:43PK4 To: Maxwell Baker <&1ax.Baker(d)Tukwi|aVVA.gov> Subject: Re: L19'U133,E19'U013:"Hopper Tovvnhomes"Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review HiMax — | infer from the message below that Jeff has submitted acomment. Could you please provide nneacopy ofthat, and any others from residents, and any further consultant reports? Hugh 0n3/3O/20203:56PM, Maxwell Baker wrote: Hi Jeff, Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the project file. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued oswell asofany public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila 6300Southcenter Blvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA98lD8 Max. Baker@Tukvvi|avva.gov1IO6.431.36D3 Tukwila: The City nfopportunity, the community nfchoice. CAUTIO"",,": This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. CAUTIO� This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. z 366 https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Opposition to L19-0123 jeff.thoelke@gmail.com <jeff.thoelke@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 3:32 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> March 30, 2020 Mr. Max Baker City of Tukwila Project Planner Regarding File #: L19-0123 Mr. Baker, I am a long time resident of Tukwila, having lived at my current residence for 28 years. My house is located at 14915 62nd Ave S, Tukwila WA 98168, which is across the street from the 4 % acre property formerly owned by Patricia Hopper and is the subject of the rezoning proposal from low -density - residential to medium -density -residential. I knew Pat Hopper and spoke with her often about her plans for her undeveloped property. She purposely held on to it to prevent it from being rezoned and overcrowded. I am adamantly opposed to this rezoning proposal. I understand why more families would want move into this neighborhood, as it is relatively isolated from the hustle and bustle of the many commercial enterprises surrounding it. But a person only has to turn the corner from South 151st Street onto 65th Avenue South to see why medium density housing is undesirable. Tenants of the existing medium density housing crowd 65th Avenue South with parked cars 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Those tenants apparently lack any pride in the community because litter is constantly thrown on the street and sidewalks by the owners of those cars. But, even if 65th Ave S wasn't already an eye -sore, the streets are often not safe for pedestrians to walk. My house butts up against Tukwila Elementary School and I am frequently appalled at the speed and quantity of cars that pass my house each day. I am not exaggerating when I say cars frequently wiz by my house at over 40 miles -per -hour, through the school zone. Many of these cars likely don't belong to residents of this neighborhood, but rather are taking a shortcut from Interurban Avenue to Southcenter. Regardless of the results of this rezoning effort, 62nd Avenue South needs to have permanent stop signs at the corner of South 149th Street. A traffic light needs to be installed at the corner of Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Avenue South. Increased traffic on Southcenter Boulevard frequently makes it difficult to exit from 65th Avenue South. Considering the new fire station being built near that intersection and the crosswalk feeding the bus stops at the intersection, Tukwila ought to be proactive and put a stoplight at the intersection. Additional homes in this neighborhood is going to exacerbate this problem. Thank you for your consideration, Jeff Thoelke 367 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... 206-579-3254 TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 368 2 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM Breyden Jager From: Sent: To: Subject: Henry Jesboneb <jesboneb@yahoo.com> Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:43 PM Breyden Jager Rezone 6250 S 151st St, Parcel #3597000400 File #s: L19-0123 comment echer I have lived for about 25 years in a home on a heavily wooded lot nearly adjacent to the SW corner of the Hopper tract. I place great value on the tree canopy that extends through our neighborhood and the many species of birds that inhabit and frequent it. I know that building any housing on the Hopper tract will involve cutting some trees, and I will not mourn the loss of holly or cottonwoods, but am disturbed that the City Council might approve a change in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning that could lead to that property being virtually clearcut, including towering conifers and maples. I can see that some of them have a lot of English Ivy, but I know from experience in our own back yard (and the City's work in Tukwila Park), that ivy can be cut and uprooted; it is not a reason to cut the tree. The August 2022 letter to Ms. Eklund says that within the "limits of the Tree retention ordinance,a numbers [sic] of existing trees will be removed." I fear that greatly understates the applicant's intent and the impact of a rezone. The site is heavily wooded, with about 55 trees per acre, many of which are "Exceptional Trees." The SEPA checklist says in places that about 75% of the site would be cleared, but at the February 15 public meeting (to which I phoned in) it was clear that the developer intended to clear the entire site except for the extreme slope in the NE corner, and the DCD staffer did not suggest that any ordinance would prevent that; rather I got the impression that even trees in other steep slope areas could be cut with a compensating payment, which would not be required for the rest. The current site plan shows a landscape buffer and setbacks, but does not show where any trees would be preserved, and from the "Existing Conditions" plan recently submitted it appears that many are clustered where buildings are intended according to the site plan, or where a large proposed detention facility would require a treeless cover. In addition, the intent of the applicant to conduct grading to change the natural direction of drainage, expressed at the meeting, may be inconsistent with keeping trees even where they would not conflict with buildings or infrastructure. The applicant asserts that certain impacts, particularly on trees, would be similar to development under LDR zoning. So far as I know, that assertion is not supported by analysis or any expert opinion. It is not consistent with a statement I heard at the meeting. that the same regulations as for LDR would not apply. Even if that is wrong — if the terms of TMC Ch. 18.54 would be applied to the same extent as under LDR -- logically it seems the impact on canopy would be greater under MDR. If the site were subdivided under LDR, even assuming addition of interior streets rather than having homes only on Tots abutting the existing 62nd Ave S and S 151st, I believe the lower limits on lot coverage and the lower density would provide more ability to condition the layout so as to fulfill the City policy and requirement to preserve Exceptional Trees when possible, and with less impervious surface the scale of any stormwater detention facility would be reduced. While I support the idea of allowing more affordable and energy efficient housing types, I think any change to rules to allow townhomes should be designed to result in less loss of tree canopy and less impervious surface than single-family development, not to enable or encourage more of these impacts. So 1 must oppose this rezone proposal, at least without very strict conditions to protect the tree canopy. i 369 Jessica Bonebright 206-679-4976 CAUTION. This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 370 371 372 https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 10:34 AM To: MICHAEL J. MOORE <hummingbirdking@msn.com>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi Michael, Thank you for your comment. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. To answer some of the questions that I have answers for at this time: • The City Public Works Department is reviewing the proposed layout of the project and is working to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Infrastructure Design Manual, as well as the ability for the project to accommodate any overflow parking onsite vs. on City streets. • The applicant's proposed townhomes will be sold individually, meaning that they will be purchased by individuals and not rented out by one entity. They have been described as being target towards middle -income earners. • The Tukwila School District has been notified of the proposed rezone and the potential increase in students. No comments have been received from them at this time. Additionally, Nancy Eklund, Senior Planner, will be taking over for meas the project manager for the City moving forward, she is cc'ed on this email. Any additional questions should be directed to her. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: MICHAELJ. MOORE <hummingbirdking@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 12:46 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Fw: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 Subject: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 To whom it may Concern I moved into my home over sixteen years ago and one of the reason I moved here is that it is a very quite community of well kept single family homes and I and my neighbors like it that way. I didn't 373 1 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... move here with the indentation of the city to rezone mine and my neighbors community to high density housing and change our quality of life here on the hill. If you allow the almost 40 homes that you are proposing that could add up to an additional 100 cars into the neighborhood. The traffic volume is already high enough with vehicles using the hill as a shortcut to the mall and this will just add to it . Then there is the parking issue, will parking be pushed out on to S 151st St or on 62nd Ave S which in my opinion would be an eyesore as it is on 65th Ave S. south of 151st. The town homes that you are proposing will they be high end which would hopefully keep it owner occupied as I would not want it to become a bunch of rentals which would probably start to become rundown looking which in turn would hurt the value of mine and my neighbors property. I did not buy my house to live in a crappy looking neighborhood. I like the that there is a pride ownership here. Next there will more an likely be family's with grade school kids which would attend Tukwila Elementary and will they have the capacity to absorb those children at this facility already as it already has close to 540 kids attending there now. So would there be room to add another 50 to 80 children or more into this school? I'm not oppose to development of the property but the area needs to stay zoned low to medium residential because if we let this go through then we have opened up Pandora's Box and more and more high density housing will get approved and there will be more and more traffic which in turn will continue to destroy the peace and tranquility here on the Old Hill. Please listen to your constituents and preserve our way of life here in our neighborhood. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS PLAN AND PLEASR DON'T RUIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD Thank you for you time Michael J. Moore Jacqueline L Spicer Malena C-Moore 206-794-2438 5936 S 149th St TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 374 2 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L... Re: L19-0123 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Fri 3/27/2020 9:40 AM To: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com> 0 3 attachments (4 MB) L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Comp Plan.pdf; L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Site Plan - No Notes.pdf; E19-0013 Hopper Townhome SEPA.pdf; Hi Miles, Thank you for your email. I've attached copies of the application materials to this email. I have also cc'ed Nancy Eklund, the new project contact for the City moving forward; I will be taking leave starting next week and will no longer be working on the project. Any future questions you may have should be directed to her. Just to clarify, the rezone theoretically could allow for 64 townhome lots on the site based solely on square footage; the minimum square footage for a townhome lot in the proposed MDR zone is 3,000 square feet and the current property is 193,705 sf; divided this equals 64 3,000 sf lots. However, the applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property into that many lots/units, and is instead proposing 38 dwellings (see attached site plan for proposal). It should be noted that the proposed site plan is only a proposal at this point and may change once it is officially submitted to the City, which could occur only after a successfully approved rezone. Thank you again for your email, please keep an eye out for future notices regarding public hearings for the project. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:17 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: L19-0123 Hi Max, Jennifer and I are against up to 65 units in this area. I think 30 would be max so we are against the zoning change. Thanks, Miles & Jennifer Mitchell C TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open 375 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 376 2 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM Breyden Jager From: Nicholas Anderson <nanderson03@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 4:43 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Comments for Parcel# 3597000400 Hi Breyden, I received a postcard soliciting comments on the proposed rezoning of this lot at 6250 S 151 st St. from LDR to MDR. I am a current owner/resident at Sunwood Condominiums nearby, and walk by this property frequently. Rezoning to medium density residential is fine with me; however, I would like to see the mature conifers on the property preserved if possible. These trees provide natural services including habitat, hillside retention, and are aesthetically valuable to an urban neighborhood. Perhaps denser building in the already cleared areas of this lot would allow for some of these mature trees and understory to remain intact. Having a wooded area on the development with links to existing trails would make the developed property more desirable to prospective buyers, and it would allow a denser development to better fit in with the neighborhood. Sunwood condominiums has this sort of aesthetic with MDR nestled into mature conifers. It's great to live here! Those are my 2 cents. Thanks for listening. Nick Anderson Resident/owner, Sunwood Condominiums. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 377 Breyden Jager From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 1:52 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: L19-0123 & E19-0013 [Was: PL19-0099 Comment] Hi Breyden, I'm forwarding my prior 2020 comments on this parcel given the upcoming meeting. My stance is the same, I support this more dense development that is badly needed in our area. Schneider Homes also has a stellar reputation for building quality multifamily homes. Thanks, Nick 6247 S 153rd St. Forwarded message From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:39 AM Subject: PL19-0099 Comment To: <Max.Baker@tukwilawa.gov> Hi Max, I'd like to convey my support for adding additional housing in Tukwila, including the development at 6250 S 151st St, very near my own condo. The Seattle area continues to need more and more housing, especially lower end housing, and thus I applaud this development. My family, as a specific example, would like to move from a condo into a larger townhome or a single family home, but the selection in our area is quite constricted and prices are high, thus I'm in favor of adding more supply. Sincerely, Nicholas Webb 15165 Sunwood Blvd CC32, Tukwila, WA 98188 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 378 Breyden Jager From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:35 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: L22-0137 / E23-0005 Hi Breyden, As a Tukwila resident, I'd like to voice my approval of increases in densities within the city to provide more housing in general and for L22-0137 specifically. Sincerely, Nick Webb 6247 S 153rd St Tukwila, WA 98188 Nick Webb C: 206.755.2150 webbn@acm.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 379 http s: //o ut l o o k. o ffi c c3 6 5. co m/mail/in b o x/i d/AA Q kA G FhN D M xN zU 5 L .. . PL19-0099 Comment Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Mon 3/16/2020 8:40 AM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi Max, I'd like to convey my support for adding additional housing in Tukwila, including the development at 6250 S 151st St, very near my own condo. The Seattle area continues to need more and more housing, especially lower end housing, and thus I applaud this development. My family, as a specific example, would like to move from a condo into a larger townhome or a single family home, but the selection in our area is quite constricted and prices are high, thus I'm in favor of adding more supply. Sincerely, Nicholas Webb 15165 Sunwood Blvd CC32, Tukwila, WA 98188 TI This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 380 1 of 1 3/17/2020, 2:25 PM https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Hopper Townhomes Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Fri 3/27/2020 9:08 AM To: PATRICIA PERRY <patperry@comcast.net> Cc: Hans Korve <hans@dmp-inc.us>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> 0 3 attachments (4 MB) L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Site Plan - No Notes.pdf; E19-0013 Hopper Townhome SEPA.pdf; L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Comp Plan.pdf; Hi Patricia, Thank you for your email. I've attached copies of the application materials to this email. I've also cc'ed Hans Korve, the project applicant, on this email for you to contact regarding your plot of land adjacent to the project site. Hopefully the two of you can connect regarding the proposal. I have also cc'ed Nancy Eklund, the new project contact for the City moving forward; I will be taking leave starting next week and will no longer be working on the project. Any future questions you may have should be directed to her. Thank you again for your email. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: PATRICIA PERRY <patperry@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 4:29 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Hopper Townhomes HI Max, 1 would like to view the application for the Hopper Townhomes rezone. actually own the driveway , yes just the driveway, between the property of 6250 S 151st and 14920 65th Ave S. It goes to 6230 144th place south. Im trying to figure out what to do with the driveway.... Perhaps the townhomes could use it or the city or the people that it actually serves? Do you have any thoughts. think townhomes will be good there, hopefully preserving the wet area in the properties. Again, I would like to see the full application 381 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Thanks Patricia Perry TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 382 2 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM Breyden Jager From: Minnie Dhaliwal Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:21 PM To: Laurel Humphrey; Maxwell Baker; Lynn Miranda; Nancy Eklund Cc: Jack Pace Subject: Re: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St Hi Laurel, This matter is a quasi-judicial matter so City Council members cannot discuss it outside of the hearing. Public comments should be directed to staff (Nancy Eklund is the planner working on this project). This item was tentatively scheduled for Aug 17th, but it is likely going to get postponed to Sept. Also, I think Councilmember Kruller had made a comment at one City Council meeting that community members had desired an in -person hearing for this project. It is not clear if we could have in -person hearing in Sept. Minnie From: Laurel Humphrey <Laurel.Humphrey@TukwilaWA.gov> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:05 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal<Minnie.Dhaliwal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; Lynn Miranda <Lynn.Miranda@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St Hi all, can you remind me of the timeline on this project and any further public hearings? Thanks, Laurel From: Peggy McCarthy <MCCARTHYJP@msn.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:02 PM To: CityCouncil <CityCouncil@TukwilaWA.gov>; Allan Ekberg <Allan.Ekberg@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St I stand in opposition of the proposed rezone of the property at 6250 S 151' St 98168 from low -density residential, LDR, to medium density residential, MDR. The owner of this 4.45 acre property, purchased in March 2020, has asked for a rezone so that up to 65 units of townhomes can be built on the property. Under the existing LDR zoning, approximately 30 single family homes could be built. The increased density created by MDR zoning and up to 65 new townhomes would add to the existing traffic, street parking and safety issues. Currently, even with the existing number of residents, 65th Ave S gets backed up with vehicles trying to turn left onto Southcenter Boulevard, especially at peak travel times. Because of insufficient parking at the multifamily complexes along 65th Ave S, the street is continuously lined with parked cars creating a hazard as people enter and exit those vehicles. The proposed up -zone site is located just a block or two from Tukwila Elementary school. Traffic congestion already occurs when students are being dropped off or picked up from school. The route 1 383 along 151' is used by school children to walk to the elementary school as well as by other pedestrians and bicyclists. Adding up to 65 new households to this area would increase traffic congestion and possibly street parking and would reduce safety for school children and other pedestrians. The housing element of the comprehensive plan was thoroughly vetted by the City Council over a two-year period from March 2013 through adoption in the spring of 2015. Community input was gathered through open houses and public comment and each section of the plan was reviewed and discussed. The plan addressed housing density and identified the Tukwila Urban Center, Tukwila International Boulevard and Tukwila South as three areas targeted for multifamily housing and increased density. This density has been and continues to be realized with at least three residential complexes developed in the Southcenter area, Tukwila Village on the boulevard and possibly apartment housing in Tukwila South. Rather than respond to the desire of a single property owner, the in-depth work of the Council on the comprehensive plan should be honored and the current low density residential zoning retained. At the March 2020 public meeting on this subject, the developer said the reason for requesting the zoning change is to increase their return on investment. As stated by one resident, "We believe the role of government is to protect the interest of all the people that it serves, not just those who stand to gain from maximizing their profit margin from a development such as this". Lastly, one of the stated goals of the comprehensive plan is to preserve neighborhoods. Adding this level of density would change the character of the neighborhood - forever. Please reject the request for a zoning change on this property. Thank you, Peggy McCarthy CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 384 Nancy Eklund From: Maxwell Baker Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:32 PM To: Nancy Eklund Subject: Fw: hopper townhouses E19-0013 FYI, may need a reply. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: rcwieser@comcast.net <rcwieser@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:03 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Cc: karenlenise@comcast.net <karenlenise@comcast.net>; CityCouncil <CityCouncil@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: hopper townhouses E19-0013 Mr. Baker: Regarding public comments for project #E19-0013, L19-0123, the Hopper Townhouses; though the comment period expired March 30, 2020, may I offer a couple of observations? As a proponent of the "New Urbanism," I welcome Hopper Townhouses to our neighborhood. The density of townhouses rather than the sprawl that has defined Tukwila is refreshing. As townhouses are more affordable it will encourage economic and ethnic diversity. As a neighborhood resident, I believe it important the design and placement of the homes fits the character of the neighborhood as "Foster Hill" has many early 20t' Century homes. Will this development enhance the neighborhood by mirroring design of these legacy homes? Will the design be open and inviting? Will it enhance neighbor interaction? Will it encourage walking, bicycling and space for children to play. I commend the developer for including recreation space. The proposed street design currently posted on the MUP sign does not address a question regarding placement of homes. It is unclear if front door access to those homes bordering S 151' St and 62nd Ave South will be from those streets. Or will the back of the houses be facing 151sY and 62nd. If the latter, there is strong probability a tall privacy fence will border those streets. Or, the homes will be defined by a garage/driveway sticking out like a pig snout. Privacy fences are a safety concern. Tukwila School is just one block away. Many children walk along those streets. Check out existing homes on 151' St. with tall fences. Imagine the same thing just across the street. Privacy fences on both sides can prove dangerous to a child's safety. Danger from cars, from bullies, and yes, danger from abduction. Privacy fences prevent homeowners from "keeping an eye on the street." i 385 Privacy fences, especially close to sidewalks, detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And impact resale values. Will existing sidewalks that border the street remain? A Mother remarked she will never walk along such streets with Baby in stroller. "Some car can be flying down the street, jump the curb and smack into us." Just a 2' to 3' buffer with low plantings between sidewalk and street can mitigate that. Regarding the storm pond, no doubt a fence will be required. What sort of landscaping is required to soften the barrier and provide wildlife habitat? Thank you for reading this letter and for your service to the City of Tukwila. A copy of this letter is forwarded to City Council and Karen Simmons as she on Planning Commission and is neighbor. Richard McLeland-Wieser 14234 58th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98168 206-229-6123 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attach (inks from an unknown or suspicious origin. s or click 2 386 https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L... Re: Opposition Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 9:58 AM To: kkoma yemo <morningscent12@Outlook.com> Hi Saehee, Thank you for your comment. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: kkoma yemo <morningscent12@Outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 11:06 AM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Opposition Max Baker My name is Saehee Yim and I'm residing at 6380 S. 151st PI. Tukwila 98188 for 20yrs. This mail for sending my voice to oppose the Re -Zoning of 6250 S 151stStreet, the file number L19-0123 (Comp Plan/Zoning Amend). Here I'm submitting my voice to strongly oppose the plan. Sincerely Saehee Ymi TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 387 3/30/2020, 9:58 AM Breyden Jager From: Talia Long <Iong.talia@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:50 AM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Questions/Concerns - L19-0123 Rezone (6250 S 151 st St) - Hopper Townhomes Greetings Mr. Jager: We are the owners and residents of a property in the culdesac across S. 151 st Place from the development proposed by Schneider Homes, Inc. on parcel #3597000400. First, we are pleased that Schneider Homes is the owner and developer of the proposed project. Our culdesac is a vintage 1980s Schneider Homes development. We appreciate the quality and attention to detail that Schneider put into our development, and we hope that Schneider will do the same for the proposed development. However, we have the following concerns: 1. A little less than three years ago we added our signatures to a letter from our culdesac neighbors opposing the rezoning of the subject parcel from low to mid density. We continue to oppose this rezoning. The subject parcel is approximately the same size as the cumulative size of the 14 parcels making up our culdesac, yet the proposal calls for 38 townhomes! Our culdesac and the other properties immediately west and north of parcel #3597000400 are all single-family dwellings. The density proposed for this project significantly changes the nature of our neighborhood. 2. A project of this size will significantly increase the traffic on the adjacent streets. Thirty-eight townhomes will add huge volume of resident, visitor, service, and delivery vehicles entering and exiting neighboring streets and pouring forth on Southcenter Blvd. This was a burden recognized in our comments nearly three years ago and is even more of a concern now that the new, enlarged fire station has opened nearby and there has been other residential development adjacent to the fire station. Where will all these vehicles enter and exit the project? Have there been provisions for adding traffic and pedestrian controls in the immediate neighborhood as well as adding a traffic signal, including a left turn signal, on Southcenter Blvd.? The two -right angle (blind) turns at either end of S.151 st Place in front of our culdesac will only become more dangerous with the addition of so many more vehicles and people. Will parking be prohibited on these streets? If parking is allowed on S. 151 st Place, our visibility will likely be severely limited when exiting the culdesac. 3. The horrible fire that took three lives and destroyed the apartment building adjacent to the proposed project site highlighted the problem of accessing and fighting a fire on the bluff overlooking Interurban Avenue. Has emergency fire, medical, police access to the eastern most portion of the project been sufficiently and safely addressed? 4. We understand that development necessitates removal of some vegetation and tree canopy. However, hopefully huge heritage trees will be saved, and project landscaping will provide for large scale plantings to help mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat and provide screening and additional landscaping will provide maximum erosion control. Sincerely, Talia and B.J. Long, Jr. P.E. Nelson 1 388 6241 S. 151st Pl. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 389 Nancy Eklund From: Maxwell Baker Sent: Monday, March 30'202O4:G8PK4 To: Travis Boyd Cc: Nancy Eklund Subject: Re: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for 62S0S1S1stSt Hi Travis, Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the projectfi|e.Youorenoxva Party ufRecord onthe project andvvi||benotifiedvvhenstaffreporbaneissuedasvve||asofanypub|ic hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila 6300Southcenter Blvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA9DlD8 Max.Baker@Tukw/i|avva.gov1IO6.431.36D3 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Travis Boyd «traysboyd2018@gmaiioonnx Sent: Monday, March 3O,20204:53PK4 To: Maxwell Baker xMax.Baker@Tuhwi|aVVA.gov> Subject: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for 6250S151stSt Travis Boyd / Deb Sorensen 677}S15]" P| Tukwila, WA4RlRN (706)741-3471 30 March 2020 City of Tukwila Dept. Of Community Development 6300Snn+6,eDterBkd.,Suite 100 WA 98188 Max Baker City Project Planner RE: File: ElQ-0O13 ,T'|9_0|?3 T»ln` Zoning Applicant: Hans Korve,DMP,Inc. 1.r0��IT���\�O�T.' 1'�lTlClO.Hopper 1 390 Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099 Project Location: 6250 S 151' St Mr. Baker, The recent proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential for the property located at 6250 S 151 st St is concerning to us as residents of the cul de sac on S 151 st Pl. The proposed change to MDR would include a change from up to 30 single-family homes to up to 65 multi -family townhomes being built. We understand the need for housing in the greater Seattle area and are not opposed to the development of the property into an LDR area. However, we are opposed to the proposed change to MDR for a number of reasons. Traffic is already an issue in the immediate area. Between Tukwila Elementary, Southcenter Boulevard, 1-5 and I-405, the Southcenter Mall, City Hall, and soon the new fire station 52 and Tukwila FD headquarters, the area simply cannot handle the major increase in traffic that the change to MDR will create. With the condos and apartments on 65th Ave S already creating traffic and parking problems in the area, it will be a struggle to accommodate the traffic created by the addition of 30 new homes, let alone 65. Combine all this with the busy morning and afternoon work traffic, construction, emergency vehicle use, a school day at the elementary school, and add in the absence of traffic lights and you've pushed an already hectic commute to an unsafe capacity. The fact of the matter is that this area cannot handle the major increase in traffic that the proposed change to MDR will generate. Another concern of ours is the environmental impact this proposed development will have. The trees on the property should be assessed for viability. Any time there is a storm in the area, you are almost guaranteed to have one of those trees fall. The earth movement involved in the construction process will only add to this problem. How about the increase in water usage, sewer, run-off, and waste? What effect will this have on the surrounding area? It is our belief that it will take a great deal of work to accommodate 30 new homes, let alone 65. Recreation space is already at a premium in this area as the lone park, Tukwila Park, currently has a full or near -full parking lot and constant use. How would the city respond to the need for increased recreation space? We have not seen or heard anything regarding an environmental impact report, which is concerning to say the least. Lastly, just some other miscellaneous concerns we have. The plans we've seen have not included overflow parking (something that is already an issue in the area). What will be done to account for the increase in noise in the neighborhood? With the fire station moving down the hill and conceivably responding to more calls with the addition of more homes, how can the city justify the change to MDR and the massive increase in traffic with no new road accommodations? We ask that the Schneider Homes proposal to re -zone the area from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential be denied. We are supportive of building a small number of 2 391 single-family homes on the property but to change the zoning to MDR and build up to 65 townhomes would create a plethora of problems in an area that was not designed for and is not capable of housing that many residents. Sincerely, Travis Boyd Deb Sorensen CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 392 illiam James/Clotilde olina 14920 62nd Avenue South Tukwila, A 98168 (206) 375-1323 . .j es@co c . e (206) 383-2536 cleo oI@co c s . et arch 17, 2020 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard., Suite 100 Tukwila,Washington 98188 ax Baker/Department of Community Development (206) 431-3683 or . er@ u i1 . ov RE: File #: E19-0013 (SEPA), L19-0123 (Comp Plan, Zoning Amend) Applicant: Hans Korve, DMP, Inc. Property Owner: Patricia Hopper Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099 Project Location: 6250 South 151st Street, Rezone from LDR o DR. Develop a Maximum of 65 Townhomes. Dear Mr. Baker: Recently, we received a notice regarding a proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential for the area to the immediate south of our property, on which we have resided for twenty years. This change proposes multi -family dwelling units — specifically 65— townhomes, instead of what is currently in place in our neighborhood single family homes. We are very concerned about what this change could mean for our neighborhood and we are opposed to this proposal. 393 First, is the issue of increased vehicular traffic. 62nd Avenue South currently has as much traffic as it can bear, especially during school days when parents drop-off and pick up their children from school. There are also a multitude of cars using our street to come from our nearby freeways, South Center, Costco, and other shopping and restaurant areas to their homes in our surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, we have a fire station close by that uses this street to respond to calls. Adding 65 more housing units would add considerably more traffic to this immediate neighborhood and would pose a risk to the number of children and parents walking to/from school, residents walking to/from the bus stop on Southcenter Parkway, recreational and dog walkers, as well as, bike riders. This neighborhood was not designed nor can it tolerate this kind of increase in traffic. Second, we have heard nothing about an environmental impact statement. Our initial questions include: 1) how will 65 more housing units impact the amount of water usage — water run-off, sewer, etc.? 2) what will the impact of approximately 250 more people and automobiles have on our air quality? 3) how can our very small, lovely little Tukwila Park tolerate the level of ensuing overuse anticipated? 4) Assuming that at least some/most households will have a pet, how will the increase of pet waste and pet dander impact our land areas as well as our wild life — cats kill an enormous number of birds every single day and careless, inconsiderate dog owners leave piles of dog poop in our yard as well as on our neighbors' yards, let alone the amount of dog and cat urine that will naturally go into ground water. Finally, this neighborhood has been a relatively peaceful, quiet neighborhood with relatively low crime. We are very concerned that with the influx of so many more people, the quality of our neighborhood will be changed forever. We ask that this proposal be denied and that, instead, Schneider Homes build a small number of single-family homes, which is what we understood would originally happen to this property when it was sold. Sincerely, ZUelP.iaot PaHxe¢ eeatC2de NoPuia cc: Mayor Ekberg, Tukwila City Council 2 394 March 30,302O David &LavaTomlinson 6360S151s1P| Tukwila, WA 98188 Tukwila City Council 6ZODSouthcenterBlvd Tukwila, VVA98l8A Members of the Tukwila City Council, Please find attached 17 letters of opposition to the rezone of the property located at 6Z5OSl61stStreet (File #s:Ll9-OlZ3 &E19-OOl3).These letters are signed by36individuals who currently reside in the immediate vicinity of the property and were collected in accordance with the social distancing guidelines currently in place. We believe we could have collected even more signatures during normal times. VVehave provided amap onthe following page indicating the location of the property in question (yellow), as well as the location of those opposed tothe proposed rezone (red rnarkers\. VVehope you will hear the voices ofthose who will be most significantly impacted by this proposed measure and vote against it. VVethank you for your time and consideration inthis matter. 1 395 2 396 Subj t: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): and I (we) reside at: E'lllk19: EA2r,,,kis LwC art t titlt As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I arn strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. 1 am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which 1 live. 1 urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this pr000sed measure and vote against it: I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter: Signed: Signed: Sign Sign stritszeresek atateetke 142- Date: Date: etatt Date: Date: 397 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, y name is (our names are): _no and I (we) reside ati '16 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. 1 am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health. livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter, Sionedm 7\0:: Sighed4 Signed:y_ Signed._ Date: Date: Date. Datei 398 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, S-Ve eixclot-3 04-5-1.3n My ame nis (r ame ouns are): \.)esst(c..„, k AU - and I (we) reside at: \Li 9 S) (92-11/44'4 A —It\ ;lid\ t11) As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Date: 3/26/2-0 Signed: Date: 1 i72/ Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 6 399 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): and I (we) reside at: /LH ilk C 4.„ 41.161M,J, As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: 7 Date: Date: Date: 400 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): — 114C-)cx L and I (we) reside at: ") As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighbcrhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signe : Signed:i, Date: 27z2cL Date: e f / Date: 3"2 Signed: Date: 401 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (eur •'".7 •'• '••• • and I (we) reside at: As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Date: -1 Signed: Date: icr.) Signed: `<- 13ate:\— Signed: Date: 402 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): ex:rte.\ and I (we) reside at: (72 0 -2- -1" I ,,) c 6 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Date: Date: 403 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): ‘`>- e and I (we) reside at: C 141 P As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: i ) Date: -,- Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Date: 404 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): VA. and (we) reside at: LaH 5PCACfI Tu_KkAD\Va clt‘t") As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed:, Signed: Signed: ate: 5-)A1- dlo RD ate: 3 - - ate: 3 Zs/202o Date: 405 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are). 1,1.14 and (we) reside at: ( $r/ /bre .11/7 rte./4 creer'r. As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. re',1 rtEfr-,;r4 I„ Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 406 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are t and I (we) reside at: • As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which 1 live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: . Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Date: Date: 407 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): S q's--% 1"71-1-111V-e- c- and I (we) reside at: 6 -3 1-S- 1 z As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: 5 Ae Signed: L-11 a4/4_, W Signed: Date: 3/Z/zz Date: Date: Signed: Date: 408 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): xt,,(....ct,1 1\4 and I (we) reside at: t i2 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 409 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): aa If - and I (we) reside at: \jea g_WOna vU49',WPS/ As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 5 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: c93/Q-7/62(32-° Date: (9:7 1,261,90 Date: Date: Signed: Date: 4 0 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): 7") ,21v2J / 4 "j,. C • V? and I (we) reside at: As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: 27 44--e62(2°'e Date: 3/ ,--1-1ZCZ.K., Date: Date: 411 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are). /_fcf .t.,,,- and I (we) reside at: ) As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, 1 am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of ow density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: /- Signed: \ Signed: Signed: Date:I- -7) Dt' Date: Date: 412 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): a eo ( 5(44- P and I (we) reside at: As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sign Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Signed: Date: 413 414 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11'. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM L. DIXON OR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING Schneider Homes, a Washington corporation, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent. NO. 23-2-24102-9 KNT ORDER G ` NTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND ' ANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Clerk's Action Required THIS MATTER having duly come on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the above -entitled Court upon Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition; all parties having been duly represented by counsel; and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, having heard oral arguments of counsel for the parties and having reviewed the pleadings, exhibits, and other documents in the court file: 1. The Land Use Petition; 2. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Opening Brief; 3. Respondent City of Tukwila's Response Brief; 4. Petitioner's Reply Brief; 5. The Certified Record; 6. Petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Certified Record; 7. Respondent's Response to Motion to Supplement; ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 1 OF 3 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUAKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11201 SE 8"' St., Suite 120 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-4541868 4 5 7 9 11/ 11 13 14 15 16 18 20 416 8. Petitioner's Reply in Motion to Supplement; 9. The Supplemental Records; and 10. The Transcript of Proceedings. ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition is GRANTED; 2. The City of Tukwila's Land Use Decision, set forth in Resolution 2083, is REVERSED; 3. The parties do not dispute that the rezone is consistent with the rezone criteria set forth in TMC 18.84.020(1)-(3). 4. Under Finding and Conclusion A, Resolution 2083 adopts the facts set forth in the November 6, 2023 Staff Report, pages 1-6, but denies the rezone for failure to be consistent with TMC 18.84.020(4); 5. Under Finding and Conclusion D, Resolution 2083 denies the rezone for failure to be consistent with TMC 18.84.020(4); 6. The foregoing two sections of Resolution 2083 are internally, fatally inconsistent and therefore constitute unlawful procedure under RCW 36.70C.130(a); 7. Substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Court does not support denial of the rezone under TMC 18.84.020(4) and therefore violates RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); 8. Likewise, the land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts, in violation of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d); and 9. This matter is REMANDED for the City of Tukwila Council to reconsider the merits of the rezone application under TMC 18.84.020(4). The quasi-judicial decisionmaker, the Tukwila City Council, shall hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 2 OF 3 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOIAKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11201 SE 8' St., Suite 120 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 24 consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter and issue a new decision based on substantial evidence in the record. .14 4 DATED this/2- day of LAy.ks+ 2024. THE HONORABLE Presented by: JO S MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUKOVA, PLLC By Duana T. Kolou§kova, WSBA #27532 Peter Durland, WSBA #61486 Attorneys for Petitioner Schneider Homes Approved as to form: OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE By James E. Haney, WSBA #11508 Andrew Tsoming, WSBA #42949 Attorneys for Respondent City of Tukwila ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 3 OF 3 I LIAM L Dfc<oN JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11201 SE 811' St., Suite 120 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-45)Ti88 418 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 Tony ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 6.B. (1) STAFF SPONSOR: PETE ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 9/16/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2025 - 2026 Department Budget Presentations CATEGORY 11 Discussion Mtg Date 10/1/24 El Motion Mtg Date E Resolution Mtg Date ❑ Ordinance AN Date ❑ Bid Award Mt, Date E Public Hearing Mty Date ❑ Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD 11 Finance ❑ Fare ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY Leadership will be continuing the 2025-26 Budget Development discussion. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ LTAC DATE: Community Svcs/Safety [J Finance & Governance [J Planning & Community Dcv. Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONsoR/ADMIN. Finance Report CoMMIfIEE Discussion only COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 9/16/24 Discussion & Introduction to Budget 9/23/24 Continued budget discussions 10/7/24 Continued budget discussions 10/14/24 Continued budget discussions MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/21/24 Department's Budget PowerPoint (continued discussion from 10/14 C.O.W.) 419 420 N Tonight's Agenda • Continued presentation of the 2025-26 Preliminary Proposed Biennial Budget • Department Presentations • Fire Services • Public Works • Finance • Non -Departmental City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 2 Operating Budget by Department 2025-26 Preliminary Proposed Biennial Budget City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 3 N oposed Biennial Budget 26 Budget Development D RO Fire Services FY25 Expense Budget by Division by Expense Type Prevention & Investigation Fire Administration • Salaries & Benefits • Services $0.99M SC1.41M $0.99M $0.0M $0.2M $0.4M $0.6M $0.8M $1.0M City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 50 Fire Services: 2023-24 Accomplishments • 2023: Tukwila voters approved annexation to Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority • 2023-24: transition to contracted services • 2024: Full PSF membership City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development Significant Program Changes & Initiatives Changes from 2023-24 • Contract payment with PSF ends • Agreement with PSRFA for Fire Marshal / Prevention & Inspection services 2025-26 Initiatives • Bargain & Sale Deeds: Fire Stations 52 & 53 • Lease agreements: Fire Stations 51&54 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 52 N 03 2025-26 Preliminary Proposed Biennial Budget Public Works Trans Engineering Mission Statement To preserve, enhance and promote Tukwila's quality of life and public safety, through the construction and operation of reliable and sustainable infrastructure and services necessary to meet the demands of our growing and diverse community. Public Works Utilities Operations City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 54 Public Works FY25 Expense Budget by Division by Expense Type *Salaries & Benefits •Services *Supplies Street Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Public Works Administration Maintenance Administration Engineering $0M $0.84M $0.61M $0.49 $1M $2M $3.04M $3M $4M $4.76M $5M City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 55 Street Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Public Works Administration Maintenance Administration Engineering 0 General Fund FTEs by Division 2 2,00 3.25 4 4.00 6 11.50 9.00 29.75 Total FTEs 10 12 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 56 Public Works: 2023 24 Accomplishments • $16.5 million in awarded grants. • Improved GIS capacity and availability with in- house support. • Furthered Allentown Truck Reroute project and explored alternatives with public input. • Continued residential traffic calming measures and improvements to street lighting in CBD. • Began comprehensive signal assessment and pavement condition index study. • Completed utility rate study to ensure future sustainability. • Collaborated with Center for Government Innovation to make lean improvements to payment processes. City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development Significant Program Changes & Initiatives Changes from 2023-24 • Vacant Custodian and Facilities Technician position will be restored. • Internal Operations Manager now oversees Fleet and Facilities exclusively. • Streets Capital Funds will support increased Overlay and Traffic Calming programs with no General Fund support. 2025-26 Initiatives • Finalize Allentown Truck Reroute EIS and select preferred alternative. • Select path forward on PW Shops Phase II. • Begin Green Infrastructure/Sustainability Program. • Imbed CIP within ArcGIS for real- time tracking. City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 58 Finance Department 2025-26 Preliminary Proposed Biennial Budget City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 59 Finance Finance Finance is responsible for the City's budgeting, accounting and financial reporting and risk management. This includes investing funds, issuing debt, and monitoring financial trends and making financial projections. City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 60 Finance FY25 Expense Budget by Division by Expense Type Finance $OM • Capital Outlay *Salaries & Benefits •Services *Supplies $1M $2M $3M $4M $4.34M City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 61 Finance 0 2 General Fund FTEs by Division 4 6 8 10 15.00 15.00 Total FTEs 12 14 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 62 Finance: 2023-24 Accomplishments • Implementation of Purchase Orders, Grants, and Contract Mgmt. Modules in Finance Enterprise • Administered American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant investments across multiple programs and departments • Conducted public outreach and community engagement to inform the development of the proposed 2025-2026 budget • Facilitated the formation of the Financial Sustainability Committee City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 63 Significant Program Changes & Initiatives Changes from 2023-24 • Implemented a new B&O Tax program • Established and implemented a new Minimum Wage ordinance 2025-26 Initiatives • Continue to manage the B&O Tax program to improve the rate of compliance • Update the City's Indirect Overhead Cost Allocation • Revise the City's procurement policies and procedures City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 64 Non -Departmental 2025-26 Preliminary Proposed Biennial Budget City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 65 Non -Departmental • Manage the City's Contingency Fund • Manage the City's Debt Service • Indirect Overhead Cost Allocation • Manage the City's GF Fleet lease accounting The purpose of this department is to record transfers from the general fund into other funds for debt service and capital needs. Fleet lease funding and revenues directly related to transfers out are also recorded to this Department. During 2023-24, unbudgeted expenditures for Tukwila's response for asylum seekers were made from this department. City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 66 Non Departmental FY25 Expense Budget by Division by Expense Type Department 20 • Debt Service & Other Costs • Non Operating Expense • Services $4.6M $ 1. $OM $1M $2M $3M $4M $5M $5.94M $6M City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 67 Non -Departmental: 2025-26 • No notable changes • No new initiatives City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 68 n y nia Ci-ty of rittrwiTter 2025..26 Budget Deuelettmeitt 69 COUNCIL A GRNDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared Iy Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 AB ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 6.B. (2) STAFF SPONSOR: AARON BEMILLER ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 10/21/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Overview of Levy & Rates CATEGORY 11 Discussion !Wig Date 10/21/24 E Motion Mtg Date El Resolution MIA Date E Ordinance Mtg Date E Bid Award Mtg Date E Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other MIA Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD 11 Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY High-level presentation on property tax levy calculations, rules, & regulations. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ LTAC DATE: N/A Community Svcs/Safety [J Finance & Governance Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: Planning & Community Dev. Planning Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONsoR/ADMIN. Finance Department COMM 1'1EL Not heard in Committee COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED $N/A APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $N/A Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/21/24 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/21/24 <--Presentation 445 446 ►ctaber:', aperty `.Ler%lorer Touch Points • Set a baseline understanding of property tax levies and rules. • 2025/26 Budget is submitted with a property tax reduction from previous year. • Council has a decision point on property tax revenues. • Public Hearing scheduled 10/28. • Vote on Levy Ordinances scheduled for 11/4. City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 2 ro• erty Tax Li itations ssesse • Value atutory axi u ate anked apacity Limitations & Statutory Maximum State law limits growth property tax revenue for a district to 1% or the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), whichever is less. • IPD for 2025 is 2.57%. • New construction, changes in state assessed property, and refunds are not constrained to the 1% limitation (but cannot lift the levy rate above statutory maximum), Limitations & Statutory Maximum • $3.60 — City Base Rate • ($0.50) — Library District • ($1.00) — RFA (with Fire Benefit Charge) • $0.225 — Pre-LEOFF Firefighters Pension • $2.325 — Statutory Maximum LEOFF (Law Enforcement Officers & Fire Fighters) limitations & Statutory Maximum • Substantial Need: When the IPD is less than 1.0%, a district can still levy the full 1% by passing legislation of "substantial need". • Since 2016, the IPD has been below 1% three times: 2016, 2017, & 2021. evy A Property Tax is based on a levy rate per $1,000 of Assessed Valuation (AV) ount, AV, & Levy Ra' The responsibility of determining AV rests with the County Assessor. The Assessor must determine "as nearly as practical" the true and fair value of the property, land, and improvements on the land. lashington State has a budget -based system of property taxation. The three components are: levy amount, assessed value, and levy rate. thin legal limitations, as part of the budget process, Council adopts he amount of property tax revenue needed to fund the budget. Year 1 • As assessed values increase (more than 1%), the rate decreases. The same is true that as assessed values decrease, the levy rate increases. Hypothetical Model Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Assessed Value $ 1, 000, 000, 000 $ 1, 300, 000, 000 $ 1, 600, 000, 000 $ 1, 500, 000, 000 $ 1, 700, 000, 000 District Revenue $ 1,000,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 1,020,100 $ 1,030,301 $ 1,040,604 Calculated Levy Rate $ 1.00 $ 0.78 $ 0.64 $ 0.69 $ 0.61 C;ty of TUkW 2O25 26 Bud et Development Voter Approved Excess Levy for Collections in 2025 In 2016 & 2019 the voters approved an excess levy to pay debt service (principal and interest payments) on bonds issued to fund land purchases and construction of the Justice Center and two Fire Stations. The total collections for 2025 is $4,931,725. • Excess levy is not constrained by the 1% limitation. The amount collected is equal to the principal and interest payment on debt. Excess Levy 2025 A.V. $ 9, 561, 329, 345 Debt Service Rate 4,931,725 0.51758 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 9 Banked Capacity Available to cities that are levying less than their maximum allowable levy (and less than their statutory maximum levy). Allows for "banking" the unused capacity for use at some future date. When the banked capacity is levied, the district is not constrained by the 1% limitation. Decision to bank capacity, and then levy date, does not require voter approval. Does not require separate Ordinance from the annual property tax Ordinance to bank or use at a future date. Banked Capacity • The example below does not include legally allowed add-ons. Maximum Levy Change Year Allowable Levy Actual Levy Percentage Banked Capacity Baseline (Current) 1,000,000 1,000,000 N/A 1 110101000 900,000 -10.00% 110,000 2 1,0201100 909,000 1.0% 111,100 3 1,030,301 918,000 1.0% 112,301 4 1,040,604 927,000 1.0% 113,604 5 1,051,010 1,020,000 10.0% 31,010 Levy Collections —City Levies Only (estimate) Property Value Regular Levy Rate Annual Tax Collected 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 $ 800,000 1.25497 1.25497 1.25497 1.25497 627 $ 753 $ 878 $ 1,004 Excess Levy Rate 0.51758 Tax Collected $ 259 $ 0.51758 0.51758 0.51758 311 $ 362 $ 414 Total City Levy $ 886 $ 1,064 $ 1,241 $ 1,418 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 12 City Regular Levy Comparative —Tax Savings from Banking Capacity (estimate) Property Value Regular Levy Rate Annual Tax Collected 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 1.25497 627 $ 1.25497 753 $ 700,000 $ 800,000 1.25497 1.25497 878 $ 1,004 Regular Levy No Bank Annual Tax Collected 1.90382 952 $ 1.90382 1,142 $ 1.90382 1,333 $ 1.90382 1,523 Saving from banking 324 $ 389 $ 519 01 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 13 o-) Total Property Tax (estimate) Tukwila School District, 34.6 0/0 Emergency Medical Service, 2.2% Port of Seattle, 1.0% Flood Control, 0.7% KC Library, 2.8% Other, 3.1% Washington State, 24.8% King County, 13.2% City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 14 Wrap Up/Q&A City of Tukw►la 2025-26 Budget Development 15 462 COUNCIL A GRNDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared Iy Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 GL ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 6.B. (3) STAFF SPONSOR: GRIFFIN LERNER ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: AGENDA ITEM TITLE Capital Improvement Program (2025-2030) Overview CATEGORY 11 Discussion Mtg Date E Motion Mtg Date El Resolution Mtg Date E Ordinance Mtg Date E Bid Award Mtg Date E Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police 11 Pik SPONSOR'S SUMMARY As a part of the Biennial Budgeting process, Council will review and adopt a six -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This iteration of the CIP has 138 projects, with 111 scheduled to be worked on in the next biennium. General Fund support will be limited to facility improvements only. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ LTAC DATE: Community Svcs/Safety [J Finance & Governance Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: Planning & Community Dev. Planning Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COMM I°I EE COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/21/24 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/21/24 2025-2026 Budget - Capital Presentation PPT Project Map 463 464 Budget Overview & Capital Planning • Capital Planning and Funding • 2025-26 Capital Project Overview • Key Policy Questions City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 2 Capital Improvement Program Overview Six (6) Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ■ priority investments in infrastructure and facilities ■ Reviewed and updated every 2 years The CIP is fiscally constrained: projects must have funding identified to be included in the CIP Capital Budget = Reflects the first 2 years of the CIP Revenue sources include grants, impact fees, taxes restricted to capital projects (e.g. Real Estate Excise Tax), and bond proceeds. Very little General Fund revenues (except for debt service repayment) are used to fund capital projects. City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development CIP Planning Process 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Y 21-22 Budget 23-24 Budget 25-26 Budget City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 4 What's in a CIP? CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2025 to 2030 FINANCIAL (in thousands) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 eyond TOTAL Project Costs Project Mgmt (Staff Time/Cost) Design Land (RNV) Construction Mgmt. Construction Contingency Total Project Costs Project Funding Proposed Grant Dedicated/Restricted Rev Fund Balance Utility Revenues General. Fund Transfer Total Project Funding 8.650 21 1,690 2.420 9,050 1,175 36 1,690 2.420 $ 15 $ 600 $ 300 EMIIIIIMMIESEMIEMIMMINIMINEMIN $ - $ 675 $ 400 $ 500 $ 15 13111113213111111131 Project design, land acquisition, construction costs and the projected means of financing are integral components of this plan. • Estimated overall cost of each project • Estimated operational and maintenance cost for each project • Estimated project timelines • Funding sources • Project prioritization Consideration Factors Financial Maintenance Continue factors feedback Existing CIP Grant Subject Existing availability; matter projects Fund balance; experts in carry over Cost versus the field year-to-year benefit; Sunk everyday costs; Avoided costs; Stewardship Public feedback Part of planning and design process Effectiveness Mandates Timing/ Scaling Urgency Alignment Meet new Project Level of with City requirements readiness; Service (LOS); mission and or law (comp linkage to Engineer values plans, etc.) other high availability; priority Right project projects at this time City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 7 Funding of Capital Projects Impact Fees Franchise fees Real Estate Excise Tax Land Sales Concurrency fees Grants Solid Waste Utility Tax Bonds (dedicated revenues) City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 9 6 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development Capital Improvement Program Select Financial Policies • Leverage grants, loans or other external financing options • Avoid relying on General Fund support • Non -transportation capital projects and improvements should be funded by operating revenues, grants or bonds co • Residential streets with safety issues, high traffic volumes, high pedestrian activity and poor roadway conditions prioritized higher • REET 1 dedicated to park and open space land acquisition & arterial streets; Public Safety Plan debt service • REET 2 dedicated to Bridges & Arterial Streets • Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) to support growth City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 12 Principles Informing 6 Year CIP • Pay-as-you-go capital improvement program • Maintain what we have approach • "Growth pays for growth" • Prioritize deferred maintenance and safety needs • Complete Public Safety Plan - Address PW Shop facility needs • Update & pursue ADA Transition Plan improvements City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 13 6 Year CIP Project Type Summary Arterial Streets (104) • City Facilities (303) • Special Projects (000) • Golf Course (411) Parks & Trails (301) New Facilties (306) • Residential Streets (103) • Sewer (402) Surface Water (412) • Water (401) 8 % — 138 Projects ,P;11 1 % 1 8 % Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project 01 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 14 Project Type Summary Not AssetProducing -Producng 13% New Construction/New Equipment 16% Annual Program 16% Major Improvement of Existing Asset 540/0 <35g..**411,10- DUWAMISH PARK 1 SiteAnalYsis&Cont,et lir 1,31 gg GGLO City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 15 Project Information & New Features • Capital Projects Web Pages City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development Beverly Park Boulevard Park Evansville Highlin ale Five Corns Southern Heights Perk- Latona - SeaTac Riverton Heights Riverton Foster Tukwila tD Bryn Park ck River Poreeri Earlington Hill 2 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development Factors Impacting 2025-26 CIP • Significant planning efforts completed in 2023-24- well positioned for local, state and federal grants • Costing and Sourcing Challenges • Cost escalation/inflation • Sourcing lead times for equipment and materials • World Cup 2026- preparations & mitigating construction impacts on visitors • No dedicated funding source for Facilities • Minimizing impacts on the GF- less reliance on the GF for capital and O&M • Increased cross -departmental alignment in managing green infrastructure- integrating programs and services City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 19 Funding Characterization • Grants ic Utilities Dedicated Revenues/Fund Balance • General Fund Transfer co City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 20 co r\.) For Every Million Dollars... 23 • 33•33'.33.7333-33-3•33'"333-33433-13333.€3 3-333333- Grants 426,070 NOTE. t.5 MONAT-1011A.81.t. 11.4 .50Ci P'UNFQ• PR•61,50.TE. SKCI4L FIENtS SONT., 7 5 1 A tr,) 74.44,44-, .Thr-afor Utility Funds I S328,222 ATLANT , GA Dedicated Revenues General Fund $235,329 $10,379 City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 21 Project Type Summary Arterial Streets (104) • City Facilities (303) • Golf Course (411) Parks & Trails (301) New Facilities (306) r, Residential Streets (103) • Sewer (402) Surface Water (412) • Water (401) co City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 22 co Grant Administration $34.4M in potential/awarded grants identified in the next biennium 43% of project costs City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 23 Project Highlights 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program co 01 • Ryan Way Infrastructure Improvements • World Cup Preparations • Facility Roof Replacements • 152nd Avenue Improvements • Boeing Access Road Bridge Deck • Strander Boulevard Extension • City Hall I 6300 Building I TCC • Park & Trail Master Plans • FGL Irrigation System Replacement • Tukwila Pond Improvements City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 24 co 2025-26 CIP Preview- Key Issues & Projects Issues/Challenges Addressing Deficiencies & Deferred Maintenance/Backlog Less reliance on General Fund support for Capital AdvancingADA Projects &Transition Plan Lack of Dedicated funding For Capital Facilities Increased funding for Annual Overlay Program ARPA Funds Expiring at Year -End City of Tukwila 2025-26 Budget Development 25 CIP Projects by Biennial Expenses (2025-2026) Beverly Park ath Evansville sale Fiv South Park Glendale Into Airpc Boulevard Park Boulevard Park Highlin CIP projects by Biennial Expenses • <_ $600K • $600K - $1.5M • $1.5M - $3AM $3.4M - $6M Southern Heights Latona - SeaTac Riverton Heights rport Des IM1otnes Creek Park ouch Beacon Hill Allentown-©uwarn sh McVan-McMicken Heights Attgie Lake Foster Rainier. Beach Rainier View Bryn Mawr erk Skyway Tukwila Lak6 Lakevi+ Earfington Hill lid .. 6 SW St Sipriegbrook Gr°eenbell GIS Tukwila R: AIN\Projects\PW\CIP\CIP\CIP..aprx Dat /15/24 By: R. Linsao COUNCIL A GRNDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared Iy Mayor's review Council review 10/21/24 BJM ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 7 STAFF SPONSOR: BRANDON MILES ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 10/21/24 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Update on Asylum Seeker Response and Authorization to Enter into Grant Agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce and King County CATEGORY 11 Discussion Mtg Date 10/21/24 Motion 1Vltg Date 10/21/24 El Resolution Mtg Date E Ordinance Mtg Date E Bid Award Mtg Date E Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY Staff will provide an update on the asylum seeker response and is requesting that the City Council approve grant agreements with the Washington State Department of Commerce and King County. REVIEWED BY Trans&Infrastructure Svcs LTAC DATE: N/A Community Svcs/Safety 11 Finance & Governance [J Planning & Community Dev. Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: SPoNsoR/ADMIN. Approve, forward to consent. CoMMI1'1EE N/A COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED $N/A APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $N/A Fund Source: N/A Comments: The City will receive up to $4.350 million in funds as part of the two grants. MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/21/24 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 1021/24 Informational Memorandum, dated October 15, 2024 Presentation Draft grant agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce. Draft grant agreement with King County 489 490 City of Tukwila Thomas McLeod, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Brandon Miles, Director, Government Relations and Strategic Initiatives CC: Thomas McLeod, Mayor DATE: October 15, 2024 SUBJECT: Update on Asylum Seeker Response and Authorization to Enter into Various Contracts ISSUE Staff will provide an update on the asylum seeker response and is requesting that the City Council approve the following motions: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement agreement with the Department of Commerce in the amount of $2.5 million to be used for the City's asylum seeker response. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement agreement with King County in the amount of $2.0 million to be used for the City's asylum seeker and homelessness response, with the final scope to be negotiated by the Mayor, with a final form approved by the City Attorney. BACKGROUND In October of 2023 the City declared an emergency to respond to the growing numbers of asylum seekers in the Tukwila community. Asylum seekers were initially located at the Riverton Park United Methodist Church (RPUMC), reaching as many as 300 people on the site. Additional asylum seekers are currently located at the Econolodge on Tukwila International Blvd. The Econolodge is operated by Access to Our Communities (ATOC). It appears that initially RPUMC placed some people at the Econolodge in the Spring of 2024. There is a dispute between RPUMC and ATOC over payment for the months of May and June. It's generally accepted that RPUMC still owes for May, but the parties do not agree on June. The City was actively assisting RPUMC with its asylee response since Spring 2023, but the emergency declaration resulted in an even greater role and financial commitment, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Hiring 1-2 Strategies to assist with site management and overall City strategy in how we response to asylum seekers response. 2. Installing a fence on the property. 3. Installing and operating a large "FEMA" style tent on the property. The white tent was used by the City to replace the much smaller "pup" tents on the property. 4. Weekly meetings with RPUMC regarding site coordination and addressing acute conditions on the property. Additionally, the City has provided limited funds to ATOC as payment for the rooms being used by asylum seekers. The City specifically paid months that were not in dispute between RPUMC, which were July, August, and September. 491 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 The City has also secured nearly $4.5 million in funds from the State of Washington and King County to aid in the City's response. To date, the City has expended just over $800,000 in City funds since October of 2023 in responding to RPUMC. As part of the last legislative session, the State of Washington provided additional funds and directed the Office of Refugee and Immigration Assistance (ORIA) to assume the lead in the statewide response. The State has contracted with the International Rescue Committee (IRC) to assume the responsibility of the resource hub that will connect new arrivals to the limited resources available in Washington State. DISCUSSION The City's response has been guided by the following priorities and vision: Create a safe environment and reduce health & safety impacts for families, children, and individuals accessing services in Tukwila. Asylum seekers' services are provided and tailored to their unique needs. 9 Establish intergovernmental strategic response and support. Decommission the white tent contracted by the City at RPUMC by October 31, 2024. Look for opportunities to invest in long term infrastructure that will support general homelessness response for the City. Administration would like to start to deploy more of the grant funds that have been awarded to the City. In total, the City has been awarded $4.5 million in funds from the State of Washington and King County to address the ongoing asylum need in the community. The table below outlines the framework on the City would like to use the funds: Shelter & Housing Services Shelter Beds and Support Services Increase shelter bed capacity and services across sheltering agencies $400,000 Short -Term Rental Assistance Short-term, rental financial assistance for working households who need assistance to stabilize in their new homes $400,000 Direct Client Assistance Financial assistance for housing move -in costs (i.e., application fees, documentation fees, security deposits) $275,000 Hotel Vouchers If/when necessary, hotel for interim, emergent need $400,000 Support Services Services that provide direct support to asylum seekers. This can include: case management, housing navigation, outreach, monitoring, legal, etc $500,000 Health & Safety Improvements Capital Improvements Support existing shelter and housing to meet health & safety standards $250,000 Tiny Homes Capital and Operations/Support Services Expand tiny home footprint in Tukwila with case management services attached $1,300,000 Total 3,525,000 White Tent Rental $350,000 Commerce Admin Fee $125,000 City Expenses - Forecasted Budget 500,000 Total $4,500,000 492 https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/CC Docs/Final agendas/10-21-24 Council/Asylee Response/1.0 Informational Memorandum (Info Memo).docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds expended will be reimbursed from grants from King County and the State of Washington. The City is also hopeful that we can get reimbursement for up to $850,000 in the City direct costs, including compensation for the white tent the City rented. RECOMMENDATION Staff is asking that the City Council approve the following motions: 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement agreement with the Department of Commerce in the amount of $2.5 million to be used for the City's asylum seeker response. 4. Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement agreement with King County in the amount of $2.0 million to be used for the City's asylum seeker and homelessness response, with the final scope to be negotiated by the Mayor, with a final form approved by the City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS • Presentation. • Draft grant agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce in the amount of $2.5 million for asylum seeker response. • Draft grant agreement with King County in the amount of $2.0 million for asylum seeker and general homelessness response. https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/CC Docs/Final agendas/10-21-24 Council/Asylee Response/1.O Informational Memorandum (Info Memo).docx 493 494 Tukwila Asylum Seeker Response: Strategic Plan Updates OCTO B E R 21, 2024 Priorities & Vision Create a safe environment and reduce health & safety impacts for families, children, and individuals accessing services in Tukwila. Asylum seekers' services are provided and tailored to their unique needs. Establish intergovernmental strategic response and support. Decommission the white tent contracted by the City at RPUMC by October 31, 2024. Look for opportunities to invest in long term infrastructure that will support general homelessness response for the City. White Tent Update Decommission White Tent by October 31, 2024 As of 10/15/2024, 19 individuals left Staff continue to: Assist families with navigating the transition process Quickly dismantle and downsize footprint inside the tent as households move out Partner with RPUMC staff to move households to alternative placements (permanent housing, shelter, or other) Identify and engage with shelter/housing partners to increase bed capacity Department of Commerce King County South County Homelessness Grant • $1,875,000 for housing and housing support • $500,000 for city administrative costs. $2 million for asylum and general homelessness response. June 30, 2025 (end of state fiscal year). Reimbursement can be back dated to July 1, 2024 (start of State fiscal year). Note, the total award was $2.5 million, but $125,000 goes to the Department of Commerce for its contract administration. Unclear on deadline to spend. King County has indicated we can go back to mid -April (Grant Award) Funding Options and Plan Shelter Housing Services Shelter Beds and Support Services Increase shelter bed capacity and services across sheltering agencies $400,000 Short -Term Rental Assistance Short-term, rental financial assistance for working households who need assistance to stabilize in their new homes $400,000 Direct Client Assistance Financial assistance for housing move -in costs (Le., application fees, documentation fees, security deposits) $275,000 Hotel Vouchers If/when necessary, hotel for interim, emergent need $400,000 Support Services Services that provide direct support to asylum seekers. This can include: case management, housing navigation, outreach, monitoring, legal, etc $500,000 Tiny Homes Capital and Operations/Support Services Expand tiny home footprint in Tukwila with case management services attached $1,300,000 Total $3,525,000 White Tent Rental $350,000 Commerce Admin Fee $125,000 City Expenses - Forecasted Budget $500,000 Actions Requested Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce in the amount of $2.5 million. Authorize the Mayor to execute a grant reimbursement agreement with King County for general homelessness response in the amount of $2.0 million, final scope to negotiated by the Mayor in a form approved by the City Attorney. ,shington State Department of Grant Agreement with City of Tukwila through Community Services D ion ial Initiatives Unit ber: 25-33725-001 For Supports for New Arrivals Dated: Monday, July 1, 2024 501 Face Sheet Grant Number: 25-33725-001 Community Services Division Special Initiatives Unit Housing Supports for New Arrivals 1. Grantee City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 2. Grantee Doing Business As (as applicable) 3. Grantee Representative Brandon Miles Director of Strategic Initiatives and Government Relations Brandon.MilesTukwilaWA.gov 206-431-3684 4. COMMERCE Representative Cary Retlin Special Initiatives aging Director 360-819-692 Cary.retli.'eammer 4�',za.gov 5. Grant Amount 2,375,000 6. Funding Source Federal: ❑ State: 1 Other: V /A Vx. 7. Date 7/1/20 4 8. End Date 6/30/2025 9. Federal Funds (as applicable) Federal Agency: s ALN N/A N/A N/A 10. Tax ID 91-6001519 11.SWV# s SW V 0018023 s a ' • d 0 13.UEI# 14. Grant Purpose A grant for the City of Tukwila for costs i ed re ' d to u eltered recently -arrived individuals and families not eligible for other state or federal services like hous �s COMMERCE, defined as the D ment om terms of this Grant and attac -nts and h executed referenced above. The rights an igations '' both documents incorporated by referen. x Gr erms Scope of Work. ce, and the Grantee, as defined above, acknowledge and accept the this Grant on the date below to start as of the date and year parties to this Grant are governed by this Grant and the following other and Conditions including Attachment "A" - Budget, Attachment "B" — FOR GRANTEE FOR COMMERCE Thomas McLeod, Mayor Cindy Guertin -Anderson, Assistant Director for Community Services Signature Date APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL APPROVAL ON FILE Date Page 2 of 16 502 Special Terms and Conditions 1. GRANT MANAGEMENT The Representative for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Grant. The Representative for COMMERCE and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. The Representative for the Grantee and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. 2. COMPENSATION COMMERCE shall pay an amount not to exceed the amount budgeted per year for the performance of all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work as set forth in the Scope of Work and compensation detailed in the Budget (last page). 3. BILLING PROCEDURES AND PAYMENT COMMERCE will pay Grantee upon acceptance of e ces ided and receipt of properly completed invoices, which shall be submitted to t>,�;�'epresent. - for COMMERCE via the Commerce Grants Management System (CMS) mo The invoices shall describe and document, to CO ; ; "`s satisfaction, a description of the work performed, the progress of the project, and ees. The invoice must include either a detaile• • tit zing each cost, including the date of expense, a description of the expense, to wh • , :� heck number or other relevant reference, and the purpose of charge relate. Sco. ;, Work; or: a general ledger of monthly costs in an Excel spreadsheet. The ledger dst p ide a akdown of each expense type by cost and include at a minimum, the date of p ent c k num. <, payee, and purpose of payment as related to the Scope of Work. Receipts may be rep , ERCE to accompany any single expense in the amount of $50.00 or more i `er to rep a r� g=•ursement. Receipts related to costs invoiced for this grant must be retame•,ording totRecords Maintenance (Section 26 of this contract). Invoices must include Gr umber. If expenses are invoiced, provide a detailed breakdown of each type. Payment shall be considered timely if made by COMMERCE within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of properly completed invoices. Payment shall be sent to the address designated by the Grantee. COMMERCE may, in its sole discretion, terminate the Grant or withhold payments claimed by the Grantee for services rendered if the Grantee fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Grant. No payments in advance or in anticipation of services or supplies to be provided under this Agreement shall be made by COMMERCE. Invoices and End of Fiscal Year Invoices are due on the 20th of the month following the provision of services. Page 3 of 16 503 Final invoices for each state fiscal year are due by July 15th unless Commerce provides notification of an acceptation. Payment for invoices received after that date cannot be guaranteed. The Grantee must invoice for all expenses from the beginning of the Grant through June 30, regardless of the Grant start and end date. Duplication of Billed Costs The Grantee shall not bill COMMERCE for services performed under this Agreement, and COMMERCE shall not pay the Grantee, if the Grantee is entitled to payment or has been or will be paid by any other source, including grants, for that service. Disallowed Costs The Grantee is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its subgrantees. COMMERCE may, in its sole discretion, withhold ten percent (10%) from each payment until acceptance by COMMERCE of the final report (or completion of troject, etc.). 4. SUBGRANTEE DATA COLLECTION Grantee will submit reports, in a form and format to agreed by the parties, regarding work under this Gr Grant funds expended for work performed by su minority -owned, woman -owned, and veteran -ow mean subgrantees of any tier. 5. INSURANCE Each party certifies that it is self in . and program, and shall be responsi. • �� es fs hich it is found liable. bovided b .mmerce and at intervals as erformed by s rantees and the portion of cluding b not necessarily limited to ess subgrantees. "Subgrantees" shall 6. FRAUD AND OTHER L Grantee shall report in wr furnished under this identified on the F 7. ORDER OF PR In the event of an in precedence in the followin ate's or local government self-insurance liability n or suspected fraud or other loss of any funds or other property ely or as soon as practicable to the Commerce Representative cy in this der: Grant, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving • Applicable federal and state of Washington statutes and regulations • Special Terms and Conditions • General Terms and Conditions • Attachment A — Scope of Work • Attachment B — Budget Page 4 of 16 504 General Terms and Conditions 1. DEFINITIONS As used throughout this Grant, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: A. "Authorized Representative" shall mean the COMMERCE Director and/or the designee identified on the face sheet of this Grant and authorized in writing to act on the Director's behalf. B. "COMMERCE" shall mean the Washington Department of Commerce. C. "Grant" or "Agreement" or "Contract" means the entire written agreement between COMMERCE and the Grantee, including any Exhibits, documents, or materials incorporated by reference. E-mail or Facsimile transmission of a signed copy of this Grant shall be the same as delivery of an original. D. "Grantee" or "Contractor" shall mean the entity identifies on the face sheet performing service(s) under this Grant, and shall include all employe-' d agents of the Grantee. E. "Personal Information" shall mean information iden . + any person, including, but not limited to, information that relates to a person's n , hea nances, education, business, use or receipt of governmental services or ot activities, a sses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, driver license num. `. otheidentifyn.'„`� mbers, and any financial identifiers, and "Protected Health Informat . and 'tee federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). F. "State" shall mean the state of Was G. "Subgrantee/subcontractor" shall me o' '`no he employment of the Grantee, who is performing all or part of -rvic°nder this Grant under a separate Grant with the Grantee. The terms s and �' '•contractor" mean subgrantee/subcontractor(s) in any tier. H. "Subrecipient" s. ea on federal entity that expends federal awards received from a pass -through ' ry federal program, but does not include an individual that is a beneficiar !so excludes vendors that receive federal funds in exchange for goods <<. r services `� fhe course of normal trade or commerce. 1. "Vendor" is an agrees to provide the amount and kind of services requested by COMMERCE pro services under the grant only to those beneficiaries individually determined to be eli.ible by COMMERCE and, provides services on a fee -for -service or per - unit basis with contractual penalties if the entity fails to meet program performance standards. 2. ACCESS TO DATA In compliance with RCW 39.26.180, the Grantee shall provide access to data generated under this Grant to COMMERCE, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, and the Office of the State Auditor at no additional cost. This includes access to all information that supports the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Grantee's reports, including computer models and the methodology for those models. 3. ADVANCE PAYMENTS PROHIBITED No payments in advance of or in anticipation of goods or services to be provided under this Grant shall be made by COMMERCE. Page 5 of 16 505 4. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Grant contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Grant shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 5. AMENDMENTS This Grant may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 6. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-336, also referred to as the "ADA," 28 CFR Part 35 The Grantee must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. 7. ASSIGNMENT Neither this Grant, nor any claim arising under this Grant, shoe transferred or assigned by the Grantee without prior written consent of COMMERCE. 8. ATTORNEYS' FEES Unless expressly permitted under another provisio ant, in -vent of litigation or other action brought to enforce Grant terms, each party ees t. ` ar its own attorneys' fees and costs. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY/SAFEGUARDING OF INFO}� TION A. "Confidential Information" as used in t...=.•n incl i. All material provided to the Grant '. ,'O`'"RCE that is designated as "confidential" by COMMERCE; All material prod + by th y .e}Ntee ;fit is designated as "confidential" by COMMERCE; and iii. All Perso state e possession of the Grantee that may not be disclosed under B. The Grantee I comp) ith all state and federal laws related to the use, sharing, transfer, sale, or disclos *f dential Information. The Grantee shall use Confidential Information solely for the purp , of this Grant and shall not use, share, transfer, sell or disclose any Confidential Informatoon to any third party except with the prior written consent of COMMERCE or as may be required by law. The Grantee shall take all necessary steps to assure that Confidential Information is safeguarded to prevent unauthorized use, sharing, transfer, sale or disclosure of Confidential Information or violation of any state or federal laws related thereto. Upon request, the Grantee shall provide COMMERCE with its policies and procedures on confidentiality. COMMERCE may require changes to such policies and procedures as they apply to this Grant whenever COMMERCE reasonably determines that changes are necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosures. The Grantee shall make the changes within the time period specified by COMMERCE. Upon request, the Grantee shall immediately return to COMMERCE any Confidential Information that COMMERCE reasonably determines has not been adequately protected by the Grantee against unauthorized disclosure. C. Unauthorized Use or Disclosure. The Grantee shall notify COMMERCE within five (5) working days of any unauthorized use or disclosure of any confidential information, and shall take necessary steps to mitigate the harmful effects of such use or disclosure. Page 6 of 16 506 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Notwithstanding any determination by the Executive Ethics Board or other tribunal, COMMERCE may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to the Grantee terminate this Grant if it is found after due notice and examination by COMMERCE that there is a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act, Chapters 42.52 RCW and 42.23 RCW; or any similar statute involving the Grantee in the procurement of, or performance under this Grant. Specific restrictions apply to Granting with current or former state employees pursuant to chapter 42.52 of the Revised Code of Washington. The Grantee and their subgrantee(s) must identify any person employed in any capacity by the state of Washington that worked with the COMMERCE program executing this Grant, including but not limited to formulating or drafting the legislation, participating in procurement planning and execution, awarding Grants, and monitoring Grant, during the 24-month period preceding the start date of this Grant. Identify the individual by name, the agency previously or currently employed by, job title or position held, and separation date. If it is determined by COMMERCE that a conflict of interest exists, the Grantee may be disqualified from further consideration for the award of a Grant. In the event this Grant is terminated as provided above, COM same remedies against the Grantee as it could pursue in th Grantee. The rights and remedies of COMMERCE provid and are in addition to any other rights and remedies p which COMMERCE makes any determination and reviewed as provided in the "Disputes" clause of 11. COPYRIGHT Unless otherwise provided, all Materials hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Ac be considered the author of such Materials. hire" under the U.S. Copyright law Gran in all Materials, including all ec ,I pro COMMERCE effective from° omeF �r of crea "Materials" means all items in pamphlets, advertise and/or sound repro to transfer these For Materials tha produced under the irrevocable license (wi distribute, prepare deriva ided by s clause ant. E shall be entitled to pursue the of a breach of the Grant by the is clause shall not be exclusive The existence of facts upon s` be an issue and may be ed and w,is Grant shall be considered "works for by COMMERCE. COMMERCE shall Materials are not considered "works for reby irrevocably assigns all right, title, and interest y rights, moral rights, and rights of publicity to of such Materials. udes, but is not limited to, data, reports, documents, agazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, " includes the right to copyright, patent, register and the ability nder the Grant, but that incorporate pre-existing materials not antee hereby grants to COMMERCE a nonexclusive, royalty -free, o sublicense to others) in such Materials to translate, reproduce, works, publicly perform, and publicly display. The Grantee warrants and represents that the Grantee has all rights and permissions, including intellectual property rights, moral rights and rights of publicity, necessary to grant such a license to COMMERCE. The Grantee shall exert all reasonable effort to advise COMMERCE, at the time of delivery of Materials furnished under this Grant, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained therein and of any portion of such document which was not produced in the performance of this Grant. The Grantee shall provide COMMERCE with prompt written notice of each notice or claim of infringement received by the Grantee with respect to any Materials delivered under this Grant. COMMERCE shall have the right to modify or remove any restrictive markings placed upon the Materials by the Grantee. 12. DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this Grant, when a dispute arises between the parties and it cannot be resolved by direct negotiation, either party may request a dispute hearing with the Director of COMMERCE, who may designate a neutral person to decide the dispute. The request for a dispute hearing must: Page 7 of 16 507 • be in writing; • state the disputed issues; • state the relative positions of the parties; • state the Grantee's name, address, and Grant number; and • be mailed to the Director and the other party's (respondent's) Grant Representative within three (3) working days after the parties agree that they cannot resolve the dispute. The respondent shall send a written answer to the requestor's statement to both the Director or the Director's designee and the requestor within five (5) working days. The Director or designee shall review the written statements and reply in writing to both parties within ten (10) working days. The Director or designee may extend this period if necessary by notifying the parties. The decision shall not be admissible in any succeeding judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The parties agree that this dispute process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Nothing in this Grant shall be construed to limit the parties' cho dispute resolution (ADR) method in addition to the dispute hea 13. DUPLICATE PAYMENT COMMERCE shall not pay the Grantee, if the Gra Washington or any other party under any other expenses. 14. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Grant shall be construed and interpret and the venue of any action brought hereu 15. INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permit state of Washington, COM the state, from and against performance of the G damage, or expen disease, or dea therefrom. a mutually acceptable alternate procedure outlined above. has char nt or agreeme or will charge the State of or the same services or h the laws of the state of Washington, th Superior Court for Thurston County. e shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the e state and all officials, agents and employees of s foruries or death arising out of or resulting from the used in this Grant, means any financial loss, claim, suit, action, ited to attorney's fees, attributable for bodily injury, sickness, he •'`=struction of tangible property including loss of use resulting The Grantee's obligatiw , • i� mnify, defend, and hold harmless includes any claim by Grantee's agents, employees, reprives, or any subgrantee or its employees. The Grantee's obligation shall not include such claims that may be caused by the sole negligence of the State and its agencies, officials, agents, and employees. If the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the State, its agents or employees and (b) the Grantee, its subcontractors, agents, or employees, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Grantee or its subgrantees, agents, or employees. The Grantee waives its immunity under Title 51 RCW to the extent it is required to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the state and its agencies, officers, agents or employees. 16. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF THE GRANTEE The parties intend that an independent Grantee relationship will be created by this Grant. The Grantee and its employees or agents performing under this Grant are not employees or agents of the state of Washington or COMMERCE. The Grantee will not hold itself out as or claim to be an officer or employee of COMMERCE or of the state of Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Grantee make any claim of right, privilege or benefit which would accrue to such officer or employee under law. Conduct and control of the work will be solely with the Grantee. Page 8 of 16 508 17. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE The Grantee shall comply with all applicable provisions of Title 51 RCW, Industrial Insurance. If the Grantee fails to provide industrial insurance coverage or fails to pay premiums or penalties on behalf of its employees as may be required by law, COMMERCE may collect from the Grantee the full amount payable to the Industrial Insurance Accident Fund. COMMERCE may deduct the amount owed by the Grantee to the accident fund from the amount payable to the Grantee by COMMERCE under this Grant, and transmit the deducted amount to the Department of Labor and Industries, (L&I) Division of Insurance Services. This provision does not waive any of L&I's rights to collect from the Grantee. 18. LAWS The Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations and policies of local, state, and federal governments, as now or hereafter amended. 19. LICENSING, ACCREDITATION AND REGISTRATION The Grantee shall comply with all applicable local, state, and fe ;eral licensing, accreditation and registration requirements or standards necessary for the perfor s," e of this Grant. 20. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY Only the Authorized Representative or the Authors • Repre :`:Y ative's delegate by writing (delegation to be made prior to action) shall have the y:dress, implies, apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condi of th w, Grant. hermore, any alteration, amendment, modification, or waiver or any clause .n. of this Grant is not effective or binding unless made in writing and signed by the Authorized sentative. 21. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NONDISC °z,. a TION S During the performance of this Grant, the nondiscrimination laws, regulatio refusal to comply with any non canceled or terminated in grants with COMMERCE. this noncompliance. Any disp forth herein. The funds provi instruction. No pe in order to have acc 22. PAY EQUITY The Grantee agrees to ensure that "similarly employed" individuals in its workforce are compensated as equals, consistent with the following: A. Employees are "similarly employed" if the individuals work for the same employer, the performance of the job requires comparable skill, effort, and responsibility, and the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. Job titles alone are not determinative of whether employees are similarly employed; omply with all federal, state, and local n the event of the Grantee's non-compliance or regulation or policy, this Grant may be rescinded, ne Grantee may be declared ineligible for further ever, be given a reasonable time in which to cure o ed in accordance with the "Disputes" procedure set ay not be used to fund religious worship, exercise, or ired to participate in any religious worship, exercise, or instruction ies funded by this Grant. B. Grantee may allow differentials in compensation for its workers if the differentials are based in good faith and on any of the following: i. A seniority system; a merit system; a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; a bona fide job -related factor or factors; or a bona fide regional difference in compensation levels. A bona fide job -related factor or factors may include, but not be limited to, education, training, or experience that is: Consistent with business necessity; not based on or derived Page 9 of 16 509 from a gender -based differential; and accounts for the entire differential. iii. A bona fide regional difference in compensation level must be: Consistent with business necessity; not based on or derived from a gender -based differential; and account for the entire differential. This Grant may be terminated by the Department, if the Department or the Department of Enterprise Services determines that the Grantee is not in compliance with this provision. 23. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Political activity of Grantee's employees and officers are limited by the State Campaign Finances and Lobbying provisions of Chapter 42.17A RCW and the Federal Hatch Act, 5 USC 1501 - 1508. No funds may be used for working for or against ballot measures or for or against the candidacy of any person for public office. 24. PUBLICITY The Grantee agrees not to publish or use any advertising or publi Washington or COMMERCE's name is mentioned, or language the state of Washington's or COMMERCE's name may reaso prior written consent of COMMERCE. 25. RECAPTURE In the event that the Grantee fails to perform this and/or the provisions of this Grant, COMMERCE r to compensate COMMERCE for the noncompliance in or in equity. Repayment by the Grantee of funds under specified by COMMERCE. In the alternative, due under this Grant. 26. RECORDS MAINTENAN materials in which the state of d from which the connection with be inferred or implied, without the rdance h state laws, federal laws, e right to recapture funds in an amount ition to any other remedies available at law ision shall occur within the time period may recapture such funds from payments The Grantee shall maintain boords, ments, data and other evidence relating to this Grant and performance of t es ribed herein, including but not limited to accounting procedures and practices that ems �ient �r liu • p-rly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performan The Grantee shall r`_ such r girds for a period of six years following the date of final payment. At no additional cost, the ' eco including materials generated under the Grant, shall be subject at all reasonable times to ion, review or audit by COMMERCE, personnel duly authorized by COMMERCE, the Office othe State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law, regulation or agreement. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. 27. REGISTRATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE If required by law, the Grantee shall complete registration with the Washington State Department of Revenue. 28. RIGHT OF INSPECTION The Grantee shall provide right of access to its facilities to COMMERCE, or any of its officers, or to any other authorized agent or official of the state of Washington or the federal government, at all reasonable times, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and/or quality assurance under this Grant. Page 10 of 16 510 29. SAVINGS In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this Grant and prior to normal completion, COMMERCE may suspend or terminate the Grant under the "Termination for Convenience" clause, without the ten calendar day notice requirement. In lieu of termination, the Grant may be amended to reflect the new funding limitations and conditions. 30. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Grant are intended to be severable. If any term or provision is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Grant. 31. SITE SECURITY While on COMMERCE premises, Grantee, its agents, employees, or subgrantees shall conform in all respects with physical, fire or other security policies or regulations. 32. SUBGRANTING/SUBCONTRACTING The Grantee may only subgrant/subcontract work contemplate der this Grant if it obtains the prior written approval of COMMERCE. If COMMERCE approves subgranting/subcontracting, Grantees aintain written procedures related to subgranting, as well as copies of all grants/subcon and records related to subgrants/subcontracts. For cause, COMMERCE ntin.� 'ti°°` : (a) require the Grantee to amend its subgranting/subcontracting procedures as they re is Grant; (b) prohibit the Grantee from subgranting/subcontracting with a particular person or ty; or (c) require the Grantee to rescind or amend a subgrant/subcontract. Every subgrant/subcontract shall bind the S . ontractor to follow all applicable terms of this Grant. The Grantee is respo .le to ER if the Subgrantee/Subcontractor fails to comply with any applicable ter r,` is Grant. The Grantee shall appropriately monitor the activities of the Subgrantubco "actor assure fiscal conditions of this Grant. In no event shall the existence of a sube to release or reduce the liability of the Grantee to COMMERCE for any breac .e o �.�ce of the Grantee's duties. Every subgrant/sub, .11 de a term that COMMERCE and the State of Washington are not liable for clam ,,or dam a g from a Subgrantee/Subcontractor's performance of the subgrant/subcon 33. SURVIVAL The terms, conditions, a arranties contained in this Grant that by their sense and context are intended to survive the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of this Grant shall so survive. 34. TAXES All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, the Grantee's income or gross receipts, any other taxes, insurance or expenses for the Grantee or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. 35. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE In the event COMMERCE determines the Grantee has failed to comply with the conditions of this Grant in a timely manner, COMMERCE has the right to suspend or terminate this Grant. Before suspending or terminating the Grant, COMMERCE shall notify the Grantee in writing of the need to take corrective action. If corrective action is not taken within 30 calendar days, the Grant may be terminated or suspended. Page 11 of 16 511 In the event of termination or suspension, the Grantee shall be liable for damages as authorized by law including, but not limited to, any cost difference between the original Grant and the replacement or cover Grant and all administrative costs directly related to the replacement Grant, e.g., cost of the competitive bidding, mailing, advertising and staff time. COMMERCE reserves the right to suspend all or part of the Grant, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Grantee from incurring additional obligations of funds during investigation of the alleged compliance breach and pending corrective action by the Grantee or a decision by COMMERCE to terminate the Grant. A termination shall be deemed a "Termination for Convenience" if it is determined that the Grantee: (1) was not in default; or (2) failure to perform was outside of his or her control, fault or negligence. The rights and remedies of COMMERCE provided in this Grant are not exclusive and are, in addition to any other rights and remedies, provided by law. 36. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Except as otherwise provided in this Grant, COMMERCE may, by ten (10) business days' written notice, beginning on the second day after the mailing, terminate this Grant, in whole or in part. If this Grant is so terminated, COMMERCE shall be liable onlya for pay °�' required under the terms of this Grant for services rendered or goods delivered prior to the eff e date of termination. 37. TERMINATION PROCEDURES Upon termination of this Grant, COMMERCE, in add '�� to any oth +, hts provided in this Grant, may require the Grantee to deliver to COMMERCE prop ;. y specific. ' produced or acquired for the performance of such part of this Grant as has to `�ated. The provisions of the "Treatment of Assets" clause shall apply in such property transf COMMERCE shall pay to the Grantee the ' • upon p if separately stated, for completed work and services accepted by COMMERCE,• mop �° agreed upon by the Grantee and COMMERCE for (i) completed work and se no separate price is stated, (li) partially completed work and services, (iii) •rop services that are accepted by COMMERCE, and (iv) the protection and preserva of • •erty " less the termination is for default, in which case the Authorized Representative s�deter � e the - -nt of the liability of COMMERCE. Failure to agree with such determination sha a •he meaning of the "Disputes" clause of this Grant. COMMERCE may withhold f W °r ny amounts due the Grantee such sum as the Authorized Representative deter •e--ssary to protect COMMERCE against potential loss or liability. Y` The rights and r E provided in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any of fights and edies provided by law or under this Grant. After receipt of a n. - of mination, and except as otherwise directed by the Authorized Representative, the Gra all: A. Stop work under the Grant on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice; B. Place no further orders or subgrants/subcontracts for materials, services, or facilities except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the work under the Grant that is not terminated; C. Assign to COMMERCE, in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized Representative, all of the rights, title, and interest of the Grantee under the orders and subgrants/subcontracts so terminated, in which case COMMERCE has the right, at its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such orders and subgrants/subcontracts; D. Settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination of orders and subgrants/subcontracts, with the approval or ratification of the Authorized Representative to the extent the Authorized Representative may require, which approval or ratification shall be Page 12 of 16 512 final for all the purposes of this clause; E. Transfer title to COMMERCE and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized Representative any property which, if the Grant had been completed, would have been required to be furnished to COMMERCE; F. Complete performance of such part of the work as shall not have been terminated by the Authorized Representative; and G. Take such action as may be necessary, or as the Authorized Representative may direct, for the protection and preservation of the property related to this Grant, which is in the possession of the Grantee and in which COMMERCE has or may acquire an interest. 38. TREATMENT OF ASSETS Title to all property furnished by COMMERCE shall remain in COMMERCE. Title to all property furnished by the Grantee, for the cost of which the Grantee is entitled to be reimbursed as a direct item of cost under this Grant, shall pass to and vest in COMMERCE upon delivery of such property by the Grantee. Title to other property, the cost of which is rei Grant, shall pass to and vest in COMMERCE upon (i) issu performance of this Grant, or (ii) commencement of use of Grant, or (iii) reimbursement of the cost thereof by CO CE occurs. sable to the Grantee under this e for use of such property in the operty in the performance of this hole or in part, whichever first A. Any property of COMMERCE furnished to ,.,rante shall, unless otherwise provided herein or approved by COMMERCE, be used only eormance of this Grant. B. The Grantee shall be responsible results from the negligence of the Grantee to maintain and administer practices. mage to property of COMMERCE that ults from the failure on the part of the naccordance with sound management C. If any COMMERCE pr yed or damaged, the Grantee shall immediately notify COMMERCE onable steps to protect the property from further damage. D. The Grante upon corn OMMERCE all property of COMMERCE prior to settlement n o"'`'`'ancellation of this Grant. E. All reference under this clause shall also include Grantee's employees, agents or Subgrantees/ �„� .. }: ctors. 39. WAIVER Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Grant unless stated to be such in writing and signed by Authorized Representative of COMMERCE. Page 13 of 16 513 Attachment A: Scope of Work This grant provides reimbursement for costs related to services funded by the Legislature in the Commerce 2023-25 Supplemental Operating Budget: $2,500,000 of the general fund —state appropriation for fiscal year 2025 is provided solely for a grant to the city of Tukwila for costs incurred related to unsheltered, recently -arrived individuals and families. Of the amount provided in this subsection, $2,000,000 of the general fund —state appropriation for fiscal year 2025 is provided solely for transitional and long-term housing supports, on the condition that the city of Tukwila contract w the office of refugee ig. and immigrant assistance for the use of a 1•�' ion for providing tiered support services for unsheltered, recentl ed individuals and families. The office may subcontract to rovide e support services. Purpose of Grant: This grant is intended to provide reimbursement for cos related to supporting asylum seekers and other new arriv especially related to housing and shelter. y City of Tukwila or their partners e for other state or federal services — This scope of work was developed in partnership • ice of Refugee and Immigrant Assistance (ORIA). Neither party had a s uitabl t . ese services at time of contract, so all parties agreed that this scope and budget att s • �`� s ac 'table. Populations Eligible for Tiered • Unsheltered, recently -arrive duals an families who meet the DSHS Office of Refugee and Immigrant Assistas t and Asylum -Seeker Support (MASS) program criteria for services. • Recently-arriv dividuals a � families and individuals previously identified as a priority by King County who are c 5 tly rec ing or considered eligible for services Transitional and Long Term ' `'� ing Supports Eligible for Reimbursement Include: • Costs related to emergency hotel vouchers, congregate shelter, rent assistance, long-term housing • Startup costs related to new emergency hoteling services, congregate shelter, rent assistance, long-term housing Other Services Eligible for Reimbursement Include: • Administrative and management costs incurred by the City or subcontracted costs like Innovation Impact Strategies, L.L.C. • Operational costs at sites like Riverton Park United Methodist Church (RPUMC), like generator rental and fuel, security staffing, tent costs, costs for cleaning, health and sanitation costs like pest management, other maintenance and operations costs. • Transportation or other transition costs for people at RPUMC to housing, shelter, or school aged children to school. Page 14 of 16 514 • Culturally responsive case management • Education, employment and training • Referral services to longer -term housing, legal aid, or other social services • Interpretation and language access • Other expenses related to supporting asylum seekers not eligible for reimbursement through other sources Local and State Health and Safety Requirements: All services funded by this grant must be in compliance with applicable local requirements for congregate shelter, tiny shelters or other applicable provisions. Data Reporting: By June 15, 2026, City of Tukwila will provide Commerce with a brief overview of services funded by this grant that includes: • Estimated total number of unduplicated particip is served • Number of participants placed in emergency sing • Number of participants placed in emerge ' 'elter • Number of participants awaiting service • Number of participants who were sc ed but n •ible for services (turn- aways) • Other major services and outc.'�s fun `'`by this grant Invoicing requirements are detailed in Contract moection 3, Page 15 of 16 515 Attachment B: Budget Cost State Fiscal Year 2025 (July 1, 2024 — June 30, 2025) Program and administrative costs for Transitional and Long Term Housing Supports (client services and staff costs including salary and benefits) $1,875,000 Program and administrative costs for other services (defined in the Scope of Work) $500,000 TOTAL $2,37 000 Variations to program costs and staff budgets can be accommo without a contract amendment, as long as the administrative exceeded. Consult Commerce staff in writing to ensure th eligible for reimbursement prior to incurring expenses. Budget Item Definitions, Allowances and Restrictions: • Program Staff Salary and Benefits can i interacting directly with individuals served events, training staff or volunte- 1 simila • Program Costs can includ other essential items or se work. • Administrative staff time, IT/I space, etc. The administrative cos request during a moni and tota sts not includ ail if each party agree and tracted amount is not this agreement are urred by staff or volunteers managing subcontracts, coordinating s related to the Scope of Work. activities described in the scope of work and ee deems necessary to accomplish the scope of curred by grantee and subcontractors including executive ganization-wide fees or costs like insurance, non -program office it includes subcontractor administrative costs. Documentation of d to accompany invoices, but must be available to Commerce upon r audit. Restrictions: These funds cannot be used for costs including: • Alcohol • Tobacco • Cannabis • Cash payments of salaries; cash reimbursement of salaries or other major expenses paid in cash • Lobbying (See Sec. 23 for more information) • Ongoing housing or other long-term costs that extend beyond the contract period • Food or meals for a fundraiser or event not targeted to program clients or not previously approved by Commerce • Swag (like branded pencils, stress balls, keychains) • Other costs not specifically described in the Scope of Work, Budget, or not approved by Commerce. Page 16 of 16 516 DRAFT King County King County Grant Agreement # 1. Purpose of Agreement. This Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between King County, a municipal corporation ("the County") and ("Recipient") to set forth the terms and conditions under which the County will provide the Recipient with $ as a grant to be used to pay or reimburse necessary expenditures incurred for the Grant Project --as authorized in King County Ordinance 19712 during the period of 2. Scope of Eligible Expenditures. Grant funds may only be used to pay or reimburse eligible expenditures consistent with Ordinance 19712 and as detailed in the Scope of Work (Attachment A). 3. Recipient Responsibilities. Recipient agrees to administer the :rant proceeds consistent with this Agreement. Recipient shall provide the County with certification (Attach `" t B) that grant funds were used for eligible expenditures. Recipient shall use the grant invoice template achment C) to request payment from the County. 4. Access to and Maintenance of Records. Recipient sh (including personnel, property, financial, programmatic necessary by the County), for a period of six (6) years t compliance with this Agreement. Recipient acknowledges Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. Recipient shall agree that the County or any duly a time to time during normal business ho of the Recipient which are related t making excerpts, copies, and trans aintain inter .ntrols, accounts, and records other suc records as may be deemed proper accounting for all grant funds and cords may be subject to disclosure under the sentatives, shall have, at any time and from work product, books, documents, papers, and records the purpose of inspection, audits, examinations, and 5. Termination. Upo •. notice, the County may terminate this agreement for convenience. Any unspent grant proce- "shall b e• -ly returned to the County. 6. Repayment of F Recipient shall return all un provided to recipient were use nt has unspent grant proceeds on hand as of December 31, 2023, proceeds to the County within ten (10) calendar days. If any funds anner that is not consistent or allowable as outlined in this agreement, Recipient shall return funds to County in the amount determined to be ineligible. 7. Conflict of Interest. Recipient designees, agents, members, officers, employees, consultants, and any other public official who exercises or who has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his or her tenure, or who is in a position to participate in a decision -making process or gain inside information with regard to the program, are barred from any interest, direct or indirect, in any grant or proceeds of the program, or benefit there from, which is part of this Agreement at any time during or after such person's tenure. 8. Governing Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue of any suit or arbitration arising under this Agreement shall be in King County, Washington and if a lawsuit, in King County Superior Court. 9. Insurance Requirements. Recipient shall procure and maintain for the term of this Contract, insurance covering King County as an additional insured, as described in this section, against claims which may arise from, or in connection with, the performance of work hereunder by the Recipient, its agents, representatives, Grant Agreement — oject Name Page 1 of 7 517 DRAFT King County employees, and/or subcontractors. Recipient shall provide evidence of the insurance required under this Contract, including a Certificate of Insurance and Endorsements covering King County as additional insured for full coverage and policy limits upon request by King County. The costs of such insurance shall be paid by the Recipient. The Recipient shall maintain the following types of insurance and minimum insurance limits and requirements: • Commercial General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate for bodily injury, personal and advertising injury, and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as that afforded under ISO form number CG 00 01 current edition. Such insurance shall include coverage for, but not limited to, ongoing operations, products and completed operations, and contractual liability. Such limits may be satisfied by a single primary limit or by a combination of separate primary and umbrella or excess liability policies, provided that coverage under the latter shall be at least as broad as that afforded under the primary policy and satisfy all other requirements applicable to liability insurance including but not limited to additional insured status to the County. • Workers Compensation: Workers Compensation coverage, a ' uired by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, as well as any similar cover � «ired for this Work and Services by applicable federal or "Other States" State law. • Employers Liability or "Stop Gap" coverage: $1,000,000 ea ; ,occurrenc '''nd shall be at least as broad as the protection provided by the Workers Compe io icy Part 2 (Employers Liability), or, in states with monopolistic state funds, the protection prove. the "Stop Gap" endorsement to the General Liability policy Part 2 (Employers Liabilit in state h monopolistic state funds, the protection provided by the "Stop Gap" endorsementt` al Li "_' ity policy. • Professional Liability coverage o t $1,000,000 shall be provided. Also, the selected agencies shall provide Automobile Liability ��erage, the a unt of $1,000,000. • Cyber Liability/Technology 1,000,000 Claim or Occurrence/Aggregate. • Fidelity and Cr Cove ty, Theft, Disappearance, & Destruction Liability/Employee Dishonesty: $500,000 limit. erag , shall include 'Joint Loss Payable' ISO form CR 20 15 10/10 or equivalent; and ide Requi , • Notice of Cancellation to Another Entity' ISO form CR 20 17 10/10. 10. Indemnification; Reco `'t. Recipient shall, at its cost and expense, protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its directors, officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all demands, liabilities, causes of action, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees), claims, judgments, or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of Recipient, its directors, officers, employees, or agents, relating in any way to the Recipient's performance under the Agreement. These indemnification obligations shall survive the termination of the Agreement. Recipient further agrees that it is financially responsible for and will repay the County any and all indicated amounts following an audit exception which occurs due to Recipient's failure, for any reason, to comply with the terms of this Agreement. COUNTY RECIPIENT Grant Agreement — Project Name Page 2 of 7 518 DRAFT King County Name: Title: Office: Signature: Name: Title: Signature: Date: Date: Grant Agreement — Project Na Page 3 of 7 519 DRAFT King County ATTACHMENTS A — Scope of Work B — Certification C — Invoice Template Grant Agreement — Project Name Page 4 of 7 520 DRAFT King County TT p. Grant Agreement — Project Name Page 5 of 7 521 DRAFT King County TT T TIFI T NAME am the TITLE of ORGANIZATION and I certify that: 1. I have authority and approval from the governing body on behalf of ORGANIZATION to accept proceeds from the County per the Agreement for the PROJECT NAME Project by and between the County and ORGANIZATION. 2. I certify the use of funds submitted for reimbursement or payment under this contract were used only to cover those costs that: a. Are necessary expenditures incurred in support of the PROJECT NAME Project b. Were incurred during the period that begins on December 15, 2023, and ends on December 31, 2025. 3. I understand ORGANIZATION receiving funds pursuant to this certification shall retain documentation of all uses of the funds, including but not li <,. + to invoices and/or sales receipts and such documentation shall be produced to the County request and may be subject to audit by the State Auditor. I hereby certify that I have read the above certification, a herein by me are true and correct to the best of my k acknowledge my understanding that any intentional or neg the information in this document could subje ,� punis criminal penalties, including but not limited to fine Sec. 1001, et seq. And punishment under ,•eral la Printed Name Title Signature Date h "nformatio and my statements provided and by my signature on this document, isrepresentation or falsification of any of nt under federal, civil liability and/or in r both under Title 18, United States Code, Grant Agreement — Project Na 522 Page 6 of 7 DRAFT King County c ent nv • ice Te la Grantee Contact Information Organization Program Contact Name Contact Phone Number Contact Email Award Amount Expense Type TOTAL invoice Amount Date Submitted to King County Signature of Authorized Representative Authorized Representative Name Date Grant Agreement — Project Name Page 7 of 7 523 524 Thomas McLeod, Mayor T0: Mayor's Office - Marty Wine, City Administrator The city of opportunity, the community of choice Mayor McLeod Councilmembers FROM: Marty Wine, City Administrator DATE: October 12, 2024 SUBJECT: City Administrator's Report The City Administrator Report is meant to provide the Council, staff, and the community with an update on the activities of the City and on issues that concern Tukwila. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information about any of the following items. I. Intergovernmental Update • Combatting Organized Retail Crime Summit: Mayor McLeod, Police Chief Dreyer, Deputy Police Chief Lund, and Economic Development Administrator Speck attended a Combatting Organized Retail Crime summit hosted by Challenge Seattle and the Washington Retail Association on October 2. • King County City Managers/Administrators Meeting: On October 2 City Administrator Wine and Deputy City Administrator Mayer participated in a King County Monthly City Managers/City Administrators meeting. • Reconnect South Park Meeting: Community Development staff attended the first interagency working group meeting for Reconnect South Park. The meeting proposed potential futures for SR-99 to advance equity, promote environmental justice, and create safer streets within the South Park neighborhood. The next meeting is scheduled for December 2024. • Green River Trail Extension: Community Development staff continue to meet with representatives from King County and WSDOT to discuss the planned Green River Trail extension between Cecil Moses Park and South Park. The project aims to repurpose part of West Marginal Place to accommodate a protected bidirectional multi -use trail. II. Community Events • Halloween Carnival: The annual community Halloween Carnival will be held at the Tukwila Community Center on October 24, 6 PM - 8 PM. • Green Tukwila Upcoming Events: o Duwamish Alive will be held at the Duwamish Hill Preserve on October 19 from 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 525 City Administrator's Report October 12, 2024 Page 2 o Salmon Saturday Bilingual Family Festival held at the Tukwila Community Center on October 19 from 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM. o Green Tukwila Day at the Duwamish Hill Preserve is planned for November 16 from 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. lll. Staff Updates Public Safety • Annual Shop WithA Cop Event: The Police Department will hold the annual Shop WithA Cop event on December 7. • Meeting with Westfield Southcenter: Chief Dreyer met with Westfield Southcenter management regarding the proposal to have Officer positions at the Mall as part of the 2025- 2026 budget. Boards, Commissions and Committees We welcome the City Council to encourage community members to apply for vacant Board & Commission positions. • Arts Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for October 16, 2024. VACANT: 1 Community Member position and Student Representative. 2 applications received. • Civil Service Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2024. No vacancies. • COPCAB: The next meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2024. VACANT: Student Representative. • Equity & Social Justice Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for November 7, 2024. 1 City Employee position term expires March 31, 2025. 1 Education/Community position term expires March 31, 2025. 2 Community position terms expire March 31, 2025. No vacancies. • Human Services Advisory Board: The next meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2024. 1 Resident position term expires March 31, 2025. 1 Faith -Based position term expires March 31, 2025. VACANT: 2 Resident positions and 1 Business Community Representative. 1 application received. • Library Advisory Board: The next meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2024. 4 Resident position terms expire March 31, 2025. VACANT: 1 Resident position. 1 application received. • Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: The next meeting is scheduled for November 8, 2024. All positions are 1-year terms. VACANT: 1 Business Collecting Tax Representative • Park Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for November 13, 2024. 3 Community position terms expire March 31, 2025. No vacancies. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 526 City Administrator's Report October 12, 2024 Page 3 • Planning Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2024. No vacancies. IV. Responses to Council/Community Inquiries Date of Inquiry Inquiry Response April 1, 2024 A councilmember asked if the Nisqually Quake caused issues at city facilities. Operations staff believes that a crack at the Minkler Shops building is attributed to the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. It's important to remember that the Nisqually Earthquake was located nearly 40 miles away from the City of Tukwila and occurred nearly 37 miles below the surface of the earth. An earthquake closer to the City and at a shallower depth would have a higher likelihood of causing more widespread building damage. April 1, 2024 A councilmember requested updated bond capacity. This will be included in the 2025/26 budget process. April 1, 2024 A councilmember requested a cost breakdown of "nice to have" options. This was done in the October 7 City Council meeting. The options are between $25-$30 million. April 1, 2024 A councilmember requested an overview of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain elevations and how it impacts the new PW facility and Minkler. The proposed new facility is several feet outside the 500-year flood event. Staff has also considered the impact of climate change on the flood risk for the new facility and the flood chances or negligible to zero. Minkler Shops is located behind a levee and is technically not within the 100-year flood plain. As staff has stated below, the levee at this area has been identified by several other agencies as having a high risk of failure during an earthquake. Additionally, the stormwater pond location presents other concerns with levee failure. April 1, 2024 A councilmember asked what funds were used to purchase the UPS building. Councilmanic bonds. These are not tied to the specific project or property. October 7, 2024 A councilmember inquired about Recology not delivering a garbage can for over 3 weeks. Staff followed up with Recology and carts were delivered and outreach conducted. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 527 528 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2024 City Council meetings and Council Committee meetings will be conducted in a hybrid model, with in -person and virtual attendance available. OCT 21 MON OCT22 TUE OCT 23 WED OCT 24 THU OCT 25 FRI OCT 26 SAT * Work Session 5:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting * City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting vva€s11tI1gt.c;rtt healtholanfinder Workers who lose their health insurance due to a strike or labor dispute are eligible to apply for health and dental insurance through WA Health Benefit Exchange. Click here to register. SENIORS CPR / FIRST AID TRAINING Free CPR/First Aid will cover hands -only CPR and basic first aid. This class does not include a certification card. 1:00 PM — 2:00 PM Tukwila Community Center 12424 42"d Ave S To register, call 206-768-2822 or email Parks Rec@tukwilawa.gov. See below for information. SCOUTS NIGHT AT FIRE STATION 74 Puget Sound Fire invites scouts and their families to attend this open house. Scouts can earn certain scout badge requirements including: first aid, knot tying, emergency preparedness and more! Valley Regional Fire Authority will also host Scouts Night on Nov 6 if you miss this event. 5:30 PM — 8:30 PM 24611 116th Ave SE, Kent To register, call 253-856-4480 or email PubEd@PugetSoundFire.org. Join us for this FREE all - ages celebration of the fall season! Come dressed in your best costume and have fun. We have pumpkin painting, carnival games, inflatables, toddler room, photo boo, and s'mores and refreshments! 6:00 PM — 8:00 PM Tukwila Community Center 12424 42nd Ave S * Planning Commission 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting JOIN THE CHALLENGE Leave the car at home during October and reap the benefits of trying other modes of transportation. You may be eligible to win prizes including an e-bike for up to $1,500 cash! Now through Oct 31 Click here to register. ote BALLOT DROP BOXES ARE OPEN Your ballot must be returned to a ballot drop box by 8 PM on Election Day, Nov 5. Register to vote online by Oct 28 or in -person through Nov 5. Mon -Fri 8:30 AM — 4:00 PM King County Election 919 SW Grady Way For assistance, call 206-296-8683 or email elections@KingCounty.gov. (120 languages available) Click here for information. OCT 27 SUN GREEN TUKVVILA;t PLANTING AND MULCHING WATER BEARERS Join us to help remove invasives, planting and cleaning up the area around the living willow sculptures, Water Bearers. 10:00 AM —1:00 PM 57th Ave S Mini Park Click here to register. OCT 28 MON OCT 29 TUE OCT 30 WED OCT 31 THU NOV1 FRI NOV 2 SAT * Transportation & Infrastructure Services Committee Meeting 5:30 PM City Hall — Hazelnut Rm Hybrid Meeting * Finance & Governance Meeting 5:30 PM 6300 Building — 2"d FI Duwamish Conference Hybrid Meeting * City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting al King County ADOPT A DOG FOR $50 THIS MONTH! Ai this month, you can adopt a dog for just $50. All pets from Regional Animal Services of King County had an initial veterinary exam, up-to-date vaccinations, spayed or neutered, and microchipped. Cats can be adopted for $30 and kittens $100. Mon -Fri 12:00 PM — 5:00 PM Sat -Sun 12:00 PM — 4:00 PM KC Pet Adoption Center 21615 64th Ave S Click here for information. Buy fresh produce grown by refugees and immigrants in Tukwila. EBT card accepted. 3:00 PM — 6:00 PM Tukwila Village Plaza 14350 Tukwila Intl Blvd BOO-TIFUL HABITAT: DUWAMISH RIVER Join EarthCorps and Tukwila staff to improve the river near the Tukwila Community Center. Costumes encouraged! 10:00 AM —1:00 PM Tukwila Community Center 12424 42"d Ave S Click here to register. Give Blood = Save 3 Lives URGENT NEED! DONATE AND ENTERTO WIN A 15" MACBOOK AIR IN OCTOBER! It takes 1,000 donors a day to sustain a blood supply for patients in our community. Click here to schedule an appointment. Or call 1-800-398-7888. You can also donate umbilical cord blood after the birth of your baby to save a life. Easy and free. Click here for information. HELP HEAL OUR HABITAT AT CODIGA PARK Join EarthCorps and Tukwila staff to work along the river. 10:00 AM —1:00 PM Codiga Park Click here to register. Join us alongside other South King County Valley law enforcement partners for this free workshop. 9:00 AM — 2:00 PM Click here to register early. For information, email vaieypolicecaree rs@rentonwa.gov. CITY HALL & 6300 BUILDINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC MONDAYS THRU THURSDAYS 8:30 AM — 4:00 PM Oct 19 — SALMON SATURDAY — See above date for information. Oct 22 — SENIORS CPR TRAINING — See above date for information. Oct 24 — HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL — See above date for information. Oct 27 & 31 / Nov 2 — GREEN TUKWILA / EARTH CORPS EVENTS — See above dates for information. Nov 2 — CAREER WORKSHOP: DIVERSITY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT — Click here for information. 9:00 AM — 2:00 PM Register for location. Nov 9 — AUTUMN YARD WASTE DROP-OFF — Click here for information. 8:00 AM — 12:00 PM Tukwila Community Center 12424 42nd Ave S Nov 16 — SHRED-A-THON PAPER ONLY — Click here for information. 10:00 AM — 2:00 PM Tukwila Community Center 12424 42"d Ave S Nov 18 — PUBLIC HEARING #2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT FOCUS 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd Dec 2 — PUBLIC HEARING #3: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (following integration of Agency comments) 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd *" SPIRIT OF GIVING DONATIONS DUE ON OR BEFORE DEC 1 Tukwila Community Center 12424 42"d AVE S Help a Tukwila child and their family this season. Your monetary donations and/or donations of toys, cozy items, hygiene essentials and gift cards will help ensure a healthy, happy winter for Tukwila families experiencing homelessness. Checks or Venmo accepted. Click here for information. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2025 EXPENSE BUDGET & 2025 BENEFIT CHARGE OCT 16 5:30 PM 20811 84t° AVE S #111, KENT Public Hearing on Puget Sound Fire's 2025 Expense Budget and 2025 Benefit Charge. Virtual meeting login information will be posted on the PSF website, ww.pugetsoundfire.org, prior to the hearing date and time. For questions, call Jessica Extine, Board Secretary, at 253-856-4323. FOOD BANK OPENS: TUESDAYS, THURSDAYS AND SATURDAYS 10:00 AM — 2:00 PM 3118 S 140TH ST, TUKWILA VOLUNTEERS — In need of volunteers for food packaging or food distributions. To volunteer, click here to sign up. DONORS — Please donate at tukwilapantry.orgidonate. Donations can be dropped off on Tuesday -Saturday from 8 AM — 11 AM or by appointment. STILL WATERS SNACK PACK NEEDS YOUR DONATIONS AND VOLUNTEER HELP! SnackPack distributes food bags on Fridays to Tukwila students in need. VOLUNTEERS NEEDED ON WEDNESDAYS. Pack snacks every Wednesday at 9:30 AM. To volunteer, email Stillwatersfamilyservices@gmail.com. To deliver food, click here to register with Tukwila School District. Please donate to feed our Tukwila kids. Click here to donate online or mail checks to Still Waters, PO Box 88984, Tukwila WA 98138. 529 530 Tentative Agenda Schedule MEETING 1— MEETING 2 — MEETING 3 — MEETING 4 REGULAR C.O.W. REGULAR C.O.W. OCTOBER 7 OCTOBER 14 OCTOBER 21 OCTOBER 28 PUBLIC HEARING See below links for the agenda See below links for the agenda See below links for the agenda - Tax Levy Legislation: packets to view the agenda items: packets to view the agenda items: packets to view the agenda items: (1) An ordinance increasing the City of Tukwila regular levy October 7, 2024 Work Session October 14, 2024 October 21, 2024 Work Session from the previous year, commencing January 1, 2025. Committee of the Whole Meeting (2) An ordinance levying the general taxes for the City of October 7, 2024 October 21, 2024 Tukwila for the fiscal year Regular Meeting Regular Meeting commencing January 1, 2025. - An ordinance adopting zoning regulations regarding temporary encampments pursuant to RCW 35A.21.360; Establishing Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.48, "Temporary Encampments"; PSRFA PUBLIC HEARING Amending various ordinances as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, "Classification of OCTOBER 16 Project Permit Applications"; Adopting supportive findings. Puget Sound Regional Fire SPECIAL ISSUES Authority Governance Board will - Tax Levy Legislation: hold a public hearing to: (1) An ordinance increasing the - Review revenue sources for the Regional Fire Authority's 2025 expense budget including property taxes and possible increases in property tax revenues per RCW 84.55.120. City of Tukwila regular levy from the previous year, commencing January 1, 2025. (2) An ordinance levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2025. - Review and establish the Regional Fire Authority's benefit charge to be collected in 2025 per RCW - An ordinance adopting zoning regulations regarding temporary encampments pursuant to RCW 52.26.230(2). 35A.21.360; Establishing Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.48, "Temporary Encampments"; Amending various ordinances as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, "Classification of Project Permit Applications"; Adopting supportive findings. - A resolution adopting a citywide Consolidated Permit Fee Schedule. 531 532 Tentative Agenda Schedule MEETING 1— MEETING 2 — MEETING 3 — MEETING 4 REGULAR C.O.W. REGULAR C.O.W. NOVEMBER 4 NOVEMBER 11 NOVEMBER 18 NOVEMBER 25 WORK SESSION WORK SESSION 2025-2026 Biennial Budget: Council questions, discussion and deliberations. , 2025-2026 Biennial Budget: Council questions, discussion and deliberations. V TERANS.„D r ,tr,q Special Meeting to follow Committee of the Whole REGULAR MEETING Remembering all who served.4 REGULAR MEETING Meeting. APPOINTMENTS PRESENTATION Appointments to Arts Commission, Human No City Council or Committee Tukwila Community Leadership UNFINISHED BUSINESS Services Advisory Board & Library Advisory meetings due to the holiday. Initiative. Budget Legislation: Board. CONSENT AGENDA (1) An ordinance adopting the biennial budget of the City for CONSENT AGENDA An ordinance adopting the the 2025 — 2026 Biennium; A resolution on fleet surplus. Development Agreement between the adopting the 2025 -2030 - Sound Cities Lease Renewal for 6300 City of Tukwila and the Vietnamese Financial Planning Model and Building. Martyrs Parish. the Capital Improvement - Puget Sound Fire Lease Agreement and Program for general Deeds. PUBLIC HEARING government and the City's - A contract for Future of Work and - 2023-2024 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan enterprise funds. Facilities Review. Update: Transportation Element. (2) An ordinance amending the - Agreement for Broker & Listing Services for the UPS Property. Budget Legislation: 2023-2024 Biennial Budget. An ordinance revising encampment. (1) An ordinance adopting the - Accept Department of Ecology Grant for 2025-2026 Biennial Budget. PCB Evaluation & Monitoring. Ares (2) resolution adopting the - Accept WSDOT Grants for 42nd Ave S Bridge Construction. 2025 2030 Financial Planning Model and the Capital Improvement - PCB Evaluation within Stormwater Drainage Contract with Herrera. Program for general government and the City's enterprise fund. - Lodging Tax funding application from (3) An ordinance amending the City of Tukwila for 2025-2026 Seawolves 2023-2024 Biennial Budget. Partnership. Accept turnover from Centerpoint through Bill of Sale. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - 2023-2024 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Update: Transportation Element. - Budget Legislation: PUBLIC HEARINGS - An ordinance adopting the Development 2(1) An ordinance5adopting the Biennial Budget.he Agreement between the City of Tukwila and the Vietnamese Martyrs Parish. - Budget Legislation: (1) An ordinance adopting the 2025-2026 Biennial Budget. (2) A resolution adopting the 2025-2030 Financial Planning Model and the Capital Improvement A resolution (2) 2025-203000n adopting the theCapital FinancialmPlanning Model and the Improvement Progrheam for general government and ordinance City's enterprise fund. (3) 2023-2024A0 Biennial amending the Budget. Program for general government and the City's enterprise fund. (3) An ordinance amending the 2023-2024 Biennial Budget. (4) An ordinance amending the 2023-2024 Biennial Budget. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - An ordinance adopting the Development Agreement between the City of Tukwila and the Vietnamese Martyrs Parish. - Budget Legislation: (1) An ordinance adopting the 2025-2026 Biennial Budget. (2) A resolution adopting the 2025-2030 Financial Planning Model and the Capital Improvement Program for general government and the City's enterprise fund. (3) An ordinance amending the 2023-2024 Biennial Budget. - Tax Levy Legislation: (1) An ordinance levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2025. (2) An ordinance decreasing the 2025 general property tax levy for the City of Tukwila regular levy from the previous year, commencing January 1, 2025, on all property, both real and personal, in compliance with RCW 84.55.120; Preserving future levy capacity. - A resolution adopting a citywide Consolidated Permit Fee Schedule. NEW BUSINESS A motion approving a waiver of Residency Requirement for City Administrator.