HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2011-02-28 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET i i«A h, City of Tukwila Distribution:
V. Seal C. O'Flaherty If i, J. Duffle S. Kerslake
4 4:9 Z C Affairs
44 D. Quinn K. Matey
Parks Committee
A. yo. Arthur
Mayor or r Ha Hagg C Haggerton C. Parrish
1\... S. Lancaster P. Linder
G Ve rna Seal, Chair
1 90 8 O Joe Duffle
G De'Sean Quinn
AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011
CONFERENCE ROOM #3, 5:00 PM
Item Recommended Action Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Discussion on possible Development Agreement a. Forward to 3/14 C.O.W. Pg.1
in the Riverton area. and 3/21 Regular Mtg.
Brandon Miles, Senior Planner
b. Southcenter Plan Public Involvement Strategy. b. Forward to 3/14 C.O.W. Pg.9
Jack Pace, Community Development Director and 3/21 Regular Mtg.
c. A resolution to request a Special Election. c. Forward to 3/14 C.O.W. Pg.23
Kimberly Matey, Council Analyst and 3/21 Regular Mtg.
d. Parks Recreation Events Calendar d. Information only. Pg.41
Rick Still, Parks Recreation Director
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, March 14, 2011
15 The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 (tukclerk @ci.tukwila.wa.us) for assistance.
Blank
o 4's City of Tukwila
a Jim Haggerton, Mayor do
29 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Park Committee
FROM: Brandon J. Miles, Senior Planner
DATE: February 22, 2011
SUBJECT: Riverton Development 12909 East Marginal Way South
ISSUE
Does the City Council want to consider entering into a Development Agreement for the
construction of a mixed use building at 12909 East Marginal Way South?
BACKGROUND
The City has been approached by a property owner who is requesting that the City enter into a
Development Agreement for the construction of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certified, mixed use building at 12909 East Marginal Way South (see attached
map). The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) and the applicant is
proposing a use which is permitted in the zone. The City has been working with the property
owner to identify any Zoning code issues with the proposed development on the property. As
currently designed the building has several small code issues specifically, with parking, split
zoning on one of the parcels, first floor usage, and setbacks.
Parking
The property owner is proposing a three story, mixed use building. The ground floor along East
Marginal Way will have commercial tenants, which will include a small restaurant. Residential
dwelling units (mixture of one and two bedrooms) will be included on the first, second and third
floors. The City's parking regulations would require that a total of 63 stalls be provided for the
proposed use.
The property owner is proposing to install 37 parking stalls on site and create an additional 11
stalls along East Marginal Way South. Thus, the total number of parking stalls proposed for the
development is 48. This creates a deficiency of 15 parking stalls. In order to install the on-
street parking stalls the applicant will be required to complete full frontage improvements along
their property and the adjacent school district (bus parking) property.
Typically, the City would use the parking variance process to address the issue presented by
this development. However, it's unclear if the City can process a parking variance for this
project. City code prohibits the issuance of a parking variance when the project is within 300
feet of a single family zone. It's unclear if this 300 feet requirement is based on path of travel or
simply by distance.
Split Zoning
A parcel that is part of this development has split zoning, Low Density Residential and NCC.
Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.08.040 provides an avenue for addressing this type of
situation.
"Where a district boundary line divides a lot which was in single ownership at the time of
passage of this Title, the Hearing Examiner may permit, as a special exception, the extension of
the regulations for either portion of the lot not to exceed 50 feet beyond the district line into the
remaining portion of the lol 1
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
The property owner petitioned and the Hearing Examiner approved extending the NCC zoning
onto the LDR zoned portion. However, that approval has expired. The property owner could
request that the Hearing Examiner reapprove the project; however this would add cost and time
to the project.
First Floor Usage
The NCC zone allows mixed use buildings; however the code is unclear if the first floor can
have residential units. TMC 18.22.050 (13) states that multi family units are allowed above
office and retail uses. The applicant is proposing to have retail uses fronting along East
Marginal Way, but would have first floor residential units facing the interior of the lot. At this
location it would not seem feasible to require retail and /or office in the back part of the property.
Setbacks
In order to create a unique building the property owner has requested some deviations from the
required front setbacks along East Marginal Way. The TMC permits 18 inches of roof overhang
within required setback areas. The property owner has requested that we permit other
architectural elements to encroach the same distance into the setback. The specific items that
would encroach would be approved as part of design review, but would likely be balconies, bay
windows, and other incidental building features.
As part of the Development Agreement the property owner has committed to the following:
a. Building the first LEED certified building in the City. LEED certification is a building
standard for level of green development. The City has no code requirements to
mandate the construction of LEED buildings.
b. The applicant would utilize Low Impact Development (LID) standards in the development
to deal with stormwater. Again, LID standards are encouraged, but not required in
Tukwila.
c. Construction of frontage improvements that exceed City standards. Typically, the City
can only require construction of frontage improvements along those portions of the right
of way that are adjacent to a particular development. In this case, the applicant is
proposing to construct frontage improvements off -site. These frontage improvements
will include a sidewalk, bike lane, and on- street parking. Once completed these frontage
improvements may act as a catalyst for the development of the school property.
DISCUSSION
Besides the issues with parking, the City staff believes that the development issues listed above
are minor. Even parking could be addressed through a Development Agreement. The driving
force for the required number of parking stalls are the residential units. City Code requires that
two stalls be provided for each dwelling unit. This parking requirement for residential dwellings
may be too high. As the City Council is aware, the City adopted code changes modifying the
parking requirements for the NCC area around the Tukwila Village site (TMC 18.43).
Additionally, City staff has researched other city codes and has found that may codes require
less parking for residential units than is required in Tukwila. As part of any Development
Agreement the City would provide controls to mitigate possible impacts associated with the
development. These controls would be reviewed by the City Council before approval of any
Development Agreement. This is the same type of process staff would use to process a parking
variance, but it's unclear if this development is eligible for a parking variance.
It's also unclear why this property is not within the Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB)
Corridor. The TIB Corridor ends on the south side of S. 130 Street. The NCC properties
located north of S. 130' Street are the only NCC zoned properties that are not located within
2 W:12011 Info Memos \RlvertonDA.doc
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
the TIB Corridor. The TIB Development standards provide significant flexibility that the
applicant could utilize if the property was within the TIB Corridor.
The proposed development highlights some issues with the current Zoning Code regulations
and these issues should be ultimately addressed with Code amendments which would clarify
the City Council intent. Yet, the time it takes to process the code amendments would impact a
developer who is ready to build, thus the need for a Development Agreement. Staff has not
prepared a draft Development Agreement, but first wanted to get input from the Council.
The questions before the City Council are as follows:
1. Does the Council want to consider entering into a Development Agreement? If the
answer is yes, staff will work with the property owner to draft a development agreement
and will bring it back to Council in April for consideration and a public hearing.
2. If the answer is yes, what type of process does the Council want to provide for the
applicant in order to approve the project?
a. The Council could only consider a Development Agreement with the items listed
above and require that the building design be approved by the Board of Architectural
Review (BAR) at a later date. This option would provide the least deviation from the
City's existing process; however it would add to the project timeline. This option
would require that the applicant have one public hearing with the City Council for the
Development Agreement and one with the BAR for the design review application.
b. At the same time the Council reviews the Development Agreement, they could also
review the Design Review application. This would speed up the applicant's review
process and allow the project to only have one public hearing.
c. A hybrid approach would be for Council to review the Development Agreement and
require that the building design be approved by the Director. This would option
would only require one public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is being asked to forward this item to the March 14, 2011 Committee of the
Whole meeting. Staff supports the applicant's request for a Development Agreement. The
project will provide the following to the City:
a. LEED Certified Building;
b. Site Developed with Low Impact Development; and
c. Frontage Improvements that exceed our code requirements.
All that is being asked of the Council at this time is to provide consensus to consider a
development agreement at a later date. No commitments to actually enter into a development
agreement need to be decided at this time, as the full Council process will be followed once a
development agreement has been crafted.
With regards to the various options of how to proceed, staff supports all the options provided.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Aerial Map
B. Proposed Site Plan
WA2011 Info Memos\RivertonDA.doc
3
4
r f r r h --.s.r 7 7 3 7 fi f i S ♦,r Rr
,r /r r Y J "'a f'"���u��(e• -�jg J J�� rf�f .J- r rf a
/J v r r Y' .ry z° Y 1!l l/ J /'t ,,1.. ,�ti •x
is f f f f ru Iwo o f r// /J` yJ 0?
it ¢4 ,i Y&,` j y l
r J J r .t 'r- J f �JJ� ,f %J .f/ if I r
//%J, r k 1Ll f% f Y�r /r.% s /l f/ f J ifs
k f e yap s''ri. l k? ku: st `s i l r F fr r
,..t✓ i/ r'• rf,,,,,s,-0-2,,,5/-4•,,/07,;?4?,,g-,,-",,c..-42. y ri �j.,rrJ�. r`' r r J r��.
J l/ /f 1r, r rr 17 1 4r rd.'1 .sr f, Y l r f' S /J: r f 'I
/r r r/ f%`rrrti a'! .i"' r. r J i' 1 "A fJ F 1 'r 1' i 9 .ir` 4 1 ;r n" k •y 74 f f 0::::„.,.../...f
i J /5/% �f yJ�jJ i/ j r J rff }l
rf i J 1 ,r� ,0s r �f Iy f fi s if/ J y. f
Iii f f f srSfNik xi l r JJ N/ 1% 'f,
r i //l r' i' 1I�1 /v11f r Vo ''41�//v r. 44,E,! ,1,,` r/�l
J f 1i f f g ✓r1. t f f r J
f/ f} fr ,r/ r r.l rJ Jr r J -r
!f, r t' ,/J r ,,,0 J r ,t ::0 i': i !''1,., r W f f !Y
f r Y/ f f,/ /.rJ'rfi f{t'1 ir` f J ��,f
r 'f.),,.: a .rfr .7il /i-9 ,r _7 /JY /r r ..l;.., j
1J rr r f /f .,,r/_Y/!!% f�f� /.t r �.^r?R"- E: 3"� r�' j ,J,f;i ��fi ,/Sy /t/ r�'�r r
'/r `•'f/ 1 i,i y f 4; '1 P i i" t /,f f/f i ,rte t! /r ,J f ry '/fi ,r/,J .Y r
S Yrr t f :44'. .f zs 5 f r o if i J f c
i '1 j i,T.✓' r-� 1 'r i l�r f
r, r �A''. !11:: 6 ,41:041:441- f'� J r er! 4,1:2. "i::r f a/ f i,Jl/ /f J f J i
f f J i 8 f r r d Ff�� l' I fr f r I .�y,1� a iR �r %f J f rte' f f j f' 1 .r ;''�i %�IJ/ f r ...4, i/j r•:' j r, j .s /r _-rrJ!yt f `7l
//l f, j ✓i J ,la�r /y f ,!I J�-f� r i 'y i r
r '•/f- 3r,/ f A :f n f 5 j �'If f/f
i y f y c •.r f// ;:fi f ff
F r' f J r ��l b• r '�y,. li *4 s'rl r .f l J h j
4,? L _-r f //?f`,Y /r"Am.-gfyfr Jr %J y fir �1 /'fJ .f
l r r -r f Ok) rr w y r 1 rr %F� ff� r r fs, 1, .lfJ S J .�r� r r'f 4 i^ r s fr r rl a/ i1 !1 r r ;:y. Ai r rr.,,,i. 9>. r/ 1 r' J yr r J r•! 49, i
rr/�,`- /l/ "r!.!c1'/ r J. I ii r l {lylrG ji%
i'iil- i J' r 1 'flJf�'s f r J r �J. .3.y..
s l r >�IJ t f.. r fr f �S;/� J j
w f' :r` s J_'_. f /J r i Nf:,ir+ .r <r: y i: /f
�4 p -f r/ :G r l n i l`f r r
Y/, /J /''rr �f� f r i �,:ri I S r. r' 1 1;
l u/: ',O J f J /'J s�r3 l'ir' I� 9 'r f ff r
`w a`r y. /r f v 0- j/ :/4 /.y /r J
t om. r x h f J>','J '//f'r9.� yf r ;r r d
Y m k k r 1.
i f 'Y 1 9 1Gr
sn-':- 4, ,fyWn 7 f trff r J G rr 1 r::` r //r'i�
f t /-6 ^r „04,„, -,r r 1 /f %r r 1.
Y r /7,//' !.r s; 4 1 0 e rr J a
J y f r //j.../.4,‘W,, t,, i f x i r
fi� 3 i 1 /S Y% r s '�f'- _.rf ,f;. f fi r %.r J f
I V 1/ rr r fr Y f a!/. i '';r /G
N, v f f i /l r -i f` <1�f 1/';�
1,1r. J z f f r4 JY y f -I JrsY5if/ '4% +if J 1,, T PIA f l f> ti f f-, y r' /l =i.1'..,,,, ,A:rfrff r .:4 r /rC� r
Gf' „��y r .vr rr s y r f zr r r J l
I '>1 L r 7_,/,14.-.."7- f �i 2 V r f r ,J,' g =�Ji :=r;y' X.:/#
;y /f "p r.iv F fi Y /i7j 1' /j j -,(0- j, f 9 ter-'`
,r/ s, c r i f f r i/. f- /J f, I/€
rr�i 'l 1r'r ,,tr;f rte_ Muir Jr
U ;r s f r i f ,/lr f rr .lf' /!fJ
J rr /r ,4 52:1 t 1 Y i/' J r/
y/ ff,.rik O r r ix-,2,- r a y :o :r j r
''t fr A t i' Y i,44* �J� ri /f.' y t r/ i f; %'t
�,J i rr r i `f's/frG�
,F /ii� �'y Ju��6 /1 �i J'% !f f ,J`././ %4 /i j
/'r 1:'.•Zr ;r`.' a �/14: f ,4 /03 0 ,4rfy /�j'
f r 0 i /r j rfyj <.y:. /f r
r./✓ rG `",v r I 8 r' ✓!f g,-/,, f� /:r,! %l,
rr 6 L,� f .y i i j J %r J T r ii;, :Jr /r
S ,ray r::: r l /y
r f Y J/f "i J Yff ✓J�" /f /1. X:' "'lJ
r r, 4/' 'r O /J'•: /i /i K S e i..: 1 v:
•41V- :2:17::// r r y f 1 f G r %/.mil f r /ri/ r
r r /Z// r%%rYiz& J .f.F a- A,:''...1: c�iJ. fff� r Y!/- y r r
f
a i J/
_vim V..� `,6 yu
4-'
Proje t Sfte k e 165 ft
I CityGIS
r
rot
Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the
contributor supplied under license and may not be approved e:acept as licensed by Digital Map Products.
5
6
a
,s a If a= o Is 'ss'
2 a a^ e- z •M w.. ,.our, y d it ii
:b iil
A e R2�3 e3 y3s a 9'r O I I L
I 1 lF $i
Y i r a i E i� 1` p A 9
2f a azi i I "9
a D i y
F-• r E 4,1 auras I I 1 '°r"°` .i.
s:4,: I I I I f� .4s_
e 3el =i
1 �,+JJ mm
'4 I I 1 I: ;1 1 L
i ;al it Q 4 oe i r f
i a al F£ 1 I I r I iii t� r,
H H
;a§ :5; n
5 WI ill 3 '4
r ags 1 1
3 x
b.. I
I
I I j�
8 II .,a 1 1 a
s 3 II I I 11
iii 1 j II i I,
f II I I
4
3== x`m o 11 i 1I I
F ;r b..
0
1 H i ir Ed 11 1 1e
1 i
II I I
1I I II
III 1I:
I
I I II
3 yd
I i i�3p3ub
II I II
II 1I
i1 H 1I I I1
D 3 a t o s 1 Ri 9 Riverton Development
Way WA
O
0 �a�
m m
7
8
o s Z City of Tukwila
y Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Ka f o
�s r -9o s� INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Jack Pace, Community Development Director
DATE: February 14, 2011
SUBJECT: Briefing on Status of Southcenter Plan Revision Process
ISSUE
On September 27, 2010 the Council Committee of the Whole recommended that staff return to a
future Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting with more information on the draft Plan
for the Southcenter area and alternatives for stakeholder review. This memo provides a briefing
on the background of the plan and presents options for moving forward on completing the plan.
BACKGROUND
The Southcenter area has been designated as an urban center under the Countywide Planning
Policies since the adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code in 1995. This
designation provides some benefits such as priority for regional infrastructure and transit
service. It also aligns with the City's plan for accommodating much of its regional share of
employment and housing growth (17,550 employees and 4,850 households by 2031) in mixed
use commercial areas primarily in Southcenter, with the remainder in Tukwila South and along
Tukwila International Boulevard, leading to the creation of vibrant, walkable mixed use districts
linked by transit.'
We hope to see new construction at the core of these areas along the lines of the Tukwila
Village vision, with high quality multi -story buildings close to comfortably wide sidewalks in order
to spur redevelopment and job and housing growth. This strategy will also allow us to protect
the existing character and stability of Tukwila's largely built -out residential areas. For a more
complete discussion of how the Southcenter Plan fits into the broader State, regional and
county policy framework see Attachment A.
FEDERAL GRANT
In 2002 Tukwila received a $1.4 million federal grant to prepare a subarea plan for Southcenter,
one of the region's designated urban centers, including the area designated for transit oriented
development (TOD) around the Sounder commuter rail /Amtrak station. The project's objectives
were as follows:
Prepare a redevelopment strategy for the TUC to create more business activity and
generate additional tax revenue, encourage a broader mix of uses and densities in a
pedestrian- oriented environment to support improved transit (particularly in the northern
part of the TUC), improve internal circulation and create a sense of place.
Identify and coordinate the improvements necessary to initiate and support the plan.
Develop regulations and guidelines implementing the plan.
Complete the evaluation of environmental impacts from the proposed development and
designate the plan as a SEPA "planned action
Approximately 1/3 of the City's forecasted employment growth is planted for the City's Manufachning /Industrial
Center. 9
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
While we are not clearly required to return the money should we fail to complete these actions in
a timely manner it seems likely that it would affect Tukwila's ability to seek future grants and at
some point the unspent funds could be rescinded.
FUTURE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
One of the motivations for undertaking this effort to develop more detailed development
standards was to ensure that the Southcenter area remained competitive with other regional
shopping and employment centers. Trends point to the continuing decline of the already
overbuilt retail sector, and consumer preferences for walkable, vibrant, outdoor, entertainment
driven experiences as seen in the outward nature of the Southcenter Mall expansion, Kent
Station, Renton Landing and Burien Town Center.
When the General Services Administration put out a request for proposals for office space in our
area the requirements included amenities such as retail shops, banks, restaurants and multiple
bus lines within a walkable distance of one -half mile from the building. While the Southcenter
area contains these types of amenities, in order to diversify into the office and housing markets
we need to provide safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle routes to get to them.
TUKWILA URBAN CENTER (TUC) PLAN PROCESS
The TUC Planning process started with a public visioning exercise and was designed to allow
many opportunities for public involvement. For a chronology of this process to date see
Attachment B. Between May 2002 and May 2004 staff held six public workshops and three joint
City Council /Planning Commission work sessions to develop the vision and priorities for the
plan. During that time, staff and the City's consultant FTB met with the Mall on their design and
renovation project to ensure that the Mall's project was consistent with the direction the vision
was taking. Staff and consultants also flew to Minneapolis to discuss the vision with the Target
Corporation. FTB then took this vision and in 2005 delivered a draft plan composed of three
parts: the vision for the urban center, development standards and design guidelines to
implement the vision, and recommended City investments and actions.
From 2005 to 2008 public review of the plan was put on hold due to other City priorities such as
the Tukwila South annexation. During that time, staff convened a panel of commercial and
mixed use experts from the Urban Land Institute to review the feasibility of the draft plan and
make recommendations. Staff also worked to test the draft regulations on other proposed
projects sought funding for some of the implementing actions such as the pedestrian bridge
over the Green River and improved transit center, and coordinated with Sound Transit on the
design of the permanent commuter rail station and the Parks Department on the master plan for
Tukwila Pond Park to ensure these projects supported the City's vision for the TUC.
In the fall of 2008 we resumed the public review process with mailings, open houses, multiple
meetings with individual property and business owners, and presentations to interested groups.
From March to May 2009 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and 3 work sessions
on the draft Plan. During this process it became clear that there was not internal consensus
among City Departments on a vision for the urban center that included greater building density,
taller buildings, breaking up the superblocks, on- street parking and improved facilities for
pedestrians and bicyclists. The public comments were generally in favor of the vision but there
was concern about development standards in the TOD area such as the 2 story minimum
height, maximum setbacks, entrances facing the street and thresholds for compliance with the
new standards.
In May, the Planning Commission directed Department of Community Development (DCD) staff
to review the comments received from the public on the draft Southcenter Plan and propose
revisions to address the issues raised. After reviewing the comments staff decided to address
1 0 the internal departmental concerns separately from the external stakeholder comments. All of
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
the comments are available on the Tukwila Urban Center Plan section of the City's web site,
both in their original form and summarized in a matrix with staff analysis and recommendations.
Staff responded to public comments concerns regarding the economic feasibility of the vision
and the draft development regulations by contracting with ECONorthwest (ECO), the consultant
that prepared economic and market analyses during the preparation of the draft plan. ECO's
analysis consisted of:
1) Technical research on market and demographic forces that will influence Plan
implementation;
2) Creating four pro formas (economic analyses of development scenarios) for possible
prototype developments in the TUC; and
3) Conducting three focus groups and follow -up interviews with TUC stakeholders and
other office, retail, residential and mixed -use developers. Also attending the focus
groups were George Malina (then Planning Commission Chair), Derek Speck
(Economic Development Administrator), and DCD staff.
ECO's technical memo recommended the following revisions to the development standards and
changes to the implementation strategies:
General comments and recommended strategies:
o Almost all stakeholders agreed the vision is the right long -term goal for development
in TUC.
o The vision is achievable in the mid to long term with significant, targeted public
investment to catalyze and support types of development the City would like to see.
o Code appears to be more complex than it actually is: it is designed to provide
certainty while minimizing discretionary interpretive decisions.
Specific recommendations comments:
o Revise high -rise ordinance to allow mid -rise construction will make the Plan more
economically viable and allow Tukwila to be more competitive with other cities.
o Achieving multiple storied development is limited due to difficulty in meeting parking
requirements
o When reducing parking requirements, need to provide other options to avoid
negative consequences
o Open space requirements are consistent with other jurisdictions.
Staff presented these findings to the Planning Commission (PC) on December 10 2009 and
the Community Affairs and Parks Committee on March 22, 2010.
DISCUSSION
WHERE WE ARE Now
Almost all stakeholders commenting on the draft plan agreed the City's vision is the right long-
term goal for development in the TUC. The conflict, however, was in how and when the vision
should be implemented. Some members of the PC thought that additional public outreach was
needed outside of the formal hearing process.
To ensure that we have up to date input from property and business owners staff proposed
moving forward with establishing a second stakeholders' process to address key issue areas
that were identified by ECONW and /or raised during the public comment period. The process
was designed to allow the consultant /staff team to work out the individual concerns of the
11
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
stakeholders, with the anticipated outcome of a set of regulatory refinements to the draft Plan
that work for both the stakeholders and the City.
The process was to consist of the following phases:
1. Framework initial stakeholder outreach; summarizing key issues
2. Refinements defining stakeholder City priorities, needs and options
3. Consensus testing options internally; presenting system of refinements to
stakeholders; finalizing the refinement system
4. Approval seeking internal and stakeholder endorsements; presenting plan refinement
system to the Planning Commission
Critical to a successful process were the following tasks:
1. Broad outreach to community early on to solicit stakeholder interest
2. Including other City Departments in the process
3. Providing process updates for the Planning Commission at key points
4. Outreach to stakeholders on an individual basis
5. Public Open House on draft Refinements
The consultant fee for the stakeholder process was to be funded by the Federal Transit
Oriented Development Grant. On September 6, 2010 the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee recommended forwarding the contract for approval to the Committee of the Whole.
On September 27' the Committee of the Whole recommended that staff return to a future
Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting with more information on the draft TUC Plan
and alternatives for stakeholder review.
RECOMMENDATIONS
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
1. Meetings with Individual Stakeholders:
The previously proposed process with the Collins Woerman consultants involved individual
meetings with each external stakeholder listed below as well as with city departments to discuss
their comments and seek consensus solutions. After that process we would hold an open
house, Planning Commission (PC) hearing and PC work sessions, another open house, City
Council (CC) hearing and possibly CC work sessions.
The Parties of Record from the PC hearings are:
1. Westfield Southcenter and tenant Sears
2. Target Corporation and their landlord Regency Centers
3. Segale Properties
4. Owner of Southcenter West and Tukwila Business Parks
5. Innkeepers USA Trust Residence Inn
6. Wig Properties Southcenter Square
7. Desimone Trust Barnabys site
8. Chevron
9. Cascade Land Conservancy
10. Tukwila Fire Department
2. Meetings with a Stakeholder Group:
An alternative would be a stakeholder committee similar to that used for the Sign Code update.
The composition of that 8 member group was:
2 City Council members
1 Planning Commission member
3 Residents
1 2 2 Business Representatives
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
In order to keep the committee at a workable size (no more than 10 plus staff) we would actually
need to limit the number of stakeholders to fewer than we had planned to engage previously.
We suggest the following composition:
2 City Council members
1 Planning Commission member
1 Resident
4 Business Representatives
Southcenter Property Owner
Southcenter Tenant
Southcenter Property Manager
Westfield Mall Representative
1 Developer with experience in mixed use, town center type projects
1 Design Professional architect/landscape architect
Staff would work with the Council to develop a resolution specifying the review process, identify
the Council members and Planning Commissioner to attend, recruit interested parties and the
Mayor would appoint the members. We would hold a series of work sessions to review the
policy areas and develop recommendations. After that the process would be the same as
above: hold an open house, PC hearing and PC work sessions, another open house, CC
hearing and possibly CC work sessions.
3. Reduce the Scope of the Project
Revise the product to meet the minimum requirements for accommodating growth and meeting
regional policy goals. Make zoning code changes that would allow but not require denser,
mixed use development and housing. Convert the design standards into guidelines. This
approach would allow but not direct change and mean that the Southcenter area would likely
follow rather than lead the market.
The goal would be to efficiently complete the planning effort and so the review process would be
streamlined. No formal stakeholder process would be proposed because the changes from the
existing code would be limited. Staff would present a revised draft at a PC work session, allow
several weeks for comment, hold a PC hearing, CC hearing and possibly CC work sessions.
NEXT STEPS
Staff asks that the Committee select a process alternative and forward the item to the March 14
Committee of the Whole meeting. If the Council chooses alternative 2 staff would bring the
resolution forming the stakeholder committee to the full Council at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A Tukwila's Planning Policy Framework
B TUC Plan Process
13
14
TUKWI LA'S PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK— ATTACHMENT A
Here is a discussion of how Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan vision for the Southcenter area fits into the
broader State, regional and county policy framework.
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)
Establishing the land use planning hierarchy in Washington, the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A) mandates local comprehensive planning in heavily populated and high growth
counties and their cities. It established 13 broad goals to guide the policy development of local
comprehensive plans. The VISION 2040 plan adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council provides the
multicounty policy framework required by GMA to meet these goals at the regional, county, and local
government levels.
Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy
The central Puget Sound region is forecast to continue to grow in the coming decades up to 5 million
people will live here by the year 2040. Vision 2040, the adopted Regional Growth Strategy; provides
guidance to cities and counties for accommodating that growth. It is an integrated, long -range vision for
maintaining a healthy region promoting the well -being of people and communities, economic vitality,
and a healthy environment, see Attachment 1. It contains an environmental framework, a numeric
regional growth strategy, six policy sections guided by overarching goals as well as implementation
actions and measures to monitor progress. The strategy is designed to preserve resource lands and protect
rural lands from urban -type development. The strategy promotes infill and redevelopment within urban
areas to create more compact, walkable, and transit friendly communities.
All levels of government in the central Puget Sound's four counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish) will use VISION 2040 as a regional framework for making local decisions. The strategy is
organized around categories of "regional geographies." The majority of the region's employment and
housing growth is allocated to Metropolitan Cities and Core Cities, which together contain the more than
two dozen designated regional growth centers. Tukwila is a Core City with a designated urban center.
The multicounty planning policies provide guidance for implementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
Under these policies growth is to occur first and foremost in the designated urban growth area; less
development is to occur in rural areas. Centers are recognized for their benefits in creating compact,
walkable communities that support transit and other services. Housing and jobs should be located in a
manner that provides for easy mobility and accessibility. Investments in transportation and other
infrastructure should be prioritized to centers. Countywide target- setting processes for allocating
population and employment growth are to be consistent with the regional vision.
Countywide Planning Policies
The GMA further requires King County to prepare broad Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs) that comply with both the growth principles of the GMA and the more directive policies
of the Multi County Planning Policies (Vision 2040). The CPPs provide the vision and policy framework
for the development of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, including Tukwila. The CPPs are
maintained by the Growth Management Planning Council and have recently been updated.
C:\ temp \XPGrpWise\ TukwilaPlanningFramework .docAttaChlnent A
15
Urban Center Criteria
The CPPs require that urban centers have:
15,000 employees within a half mile of a transit center
Average 50 employees per gross acre
Average 15 households per gross acre
See Attachment 2 for a comparison of the urban center criteria to Tukwila's urban center
characteristics. Tukwila made a presentation to PSRC in January on the status of our efforts to
achieve the urban center goals.
Local Comprehensive Plans.
Local comprehensive plans direct land use planning regulations and activity in unincorporated
King County and each of the county's 39 jurisdictions. Each local plan establishes the land use
and development regulations within its jurisdiction. Local plans, when next updated, are expected
to align with the planning hierarchy described above. Anticipating completion of the CPPs in
2010, many cities including Tukwila have begun the planning effort to revise their comprehensive
plans.
King County Growth Targets
In 2009 after an extensive process involving staff from the affected cities, including Tukwila, the Growth
Management Planning Council adopted updated employment and housing growth targets for 2031. As a
core city Tukwila, including its annexation areas, has a target of 4,850 net new housing units and 17,550
net new jobs over the next 21 years, see Attachment 3. While no city can guarantee a certain level of
development we must provide for zoned capacity and infrastructure to accommodate that growth.
It is unclear how Tukwila could accommodate our housing growth target by 2031 without encouraging
housing development in the urban center. The Tukwila South Master Plan calls for between 700 and
1,900 units to be developed over up to 30 years. The recent addition of the Urban Renewal Overlay to the
Neighborhood Commercial Center zone will allow for more intensive development along a section of the
Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor and accommodate another portion of the target. Tukwila's
single and multi family zoned land is largely built -out at the current lot sizes and densities and so has
limited ability to absorb additional units. If the vision for the Southcenter area changes to exclude
housing the most straightforward alternative to meeting our targets would be to upzone existing
residential neighborhoods to allow for more intensive development.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Vision 2040 Executive Summary
2) Comparison of the urban center criteria to Tukwila's urban center characteristics
3) King County Growth Targets Table
16
peop ii
a g. osp�isty
V ISION 2040' Ph „et
the Re ional Growth Strategy E
g gY
VISION 2040's Regional Growth Strategy is a preferred pattern for accommodating residential and employment
growth. It is designed to minimize environmental impacts, support economic prosperity, improve mobility, and
make efficient use of existing infrastructure.
The Importance of the Regional Growth Strategy
The central Puget Sound region is forecast to continue to Central Puget Sound y :_s:�
grow in the coming decades up to 5 million people Regional Growth 4
t A!
will live here by the year 2040. The Regional Growth Strategy '_txrt u r,
Strategy provides guidance to cities and counties for x 7
accommodating that growth. The strategy is designed ti
to preserve resource lands and protect rural lands from F ,4E
urban -type development. The strategy promotes infill 'q
and redevelopment within urban areas to create more
compact, walkable, and transit friendly communities. r 'tr- ?s'4
c k o c
What's in VISION 2040? `4.1 r
VISION 2040's Regional Growth Strategy identifies the role -At
that various cities, unincorporated areas, and rural lands i j d
categories play in accommodating the region's residen- F. t' 2 z
tial and employment growth. The strategy is organized ,,:4„
around categories of "regional geographies. "The major- ms s- 5
ity of the region's employment and housing growth y. is allocated to Metropolitan Cities and Core Cities, which S k A !i ar 1 y:"
together contain the more than two dozen designated ]N rt' l
regional growth centers. Larger Cities also play an impor- I1r; r f
tant role over time as places that accommodate growth. r 1g- 2
Small Cities provide jobs and housing that support vital 1`
i ST F
and active communities at a less intensi scale. Growth y `x -c t a y
in the unincorporated urban growth area is prioritized .i /r 4 7
for areas that are identified for annexation into adjacent i, r 1.'f'.- s
cities. Significantly less growth is allocated to the rural 4 v xmn i
areas than has occurred in the past. �1
Multicounty Planning Policies. The multicounty plan- ;i:.,_,.._.
ning policies provide guidance for implementing the Regional Growth Strategy. Growth is to occur first and foremost in
the designated urban growth area; less development is to occur in rural areas. Centers are recognized for their ben-
efits in creating compact, walkable communities that support transit and other services. Housing and jobs should be
located in a manner that provides for easy mobility and accessibility. Investments in transportation and other infrastruc-
ture should be prioritized to centers. Countywide target- setting processes for allocating population and employment
growth are to be consistent with the regional vision.
Actions. Many of the implementation actions in VISION 2040 contribute to achieving the Regional Growth Strategy.
For example, the Regional Council already began working with its member jurisdictions in 2008 to develop a regional
17
methodology to guide countywide processes for establishing local residential and employment growth targets.
The Regional Council will also monitor and evaluate growth to ensure that it continues to meet VISION 2040's goals
and objectives.
The table presents the regional allocation of population and job growth for the period between 2000 and 2040 by
regional geography category, as well as the specific allocation for each of the four counties.
Population and Employment Growth, 2000 to 2040 �y rY,W 'l
ft 3 "A 'hn �,Y t y Y, svr x •t" 'i' 'k 5 p0 sir I cr '7 alit (a ...'1�riYW $C R
l i 78 t d fi; k. n 3 n r t r fir{
!Olt s..,,+ t rH. a I •It g,s a 4 OFCa k :∎FlidaF I. .7Zs.. ,n .X d J,a: F`os.is l 4. i1 iia.. 6 o p a %'A` A P1, 1 S p
Metropolitan Cities (5) People 96: 540,000 32% 294,000 41% 30,000 20% 127,000 32% 89,000 20% a1
Bellevue, Bremerton, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma Jobs 511,000 -4296 311,000 -45% 14,000 22% 97,000 46% 89,000 3696 1.5
Core Cities and Silverdale (14) People 363,000 230,000 32% 18,000 12% 75,000 1996 40,000 996
Auburn Bothell Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland Lakewood, Jobs -96 352000. 29% 262,000 38% 15,000. 23% 4D,000 19% 35,000 14%
Lynnwood, Puyallup, Redmond, Rentan,SeaTac Silverdale, Tukwila
Large cides (18) x i.• t Peoplg t 181,0007 1116 U 98f000,-, 14% 16,000. 11% 23,000 44,000r,.)951 if
Arlington, Bainbridge Island, Des Moines;, Edmonds Flfe, Issaquah „Jobs r% 111,000 916 69,000 =10 96' 5,000 8% 6,000 73% 31,000 1396
Kenmore, Maple Valley Marysnlle h1e¢erisland Mill Creek, 1 4, i
Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteq sammamlah Shoreline H. 1 f
University Place, Woodinville 1 it
Small Cities(46) t 1 People,% j48900 3 d 12,0 8%1 57000 1$9 40 ,9% a
Algona, Beaux Arts, Bldck Dia mond,A a n ng yla0eBn t r Dutkle, r l� Jo6s 00,004 8% 1 1 25000 496 ;999 712% 37,000 18% .30000,12 %,r F,
G rbonado,C arnation,C lydeHill ,Covlpgtod0artingthniD 9 k' 1 1 ,i( J J
Duvall, Eatonville Edgewood Enumclaw, F cr S l 4lgdrbol i s 1[ r 1 ki
Gold ear, Granite Fa Huyts Point Indeli lake6orest Parke 1x r $i take Stevens, Medma, Milton NeWcastle,Norntndy parfi 1 c i I, 1 1 „i 41
North Bend, Orting, P PortOrchardPoulshd,poyl�ust011 x ,f 4' k 1 1 4. Skykomish, 5611 5n So P k,' Stan r 1 I
St Sulta luinner W1I Wpodw yarrow Pdi0t 3 r 1 1 L'O o jj
u0{nrorpyratgdprea(ais E
lj xe° 4 tfj0 fi A3 s r P k h y es t{+ IO 6' 11 E'43 �00 0 T 3 i ,4590 Q Q 96 3 )f 1 42 1 3 t
i:41 'I r /`.i p.Wt 1 p 3 1 i 4 8 t r 44
t iu11 ro '`I w -LIZ(' ptlil 7 r'b L- b 0,' v' f7 40A0 b�2 rreiv i 9g1-1/4'1!!
R dal Aiea p w 6
N, 1 ,a r' ,ev 'y, V ssa�g t MP 3 5f S s 1 d u 5; r p 4' r OAR 1. II b; 4 L '9 J `S`"�' 'rd i� 6 i n d���Q B %i� h 2 �f °.luS U, n S' 1�
A t b2 ikt,i
lde d&ntl ,fs Percdnt 4 jebPte('i 2 t 1 j0Q T00" 4 72
n, 4 On,2 ii 1L,1N a $SP -i' t 90 �s
3i.fia d11 211'41 �7at„+,,r't7k`ts 1 b y 9. 1 1 rz.:..fik•x, 8 ?Y 7s "6• it s f4i9 UQ0 1b�0 ?f,1 O0 SoG1 .1 6 O ,x 1 +1 i 0 a n t
fiI
What This Means for Other Planning Efforts in the Region
The Regional Growth Strategy provides guidance for counties and cities to use as they develop new local residential
and employment growth targets and update their local comprehensive plans. The 2010 update to countywide plan-
ning policies provides the opportunity to address revisions for the target- setting process in each county. VISION 2040's
implementation actions require counties to work together to use consistent processes for establishing local hous-
ing and employment targets. The Regional Council will collaborate with counties to revise and improve the regional
growth targeting methodology, differentiating expectations among the regional geographies.
The state required update of local comprehensive plans in 2011 provides the opportunity for local jurisdictions to
incorporate new residential and employment targets into their comprehensive plans. Cities are encouraged to revise
relevant zoning and development regulations to better implement the Regional Growth Strategy. Moreover, cities with
designated regional growth centers are responsible for developing and adopting residential and employment and
targets for their centers. Transit agencies and other service providers also play an important role, and should target
funding and decisionmaking to align with the VISION 2040's Regional Growth Strategy.
l i)r More Information
Additional information on VISION 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy is available by contacting the Puget Sound
Regional Council's Information Center at 206 464 -7532 or info @psrc.org.
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC Apo 2009 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 -1035 206 -464 -7090 FAX 206- 587 -4825 psrc.org
18
King County Growth Targets Update
Proposed Table for Inclusion in Countywide Planning Policies
Regional Geography PAA Housing Employment Pte'
City /Subarea Housing Target Employment
Target Target
Target
Net New Units Net New Units Net New Jobs Net New lobs
2006 -2031 2006 -2031 2006 -2031 2006 -2031
Metropolitan Cities
Bellevue 17,000 290 51,500
Seattle 86,000 148,200
Total 103,000 199,700
Core Cities
Auburn 9,620 19,200 150
Bothell 3,000 810 4,800 200
Burien 3,900 4,600
Federal Way 8,100 2,390 12,300 290
Kent 7,800 .•1,560 13,200 290
Kirkland 7,200 1,370 20,200 650
Redmond 10,200 640 23,000
Renton 14,835 3,895 28,700 770
SeaTac 5,800 25,300
Tukwila 4,800 50 15,500 2,050
Total 75,255 166,800
Larger.Cities
Des Moines 3,000 5,000
Issaquah 5,750 290 20,000
Kenmore 3,500 3,000
Maple Valley 1,800 1,060 2,000
Mercer Island 2,000 1,000
Sammamish 4,000 350 1,800
Shoreline 5,000 5,000
Woodinville 3,000 5,000
Total 28,050 42,800
Small Cities
Algona 190 210
Beaux Arts 3 3
Black Diamond 1,900 1,050
Carnation 330 370
Clyde Hill 10
Covington 1,470 1,320
Duvall 1,190 890
Enumclaw 1,425 735
Hunts Point 1
lake Forest Park 475 210
Medina 19
Milton 50 90 160
Newcastle 1,200 735
Normandy Park 120 65
North Bend 665 1,050
Padfih 285 370
Skykomish 10
Snoqualmie 1,615 1,050
Yarrow Point 14
Total 10,922 8,168
Urban Unincorporated
'Potential Annexation Areas 12,795 4,400
Other Urban Unincorp. 2,920 6,200
Total 15,715 10,600
King County UGA Total 232,942. 428,068
The base year for these Targets is 2006. As cities annex territory, PM targets shift Into Targets column.
*Unclaimed or disputed Urban unincorporated areas, e.g., North Hlghllne, Bear Creek UPDs.
Placeholder for footnote conditioning PM target on approval of city-county agreement.
King Co. Growth Targets Committee, Growth Management Planning Council, August 2009
19
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Tukwila Urban Center
Amended Countywide Planning Policies Recommended Tukwila
Urban Center Criteria Urban Center Characteristics
1 Planned for 20 years Tukwila Urban Center planned for 30+ years
2 Total land area of up to 1.5 square miles Proposed Tukwila Urban Center area
(1,440 acres) approximately 1.35 square miles
3 Requires 15,000 employees within one -half The area is planned to allow this density.
mile (walking distance) of a transit center
4 Average of 50 employees per gross acre The Tukwila Urban Center is planned to allow
this density.
5 Average of 15 households per gross acre Specific Tukwila Urban Center areas are
planned to allow residential uses, particularly
in the area within walking distance of the
Sounder commuter rail /Amtrak station.
6 Emphasis on mass transportation and non- Strong motorized and non- motorized
motorized modes, while lessening connections are planned between the TUC
dependency on single occupancy vehicles the Sounder commuter rail /Amtrak station.
Enhanced transit facilities are anticipated
in proximity to the TUC core. Additional
potential forms of high capacity transit (HCT)
directly serving the TUC include bus rapid
transit (BRT), a local area transit route,
and future phases of light rail. Roadway
improvements, including enhanced
streetscapes, will improve auto, transit and
pedestrian movement and access. An enhanced
street network will improve mobility.
Facilities developed will recognize the actual
and projected need and demand for motor
vehicle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
7 Promotion of high caliber urban design Design standards and high quality public/
standards and support for capital public private capital improvements are key to
improvements attracting the types of development that will
achieve the vision for the TUC.
8 Receives first priority for development of A Sounder commuter rail /Amtrak station is
high capacity transit center and regionally located in the TUC. Ensuring that additional
funded support infrastructure high- capacity transit facilities serve the TUC
will require active City involvement in regional
planning processes.
9 Receives other funding and streamlined Via a SEPA planned action for the TUC Plan.
permit processing incentives
Figure 22 Countywide policies compared to Tukwila Urban Center
December2008 111
20
Southcenter Subarea Planning Process Attachment B
2002 -2004 Development of the Vision for the Urban Center
Council Briefing
6 Public Workshops See 9/ 18/08 Memo for Summarizes
2 Joint PC/ CC Worksessions
Multiple Team Meetings with Staff Consultants
2004 Endorsement of the Vision by CC and PC
Joint PC/ CC Meeting— Directed Team to prepare regulations that implement the Vision
Adoption of Updated Comprehensive Plan Policies
2005 -2008 Development of the Plan to Implement the Vision
Staff review of Draft Plan by FIB
Urban Land Institute Technical Advisory Panel Worksession on the Implementation Aspects
of the Draft Plan
Meetings with Local and Regional Developers to Review Plan Direction
`Testing" draft regulations on Proposed Developments (Mall expansion, Baker Blvd Retail,
Fidelity Bank of America, other office retail projects)
Grant Funding for Pedestrian Bridge Study
Sounder Station Review
Coordination on Tukwila Pond Park Master Plan
Grant and Developer Funding for Transit Center Design and Construction
2008 Affirmation of the Vision and Introduction to the Plan
Public Open House with FIB 10/23/08
Joint PC/ CC Worksession with FIB 10/ 23/ 08
2008 -2009 Public Outreach for the Plan
Presentation to the SWKC Chamber of Commerce 10/7/08
Presentation to the Parks Commission 11 19/08
Mailings Emailings to 1400 Property Owners, Tenants, Interested Parties
Public Open House 3/4/09
Meetings with Multiple Property Owners
Hatelnut Article
2009 Review of the Plan Specifics by PC
Presentation by FTB 3/ 12/09
Public Hearings 3/26/09, 4/23/09, 5/28/09
3 Worksessions
Meetings with Fire Department 3/25, 5/8, 5/20
Plan remanded to staff for revisions to address the public comments
C:temp\XPOipWisthProcess.doc Attachment B
21
Staff to Review Public Comments and Revise Draft Plan
Meeting and PC work session with EcoNW to discuss additional economic analysis 7/8/09
Meetings with Fire Department and PW
Individual meetings with Property Owners
EcoNW led Focus groups 9/29/09
Local and Regional Developers
Local Property Owners and Managers
Wesffield Mall Representatives
Presented EcoNW TUC Implementation Analysis to PC 12/10/09
2010 Internal Departmental Review Process on Street Cross sections
Meetings with DCD, Public Works Fire 3/5/ 10, 4/20/10, 5/4/ 10, 5/ 18/ 10
Presented EcoNW TUC Implementation Analysis to CAP 3/22/10
Proposed Stakeholder Review Process
to CAP 9/06/ 10
to CC 9/27/ 10
to CAP 2/28/ 11
Future Public Involvement /Stakeholder Process
Review of the Revised Plan by PC
Public Hearings
Public Open House
Work Sessions
Forward PC Recommended Draft Plan to CC
Review of the PC Recommended Plan by CC
Review of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Plan
Open House
Public Heating
Worksessions
Adoption of Plan, Implementing Ordinances and SEIS by CC
22
s
of 2 City of Tukwila
a V*.
y y City Council
\1 90
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Affairs Parks Committee
FROM: Kimberly Matej, Legislative Analyst
CC: Mayor Haggerton; Steve Lancaster, City Administrator; Shelley Kerslake, City
Attorney; and Rick Still, Parks Recreation Director
DATE: February 23, 2011
SUBJECT: Special Election /Primary Timeline Metropolitan Park District
ISSUE
Staff is seeking Council direction regarding whether or not to pursue a ballot measure regarding the
formation and funding of a Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District for the primary election on August
16, 2011.
In the event the Council decides to pursue a ballot measure in the August election, staff has included
a draft ballot measure resolution for Council review and approval. This draft resolution requests the
King County Elections Director to call a Special Election on August 16, 2011, and include a ballot
measure. Specific information included in the draft resolution has been taken directly from a memo
from Rick Still, Parks Recreation Director, dated February 23, 2011, to the City Council and Mayor
Haggerton. This memo is included in this packet as Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
At the July 12, 2010, Committee of the Whole, Council consensus existed to pursue a special election
in February 2011 for the formation of a Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District ballot measure.
The deadline for meeting the requirements to submit a ballot measure for a February election have
since passed, and a special election regarding the formation of a Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park
District was not on the ballot.
In consideration of the Council process for review and approval of material relative to placing a
measure on the ballot, the next available date for requesting a special election for the above ballot
measure is August 16, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Among the many steps involved in preparing information for a vote on levying a general tax on
property, prior to filing a ballot measure, the jurisdiction must pass a resolution and present it to the
King County Elections Director. In order to meet the King County elections deadlines, this resolution
must be filed with the King County Elections Director by May 24, 2011. The timeline on the next page
outlines the additional deadlines associated with ballot measure submission for the August 16
special /primary election.
The success of this measure relies significantly on the involvement of a special interest /grass roots
committee, as City and /or Council involvement is extremely limited by the Public Disclosure
Commission. The Public Disclosure Commission applies the same interpretation to the
support/opposition of ballot measures as it does to support/opposition of candidates running for public
office. Therefore, there are strict regulations regarding the use of public funds, facilities, agency
resources, production and distribution of materials, etc. The City and /or its employees cannot be
an active participant in the support/opposition of any ballot measure. The City may only
provide factual information that may assist voters in making a decision.
23
Special Election Timeline page 2
AUGUST 16, 2011 SPECIAL /PRIMARY ELECTION
Estimated Election Costs
Election $13,700 $17,125
Voter Pamphlet $500 $1,000
Timeline
February 28, 2011
Community Affairs Parks Committee reviews and recommends to full Council a draft resolution that
requests the King County Elections Director to call a Special Election on August 16, 2011, and
include a ballot measure.
March 14, 2011
Committee of the Whole discusses draft resolution as recommended by Community Affairs Parks
Committee
March 21, 2011
Council determines (approves), at Regular meeting, resolution requesting special election, ballot
measure and other items as necessary.
May 24, 2011
Ballot Measure /Resolution due to King County Elections requesting special election.
June 1, 2011
Pro /Con statements for voter pamphlet due to King County Elections.
June 3, 2011
Rebuttal statements for voter pamphlet due to King County Elections.
August 16, 2011
Election Day.
August 31, 2011
Election is certified by King County.
The draft resolution requesting the King County Elections Director to call a Special Election on August
16, 2011, and include a ballot measure for the formation and funding of a of a Tukwila Pool
Metropolitan Park District is included in the packet as Attachment B for Council review.
In summary, the draft resolution outlines the following information below, which was taken largely
from the memorandum submitted as Attachment A to this packet.
History
Establishes lack of funding
Requests an election
Outlines the boundaries of the proposed district
Authorizes a general property tax levy
Sets the district's governance structure
RECOMMENDATION
No staff recommendation. Staff will await a formal Council decision prior to proceeding further.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Memo from Rick Still, Parks Recreation Director, dated February 23, 2011
Attachment B: Draft resolution
24
ATTACHMENT A
Memo from Rick Still, Parks Recreation Director,
dated February 23, 2011
25
26
�J/ oiLA4,
o �y City of Tukwila
a y Jim Haggerton, Mayor
\2cos INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Rick Still, Director of Parks Recreation
DATE: February 23, 2011
SUBJECT: Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District Funding Option
ISSUE
The City Council requested that staff investigate the creation of a Metropolitan Park District to
fund the continued operations and improvements of the City of Tukwila Pool.
BACKGROUND
At the August 9, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting, the City Council provided consensus
direction on seven policy decision points related to the establishment of a Tukwila Pool
Metropolitan Park District.
The guidance provided by the City Council was based upon staff presentation of the August 5,
2010 Informational Memorandum that detailed the seven Decision Points to consider when
establishing a Metropolitan Pool District. A summary of the City Council's guidance is as follows:
1. GOVERNANCE: The City Council should be established as an ex officio capacity as the
board of metropolitan park commissioners.
2. BOUNDARIES: Establish the boundaries to be contiguous with the City of Tukwila
boundaries.
3. SUPPORT SERVICES: Determine this once the policy decisions are made regarding the
Governance and Boundaries and staff prepares a cost analysis of the various support
services methods.
4. OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE: Use the proposed expenditure and
revenue budget outlined in Exhibit 1 until after the Support Services cost analysis is
completed and the lease issue is resolved with the Tukwila School District.
5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Use the proposed Capital Improvement budget
outlined in Exhibit 2.
6. MILLAGE RATE: Use the proposed Millage Rate of $0.15 per $1,000 assessed value.
7. BALLOT MEASURE TIMELINE: Use the proposed Timeline outlined in Attachment B for the
February 8, 2011 election.
DISCUSSION OF DECISION POINTS
Below please find a brief discussion of the seven Decisions Points:
1. GOVERNANCE: A MPD will be composed of a board of metropolitan park commissioners
through one of these methods: a) five park commissioners elected at the time of the ballot
measure, b) the City Council to be designated to serve in an ex officio capacity as the
board of metropolitan park commissioners, or c) if the district is located within more than
27
INFORMATIONAL MEMO February 23, 2011
Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District Funding Option
Page 2
one city or county each governing body may be designated to collectively serve ex officio
as the board of metropolitan park commissioners.
POLICY DECISION 1: What form of Governance should be established for the MPD?
Staff Recommendation: That the City Council should be established as an ex officio
capacity as the board of metropolitan park commissioners.
2. BOUNDARIES: The MPD may include territory located within one city or county, or may
include portions of one or more cities or counties.
POLICY DECISION 2: What Boundaries should be established for the MPD?
Staff Recommendation: Establish the boundaries to be contiguous with the City of
Tukwila boundaries.
3. SUPPORT SERVICES: Consideration of support services that the MPD will need to include
are payroll, finance, legal, and insurance to complete day to day operations. Currently
these services are provided by the City. Support service options may include:
a. City: a contract with the City to perform support services.
b. Contracted Services: the MPD can contract these services with outside agencies.
c. MPD Staff: most services can be completed 'in house' by an executive
director /MPD manager
d. Combination: a mixture of the above.
A cost analysis of each support services method varies greatly depending upon the
Governance, Boundaries, level of service and various needs that may arise, especially
for legal services. Staff is prepared to investigate and develop a cost analysis once final
direction is provided.
POLICY DECISION 3: What Support Services method should be established for
implementing the MPD?
Staff Recommendation: For initiating the MPD, City Support Services should be
used to determine the operating budget and millage rate. Once the MPD is
established alternate and potential cost saving methods of providing support
services could be identified and utilized.
4. OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE: The 2011 to 2021 budget scenarios
are based on the approved 2011 budget. An anticipated growth rate for revenue is 1% for
pool participant fees and 2% for tax receipts, while the expenditures are anticipated to
increase at about 4% per year. Table 1 is a summary of this budget scenario projected out
20 years. This is a conservative approach that is based on minimum revenue growth and
higher expenditure growth. The associated projections allow for a 20 year expenditure and
revenue plan that is balanced at the end of the 20 year term. These projections include
city -wide overhead and department costs, demolition costs, land lease costs, full time and
part-time labor wages and benefits, operating supplies and utilities, and Capital
Improvements.
Staff is prepared to investigate and develop a cost analysis of alternate pool operator
options for the MPD.
28 7/21/011 Ina ,onu
INFORMATIONAL MEMO February 23, 2011
Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District Funding Option
Page 3
TABLE 1
TUKWILA POOL PROJECT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, 2012 -2021
Revenue 2012 2031 Average
Programs 207,050 250,139 227,952
Rentals
Tax Revenue 776,240 1,130,835 943,029
Total 983,290 1,380, 974 1,170, 981
Expenditures
Overhead 242,837 456,462 353,199
Operations 579,379 1,220,664 862,640
Total 822,215 1,611,126 1,170,884
POLICY DECISION 4: What expenditure and revenue budget should be established
for implementing the MPD?
Staff Recommendation: Use the proposed expenditure and revenue budget outlined
in Exhibit 1. Once the MPD is established, alternate and potential cost saving
methods of providing pool operations could be identified and utilized.
5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: The Tukwila Pool is 38 years old and is in need of
repairs, renovations and replacement of fixed assets to make the pool operate more
efficiently, to keep the pool operating properly and to increase the longevity and integrity of
the pool. Table 2 demonstrates a review of the types of improvements that will reduce
operational costs and extend the life of the pool. A full list of Capital Improvements can be
found on Exhibit 2.
TABLE 2
TUKWILA POOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Capital Projects Cost Timeline
a. Energy Efficiency Projects 121,500 2011 -2012
b. Operational Projects 334,500 2012 -2013
c. Longevity and Integrity 317,000 2013 -2018
Projects
Total 773,000
POLICY DECISION 5: What Capital Improvement budget should be established for
implementing the MPD?
Staff Recommendation: Use the proposed Capital Improvement budget outlined in
Exhibit 2. These projects need to be completed if the pool is to be viable for current
and future operations.
6. MILLAGE RATE: The millage rate or tax rate would be established by the City Council and
subject to voter approval through formation of a Metropolitan Park District. To determine
this rate the operating and capital budgets need to be finalized. The millage rate should be
set to cover the cost above the program and rental revenue based on the term of the pool
lease. A tax rate of $0.15 per $1,000 assessed value would secure the funding that is
needed to continue current pool operations.
Th o,, maowx 2 9
INFORMATIONAL MEMO February 23, 2011
Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District Funding Option
Page 4
The impact of the millage rate can be determined by using the assessed value of the
home times the millage rate. For the examples below, the average single family home
assessed value in the City of Tukwila is $249,475. Table 3 indicates approximately what
the annual and monthly cost would be for a single family resident with the average
assessed value assuming the boundaries would be contiguous within City boundaries.
Likewise, the cost for multi- family and condominiums are included.
TABLE 3
AVERAGE COST PER TYPE OF HOME
Average Multi Family Average Condominium
Average Single Family Home Assessed Value Assessed Value
Home Assessed Value Per Unit
239,475 1,806,516 177,720
Average Average Average
Tax Annual Per month Annual Per month Annual Per month
Rate Rate Cost Rate Cost Rate Cost
0.15 35.92 2.99 8.87 0.74 26.66 2.22
POLICY DECISION 6: What Millage Rate should be established for implementing the
MPD?
Staff Recommendation: Use the proposed Millage Rate of $0.15 per $1,000 assessed
value. The tax rate could be reduced at a later time if the cost associated with
various decision points above decrease the needed tax revenue.
7. BALLOT MEASURE TIMELINE: The desired February 8, 2011 was not obtained and staff
recommends an August 16, 2011. Table 4 is a brief outline of the Ballot Measure Timeline
for an August election.
TABLE 4
BALLOT MEASURE TIMELINE
Date Action
02/28/11 Draft resolution to enter City Council process
02/28/11 TSD Pool Land Lease discussions finalized
05/24/11 Ballot Measure /Resolution due to King County requesting special
election
08/16/11 Special Election
POLICY DECISION 7: What Timeline should be established for implementing the
MPD?
Staff Recommendation: Use the proposed Timeline outlined in TABLE 4 for the
August 16, 2011 election.
30
INFORMATIONAL MEMO February 23, 2011
Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District Funding Option
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
If the MPD does not pass in August, the options for the future operations of the Tukwila Pool
include:
a. Transfer operating responsibilities of the pool to a third party as described in the
June 22, 2010 Informational Memorandum.
b. Contract subsidized services with another pool. For example, an arrangement with
the SeaTac YMCA could be made for Tukwila residents to be able to participate in
swimming programs at the YMCA at a reduced rate.
c. Review options submitted to council on June 22, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide policy direction on the seven (7) decision points.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 Revenue and Expenditure 20 -year projections
Exhibit 2 CIP Projects 2011 -2031
m.,oyo. 31
32
sa
n^ 3 a e 2-
do .r
X FIR Q
W. e r m e h.
r., m rl,4 M F? s
a m e S 8 r
r.. m 7- >22gr e re ^S 9
O x
a
a a m Vic
2 gig o ggig. r rm 2. ti gig r
m r
C m n
p S
61222" gran g 282g g gigg
e s r r g N m Ligig m.
C —a z o�
C a 1 4 5 Z O-w m tr. tis
x O O o E p Q ,ce 3
a E b Q s w Z N o 2
33
34
p o 2
C1/41 a N N C
N S L O
E o 11111 zi c o g E 8 L w m
w
E E v Y 3 3 o
s
W E E a m E E E o c a
CO
o v W
y ID c N D a c c
o a n. r r 3 v v z 3 c o
O o a 3 a
o z 0 o 3 o 3 0 c is o al
a 9 o A c E N Vi Vi 3 3 Y o
m m C C C C C t C C N y m C T O T T C 0 0 0 N
co
c c .0 w a w 3 M n r o c n d W
m m .n w an Z. m c c c c u W c c N
O u 4 S L L L -O t t O
T> L v v 8 m a c
o o m m m m m S c 3 3 3 3 E 3 E E c 3 3 W
w
c c c w w w a N 5 m -x v o O E 0 0 0 0 o o z o a"
C U d w w w E z 3 1 z 2 o o 8 o o o o 8 8 of w
W c 0.
o w
m
w N o
cc N N
B: W N W W W a L
V' a O W Y d W a 'a y o 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E
z (n 2 2 2 Z z z a Z z m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z NT .3
1 1
m i r2 W 3
o E
O T> T T T T 0 O N N- O n t 0
y N N N co O m N 0 O N f C C C C c C CO CO CO CO C C C C C C Q CO CO C CC o rl rl N N N c 1 N N C rl m N C C C (0 C In Z C W
n
la
F L
O m Q i W v O
m Z C p O J
w 0 inc N O O o Vl o N vl I i m M M M vl vl Ln V d
C N rl N N N N N N N rl rl N rrrr {i 1-
C
r N
f' N W
O o O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O. O• O O i -C O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O. O 0 O E> N
0 0 N vl O• O O m (n o o M o. o o ln. 0 0 o 0• o 1� m O M "IO vl m V1 p M O O VI N• O N rl V m Q 0 j N N m W
N VT VY an V! 4A- 01 V• 01 N Vi VT N {n ah N N an N Vi In t4 UE (r4 p N C
W
II W
O Q V d
m F W
W a N
T• W v oN o 0
N Z W 0 u u c m E
W y m N y M
T1 Z O C O N C an O O. lai
l0 t-I VI
N o a m rg v c o v E m m C 0
W a V1 E W a C m W o p cu C 0. N_ 3 4. N E OO C W V
c Y E c 9 o i c v I- c v j W 8 c o-
W 1 G c O. lp W Y (y O m 0_ R' N co N ma
E C O W v� v C v d 0 E II
O r m N O V T 2' C O O W y W i
J y W S a t' U C 0 C uo W N N K O K•- O
La. o 8 m W y m l.j :1- 2 c c 0 a E `O E .0 O u
1
I- in c 2 b u s 1c 'E E E 3 E a
Q a o o 7 o 0 t ou 1 O (9 0> 0 E o a a ea co w o c c 3
U 4..) 4..) In a m a a 2 a 0_ a c o 2 a 0 Q 1- 3
It 0 CO CO CO CO (0 (0 C0 W CO 0 (t n 9 O .O 4 9 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ei
35
36
ATTACHMENT B
Draft Resolution
37
38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AUGUST 16, 2011, AS THE DATE FOR AN
ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF THE FORMATION OF A TUKWILA
POOL METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA
TO GENERATE FUNDS FOR ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION,
AND /OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT /CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES FOR
A POOL FACILITY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.61.010 provides that a Metropolitan Park District may be
created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of
parks, parkways, boulevards, and recreational facilities; and a Metropolitan Park District
may include territory located in all of one city, when created; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila currently owns, operates and maintains the City of
Tukwila Pool (formerly known as the South Central Pool), hereafter referred to as
"Tukwila Pool and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila does not have the resources to continue to
manage, maintain, and operate a pool; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Pool provides a benefit to the citizens of Tukwila, serving
our community as a multigenerational facility that provides health and recreation
benefits to all ages, strengthens the community, and enhances the quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila and the Tukwila City Council strongly support the
Tukwila Pool and believe it would be in the best interest of the community for its
operation to continue; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of various alternatives, the Tukwila City Council has
recommended formation of the Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District, organized under
Chapter 35.61 RCW, to acquire and operate the Tukwila Pool;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
W1Word Processing \Resolutions \Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District Election.doc
KM:bjs- 2/23/11 Page 1 of 2
39
Section 1. An election shall be held within the City of Tukwila on Tuesday,
August 16, 2011, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified City, for their ratification
or rejection, a Resolution No. proposition creating the Tukwila Pool Metropolitan
Park District.
Section 2. The boundaries of the proposed Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District
are coextensive with Tukwila city limits pursuant to Chapter 35.61 RCW.
Section 3. The Director of Records and Elections of King County, Washington is
requested to conduct this election on the August 16, 2011 ballot.
Section 4. Pursuant to RCW 35.61.050(3), the Tukwila City Council is hereby
designated to serve in an ex officio capacity as the board of commissioners for the
Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District.
Section 5. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the Director of Records and
Elections of King County, Washington, by a date no later than May 24, 2011, a copy of
this resolution and the proposition to be submitted at that election in the form of a ballot
title as follows:
PROPOSITION NO. XXXX
FORMATION AND FUNDING OF TUKWILA POOL METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT
Tukwila Resolution No. zii X proposes creation of the Tukwila Pool Metropolitan
Park District coextensive with the City's boundaries pursuant to 35.61 RCW, including
the authority to levy a general tax on property within the District each year not to exceed
15 cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation, for the purpose of acquiring and
operating a pool facility.
The Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District is to be governed by the City Council of the
City of Tukwila, serving as the board of commissioners in an ex officio capacity.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2011.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk Allan Ekberg, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney
W: \Word Processing \Resolutions \Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District Election.doc
KM:bjs 2/23/11 Page 2 of 2
40
T1JKWI Lfr
PARKS RFCREA.s iON
000D E ALI k uv
I
DATE: February 22, 2011
TO: City Council Members
City Administration
Department Heads
FROM: Rick Still, Parks Recreation Director
RE: Tukwila Parks Recreation Events Calendar
Attached you will find our Tukwila Parks Recreation Upcoming Activities Events calen-
dar. We hope that you will find this a useful tool to keep up to date on the many activities,
events and programs that our department offers to the Tukwila community.
Some items that should be of special note include:
Dr. Seuss Night at TCC on March 3rd from 6 -8pm
Volunteer Appreciation Event at TCC on April 20th from 4:30- 6:30pm
Tukwila Days Summertime Event Series which includes:
May 14 Backyard Wildlife Festival
June 18 Tukwila Kids' Festival
July 4 Tukwila's Family 4th at Fort Dent Park
August 20 Community Heritage Culture Celebration
September 24 Tukwila Touch -a -Truck Safety Emergency Preparedness Fair
These diverse events define what Tukwila is all about family, tradition, history,
sustainability and fun!
'Tukwila Community Center 12424 42nd Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 206- 768- 2TCC www.tukwilawa.gov
41
42
I U KV\- /I LA
RA x. 1
CCO N
ire A Trw
x- +:e K.� -+t-4 x Yz'^- x=ry -.-r, E
March 2011 April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 1 2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
March 1 April 1
Preschool Registration begins for 2011 -2012 Summer Rates Begin at Foster Golf Links
Swim Lessons Session begins at Tukwila Pool Parents Night Out at TCC, 6 -10pm
Teen Late Night at TCC, 8 -10pm
March 3 Up All Night Basketball Tourney
Volunteer Work Party at Tukwila Pantry, 12:30pm
Dr. Seuss Night at TCC, 6 -8pm April 4 -8
Spring Break Camp at TCC, Gam -6pm
March 4
Parent's Night Out at TCC, 6 -10pm April 8 -10
Teen Late Night at TCC, 8 -11 pm PNNA Coin Show at TCC
Volleyball Tournament
April 10 -16
March 11 National Volunteer Week
Teen Late Night at TCC, 8 -11 pm
NBA2K Tournament April 14
Volunteer Work Party at Tukwila Pantry, 12:30pm
March 18
Tukwila Turtles regular season begins April 15
Teen Late Night at TCC, 8 -11 pm
March 19
Volunteer Work Party at DHP, 10am April 16
April Pools Day, Free Swim 1:00- 3:OOpm
March 30
at KWB Clothing Bank, 11:30am Duwamish Alive! Duwarnish POpm
Volunteer Work Party g Codiga Park Duwarnish Hill Preserve
April 20
Volunteer Appreciation Event at TCC, 4:30- 6:30pm
April 22
Teen Late Night at TCC, 8 -11 pm
Flashlight Egg Hunt
April 29
Teen Late Night at TCC, 8 -11 pm
43
I LA
PA R.1(.15 JCC REG,RLCLL IN
GOCiD kit FUN
fir -1 k ja W '.C li ntYfi 0 i1.4�i Y
May
14 T 4 wela Days: Ba kyard Billy Baroos U estiva! at TCC, 9 :OOam t i k 1i i y 47 1 'rs
21 -22 International Specialty Club Cat Show at TCC $4 n 3
i
June agg," ,i'=
4 "Hands on Tukwila" Community Clean -up Event, various locations, 9:OOam ee:
17 Teen Summer Kick -off Festival at TCC, time TBD
18 Tukwila Days: Tukwila Kids' Festival, 12:00- 4:OOpm, location TBD
19 Father's Day BBQ at Billy Baroos
21 Summer camps begin at TCC
July
4— Tukwila Days: Tukwila's Fami@y 4th at Fort Dent Park, 6pm
5 Summer Playground Program begins at Cascade View Park
29 Peanut Butter Jam Kids Concert featuring The Brian Waite Bank, TCC at 12noon
29 Outdoor Cinema featuring "Shrek Forever After", TCC at dusk
August
5— Peanut Butter Jam Kids Concert featuring The Notts! at TCC, 12noon
5 Outdoor Cinema featuring "Yogi Bear TCC at dusk
12— Peanut Butter Jam Kids Concert featuring Caspar Babypants, TCC at 12noon
12 Outdoor Cinema featuring "Alpha and Omega TCC at dusk
19 Peanut Butter Jam Kids Concert featuring Harmonica Pocket, TCC at 12noon
19 Outdoor Cinema featuring "Tangled TCC at dusk
20 Tukwila Days: Community Heritage Culture Celebration at THCC, 12:00- 4:O0prn
September
14 Regional FEMA Drill
24 Tukwila Days: Tukwila Touch -a -Truck Safety Emergency Preparedness Fair, 1 Gana -2prn, location TBD
October
15 -16 Evergreen Cat Fanciers Cat Show at TCC
27 Family Fright Night at TCC, 6pm
November
1 Winter Rates Begin at Foster Golf Links
16 Thanksgiving Dinner for Seniors at TCC, 11 am
December
3 Winterfest Holiday Celebration at TCC, Time TBD
10 Holiday Giving Program Event at TCC, 10am
10 -11 The Maine Event Cat Show at TCC
19 -30 Winter Break Camp at TCC
31 New Years Eve Party Dinner at Billy Baroos
Tukwila Ie6FJlla Day is a series of five unique Eke C4Ca` uet evennii soairininri nit e intent
These diverse events define what Tukwila is all abour family itiroe„ hi E r -4.usttai:ra itir a nd fun!
Tukwila Community Center 12424 42nd Ave S. Tukwila, WA 206- 768-2TCC rww.tukwilawa.gov
44