HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2011-02-14 Item 2B - Discussion - Manufacturing Industrial Center Work Plan Study (CM I Lq \l= City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
y2
906 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
DATE: January 31, 2011
SUBJECT: Manufacturing Industrial Center Study Process
ISSUE
Should we expand the public outreach efforts for the Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC)
Study? The original work plan (Attachment A) reviewed by Council included public hearings
before the Planning Commission and City Council as well as a stakeholder survey process.
BACKGROUND
The Department of Community Development work plan includes a study and update of
Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center and SEPA Planned Action as part of our periodic
review of Comprehensive Plan policies. Manufacturing Industrial Centers are designated areas
in which the region aims to preserve and enhance concentrated manufacturing and industrial
activity. To be eligible, a city commits to discourage incompatible land uses within MIC
boundaries. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan vision for the MIC supports "existing and future
industrial activity to maximize employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and
the region."
The City has periodically received requests to revise its industrial land policies and codes, either
to remove land from industrial designation or to allow a wider range of uses in the
Manufacturing /Industrial Center. We have received two Comprehensive Plan Amendment
applications for 2011 that affect the MIC area, one to add property to the designation and one to
remove it.
Staff has completed a detailed background report on the current conditions in the MIC area. The
report entitled, Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Comprehensive Plan Update
Background Report, dated October 2010 was included in your January 3, 2011 Council packet.
City staff briefed the Planning Commission and Tukwila International Boulevard Action
Committee (TIBAC) on the information contained in this Report.
DISCUSSION
The public involvement process for the MIC study has begun. The public has been notified of
the study via the City of Tukwila website, the Hazelnut and the "Tukwila Reporter," with a call for
expression of interest in receiving information and becoming involved. All businesses, property
owners and tenants in and adjacent to the MIC were sent a postcard informing them that study
materials were posted on the city website, encouraging them to take an online survey and
offering the opportunity to join an email update list. Three responses were received to the
survey that was posted on the website.
Staff contacted selected business owners and stakeholders via a letter to request their
participation in a questionnaire pertaining to their operations in Tukwila. Staff has continued to
contact businesses via telephone, and is conducting interviews either in- person, or via
telephone according to the business' preference. To date we have been able to conduct twenty
interviews and will be compiling the themes into a summary issues and opportunities paper.
W:\2011 Info Memos \M IC_Public_Process_Alt.doc 1 3
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
At their briefing Planning Commission (PC) members expressed concern that these efforts may
not be sufficient to gather all viewpoints and concerns. They have suggested that a committee
or workshop process outside of the planned public hearings would complement the individual
interviews that staff has undertaken to date. Staff has developed the following options for
expanding public involvement in the process.
1. Public Workshops:
We could reach out to those who have indicated an interest in the MIC Study process by
joining the email list or participating in the survey process and invite them to one or two
workshops to review and comment on the Issues and Opportunities summary memo. A
notice would also be posted on the website. The limited time commitment for this option
may increase the numbers of those willing to participate. It has taken a considerable amount
of staff time to recruit the survey participants, even though the time required is
approximately 20 minutes and they choose the time and type of the interview.
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
2 Business Representatives
In order to keep the committee at a workable size (no more than 10 plus staff) we would
need to limit the number of committee members to a subset of those stakeholders who have
participated so far. We suggest the following composition:
2 City Council members
1 Planning Commission member
2 Residents
4 Business Representatives /MIC Property Owners
Staff would work with the CC to develop a resolution specifying the review process, staff
would work to recruit interested parties and the Mayor would appoint the members. We
would hold work sessions to review and comment on the Issues and Opportunities memo
and develop a recommendation to the PC.
3. Move Straight on to the Planning Commission:
In this option the PC would serve as the citizen review body and comments would be
accepted through the public hearing process. This would allow us to move forward most
efficiently and still provide multiple opportunities for public input and involvement.
Whichever process is chosen we would hold a PC hearing and PC work session(s) to develop a
set of recommended updates. This would be followed by a City Council hearing and possibly
Council work sessions.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is being asked to make a recommendation on the above alternatives and
forward the issue to the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 28'2011.
ATTACHMENT
A. MIC Study Work Plan
1 4 W:\201 1 Info Memos \MIC_Public_Process_Alt.doc
MIC Study Work Plan
Clarify study goal:
Purpose
Update information pertaining to MIC
Consider economic activity, development and development codes in the MIC in
light of the Comprehensive Plan's vision for the MIC that supports "existing and
future industrial activity to maximize employment and economic benefits to the
people of Tukwila and the region," and perceived pressure on the MIC to allow
non- industrial uses to locate /expand
Recommend modifications /actions as indicated
4 Quarter, 2010:
Background Materials and business survey to website
Prepare mailing to property owners, tenants (300 x 2)
Letter /postcard announcing study, possible issues. Request involvement via
online survey, email list.
Identify and contact interview candidates
Short list of possible business contacts
o Boeing
o Sabey
o KCIA
o Jorgenson Forge
o Museum of Flight
o Aviation High School
o USPS
o Group Health
o McCormick and Schmick's Catering
o Trucking firm
o Other smaller property owners/businesses
Groups
o Representative of Realtors
o Agency such as ECOSS, Duwamish Transportation Management
Association (TMA)
o Tribe (Muckleshoot, Duwamish)
o TIBAC
o Friends of the Hill
Interview businesses individually, either in person or by phone as business
desires—
C: \temp\XPGrpWise\Work P1an1.21.11.docAttachment A
15
1 Quarter, 2011
Request guidance re public review process (i.e. stakeholder Advisory Committee,
Planning Commission, etc.)
Depending on direction from City Council, form Manufacturing Industrial Center
advisory group or use other public outreach body (i.e. Planning Commission) or
hold workshop.
Prepare summary of issues, concerns, possible action based on responses from
interviews
2 3 rd quarters, 2011
Depending on direction from City Council, hold meetings or workshop for
stakeholders and public with clear, focused agenda including data, results of
interviews. Introduce alternatives
Present results to designated public outreach body, Planning Commission, CAP
and City Council. Request guidance.
Revise alternatives from feedback
Planning Commission hearing, recommendation
City Council review, action
C: \tenmp\XPGrpWise \Work Plan1.21.11.docAttaChment A
16