Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L02-062 - CITY OF TUKWILA - RETAILED OFFICE CODE AMENDMENTCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT OFFICE IN MIC/H L02 -062 October 21, 2003 Enclosure STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128 - 10111 Avenue SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (360) 725 -4000 '0 " { J . Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Submittal of Documents to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development for City of Tukwila Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: Thank you for sending this department the following: Draft Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Proposed Ordinance No. 2028 amending the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code regarding allowing limited office use in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy (MIC /H) zone. Received on 10/21/2003. Please keep this letter. It is your record of when the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) received this material. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. Adopted development regulations should be sent to CTED immediately upon publidation, as well as to any state agencies that commented on the draft regulation. A jurisdiction does not need to send its regulation to the agencies which have been called ahead and that have indicated the local plan will not be reviewed. The jurisdiction should keep a record of this contact with state agencies and the state agencies' response. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (360) 725 -3056. Sincerely, Ik N' nkwo Technical & Financial Assistance Manager Growth Management Services 6 ~ October 20, 2003 Dear Mr. Nwankwo: City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Ike Nwankwo Growth Management Planner Office of Community Development PO Box 48350 Olympia WA 98504 -8350 Re: Comprehensive Plan and zoning code amendments regarding allowing limited office use in the MIC/H zone. Attached is a copy of the Ordinance number 2028 that amends the City's Comprehensive Plan and Tukwila Municipal Code regarding allowing limited office use in the Manufacturing Industrial Center/ Heavy ( MIC/H) zone. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 irr •rlYiik i5a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS TO ALLOW LIMITED OFFICE USE IN THE MIC/H ZONE; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1865 AND 1758 AS CODIFIED IN TMC SECTION 18.38.040; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations may be z reviewed and updated as appropriate; and = ' w W HEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to be consistent with the King County -Wide cc Planning Policies that recognize Tukwila's manufacturing center as a designated industrial -J o center and require local jurisdictions that include a manufacturing center to allow limited co W office and retail uses in the industrial centers; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to preserve properties that abut the Duwamish w o River and are north of the turning basin for water related industrial uses; and n L? WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to preserve and encourage the aggregation of = a land parcels for manufacturing /industrial uses; and z 1- 0 WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires that the area zoned MIC /H continue to serve a z w ui valuable role for future needs of industrial users and at the same time provide some 2 o flexibility to go with the changes in the industries and allow some office uses; and o N 0 (- WHEREAS, on June 26, 2003 the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate i 0 public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the Zoning tL o Code to allow limited office use in the MIC /H zone and on July 24, 2003 adopted a motion . z co recommending the proposed changes; and 0 WHEREAS, on September 2, 2003 and September 15, 2003, the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Manufacturing Industrial Center Chapter Policy 11.1.5 under Goal 11.5, as adopted by Ordinance 1757, is hereby amended to read as follows: 11.1.5 Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while limiting unrelated uses. Section 2: Ordinance 1865, §44, and Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.38.040, are amended as follows: Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 9/19/03 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. 201 1 •... ^.F.`4!x' ?54: N.f.: w "an'i ".. rtf ...... i::4 ..::if':i� s..�....� i.?fr � z 18.38.40 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Colleges and universities. 2. Electrical substations - distribution. 3. Fire and police stations. 4. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (off -site) subject to compliance with state siting criteria (RCW 70.105; see TMC 21.08). 5. Offices not associated with other permitted uses, subject to the following location and size restrictions: a. New Office Developments: 1. New office developments shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established prior to the effective date of the adoption of this ordinance. ii. No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand -alone office uses are shown in Figure 18 -12. b. An existing office development established prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan) that exceeds the maximum size limitations, may be recognized as a conforming conditional use under the provisions of this code. , An existing office development established prior to 12 -11 -1995 (the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan) may convert to a stand -alone office use subject to the provisions of this code. 6. Park and ride lots. 7. Radios, television, microwave, cellular or observation stations and towers. 8. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 9. Retail sales of health. and beauty aids, prescription drugs, food, hardware, notions, crafts and craft supplies, housewares, consumer electronics, photo equipment, and film processing, books, magazines, stationery, clothing, shoes, flowers, plants, pets, jewelry, gifts, recreation equipment and sporting goods, and similar items; limited to uses of a type and size that clearly intend to serve other permitted uses and /or the employees of those uses. Section 3. 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 4. 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 and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: T PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKW. LA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this 15 day of p , 2003. d ever% A %AZ-A Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: D 9- //- APPROVED AST EQ Passed by the City Council: 09-t 3 Published: Q 2&" 3 • Effective Date: 10-P1-03 •% orn: y Ordinance Number: 2,02/14' E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 9/19/03 2 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE No. 2028 City of Tukwila, Washington On September 15, 2003, the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, adopted Ordinance No. 2028, the main points of which are summarized by its title as follows: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, amending the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tukwila and amending Tukwila Municipal Code sections to allow limited office use in the MIC /H zone; amending Ordinance Nos. 1865 and 1758 as codified in TMC Section 18.38.040; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. Approved by the City Council at their Regular Meeting of September 15, 2003. 11�Cp. Published Seattle Times: Friday, September 29, 2003 e E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk AirIZEZAW The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Public Testimony provldOtb'RhVTiiki a City Council re: L -02 -062 Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Office in MIC /H and L -02 -063 Zoning Code Amendment — Office in MIC /H September 15, 2003 Honorable Mayor Mullet, and Members of the Council: • Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is Liz Warman and I am here speaking on behalf of Shaunta Hyde who was unable to be here this evening. Currently, Shaunta is involved with a presentation before another city council and wished she could be here, but wanted to provide some additional information and clarification for the record this evening as you move to make your final decision. • Boeing supports the original staff recommendation of 3/17/2003; and we continue to support the original staff recommendation. However, we do not agree with the planning commissions recommendation of 1B stating that "no new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin." • In the 1992 Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal, EIS and Mitigation Agreement and Subsequent SEPA Planned Action, The Boeing Company and City of Tukwila agreed on a future vision of corridor land use. That vision involved the transition of the corridor from a heavy manufacturing pattern of development to a mix of manufacturing, high tech and office development. It also recognized the need to improve riparian habitat for salmon survival where possible. High tech and office uses offer better opportunities for enhancing shoreline features. We continue to have this land vision for our holdings. However, if certain Boeing parcels need to be surplused in the future, we would like for new property owners to be able to support our shared vision by having the option to develop either office or industrial uses. There are no plans to surplus parcels at this time. • The fact that several corridor properties having been vacant for years indicate that the timing seems right to reevaluate the purpose of the area and allowing stand -alone office use would seem to us to give the Manufacturing Industrial Centers an economic boost, but at the same time, it would still not open the area up to a broader variety of commercial use, intensity and traffic. • Boeing has and will always be a manufacturing company. Although, the delivery of our products to our customers differs from what we used to do 10 years ago, we still require much flexibility in our line of business. • Boeing recognizes the partnership with the City of Tukwila has provided to our company over the years and looks forward to continuing that good working relationship. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. Shaunta Hyde The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MC 14 -49 Seattle, WA 98124 Date: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM September 9, 2003 Tukwila City Council Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Developmen Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments to \low office in the MIC/H zone. File Numbers L02 -062 and L02 -063. On August 25, 2003, the Council was briefed on the Planning Commission's recommendations and a public hearing was held on September 2, 2003, regarding the three proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments that were submitted for consideration during the 2002 -2003 annual amendment process. The Council decided on two of the three proposed amendments on September 2, 2003, and requested that the third amendment pertaining to allowing office uses in MIC/H zone be scheduled for further discussion on September 15, 2003. Following is the summary of the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding allowing office use in the MIC/H zone: 1. Allow new office developments in the MIC/H zone as Conditional Uses and subject to the following restrictions: a) The maximum size of new office developments shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established prior to mm/dd/yy (the effective date of the adoption of the ordinance). b) No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand -alone office uses are shown on the map attached to the ordinance. 2. An existing office development established prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan) may be allowed to exceed the maximum size limitations and/or convert to a stand -alone office use subject to obtaining Conditional Use approval. Also, attached is the draft ordinance for Council's consideration. Next steps: The City Council may: • Adopt the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; • Adopt a modified version of the amendment; • Reject the amendment; or • Ask for additional information prior to making a final decision on the request. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director inn . n,,thrvntor Rnnlpvard. #100 • Tukwila. Washineton 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 • Annual ComprrhensWeP lanAmgndaien49 /g?(° . .....- :,:.�ii.'x:.:- ::.i` City of Tukwila w.,hing.o Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS TO ALLOW LIMITED OFFICE USE IN THE MIC/H ZONE; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1865 AND 1758 AS CODIFIED IN TMC SECTION 18.38.040; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations may be reviewed and updated as appropriate; and d WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to be consistent with the King County -Wide _ Planning Policies that recognize Tukwila's manufacturing center as a designated industrial z center and require local jurisdictions that indude a manufacturing center to allow limited Z O office and retail uses in the industrial centers; and W w WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to preserve properties that abut the Duwamish U � River and are north of the turning basin for water related industrial uses; and p 1. w WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to preserve and encourage the aggregation of f. U land parcels for manufacturing /industrial uses; and u.. Z WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires that the area zoned MIC /H continue to serve a U co valuable role for future needs of industrial users and at the same time provide some flexibility to go with the changes in the industries and allow some office uses; and z WHEREAS, on June 26, 2003 the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the. Zoning Code to allow limited office use in the MIC /H zone and on July 24, 2003 adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; and 1< WHEREAS, on September 2, 2003 • Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Manufacturing Industrial Center Chapter Policy 11.1.5 under Goal 11,5, as adopted by Ordinance 1757, is hereby amended to read as follows: 11.1.5 Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while limiting unrelated uses. Section 2. Ordinance 1865, §44, and Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.38.040, are amended as follows: 1 z • w J O 0 co 0 w J = H w 0 a. 18.38.40 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Colleges and universities. 2. Electrical substations - distribution. 3. Fire and police stations. 4. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (off -site) subject to compliance with state siting criteria (RCW 70.105; see TMC 21.08). 5. Offices not associated with other permitted uses, subject to the following location and size restrictions: a. New Office Developments: i. New office developments shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established prior to the effective date of the adoption of this ordinance. ii. No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River n are north of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand-alone office us �iw �) shown in Figure 18 -12. ,,� �� ��� UU g b. An existing office development estab shed• prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan) ay be allowed to exceed the maximum s size limitations and /or convert to a stand -alone o 'ce use. 6. Park and ride lots. 1 '1 ` L'-- 3 9 - _ 7. Radios, television, microwave, cellular or observation stations and towers. 8. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 9. Retail sales of health and beauty aids, prescription drugs, food, hardware, notions, crafts and craft supplies, housewares, consumer electronics, photo equipment, and film processing, books, magazines, stationery, clothing, shoes, flowers, plants, pets, jewelry, gifts, recreation equipment and sporting goods, and similar items; limited to uses of a type and size that clearly intend to serve other permitted uses and /or the employees of those uses. Section 3. 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 4. 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 and effect 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 , 2003. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Filed with the City Clerk: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney awmat C mnrehensive Plan Amendments S/29/03 2 1.x'�x.sw_wnmra.NK Y.'S.4R2ie�• a�Y.Nk =s'� :Yiwa /N4`•:s`:ki'wi3.: • f ' • • • • •• • MICIH Boundary Duwamish River • MICIH parcels ineligible for new stand - alone office uses Figure 18 -12 MIC/H Parcels Ineligible For Stand -Alone Office Uses z Z I- ~ 0 0 0 W w � fl . 0 O- 0 I-- L1.1 H H O .. z w O z City of Tukwlla Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM • Date: August 27, 2003 TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development I. L02 -062 Comprehensive Plan amendment—Office in MIC/H L02 -063 Zoning Code Amendment—Office in MIC/H. SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2003 Background On August 25, 2003, the Council was briefed .on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the three proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments that were submitted for consideration during the 2002 -2003 annual amendment process. The Council asked staff to provide some additional .. information regarding the proposed amendment to allow office in the MIC/H zone. The Council asked for the following: 1. Are there any examples of existing water dependent industrial uses in the Duwamish corridor? Delta Marine is a water related industry located on the Duwamish River and they manufacture boats and yachts. It is located at 1608 South 96 Street, Seattle on the west side of the River. Jorgensen Steel located at 8431 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila uses the River for transportation of some of their materials by barges. • • 2. What are the regulatory/environmental issues with the redevelopment of these properties for water dependent uses? Any development within 200 feet of the shoreline is subject to shoreline substantial development permit. At this time the area north of the turning basin is subject to King County Shoreline Master Program that is administered by the City of Tukwila. The setbacks for non -water related uses(commercial and industrial) 15 .. • -.• �••:�„ r nn • Tit lnv;;a Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 . iii= n. ° 4eV1e. i .`•1 � • viw.w.✓ T 'TT:Ir i.t?S.�K_�Y!s • R.�:1: ... iY.:..- .�..... « « .....Y�:+.rvMTr+ . fbMY�M �!M ?II. 'f.•�! - .-- ..•_..,.. —.__ •._..,.._...._ ..............«.,... �.. ....,..........«.........+«._.. .,..._u vmr+ +rr�is.. nN•u :.y. ~,1 are 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark or twenty feet from edge of the floodway, whichever is greater. There are provisions to reduce this setback if the development provides public access. However water dependent industrial use is not required to maintain a shoreline setback. If the redevelopment of any of the parcels includes any work in, over or under = i,,; navigable waters of the United States a permit is required from the US Army 1-- w Corps of Engineers to ensure that navigation is not adversel affected. Typically 6 D shoreline stabilization methods that have least impact on habitat to properly serve -J o the water dependent uses are required. co o co in J = Following is a summary of the Planning Commission's Recommendation: u) u_ Planning Commission recommended the following: w o 1. Allow new office developments in the MIC/H zone as Conditional Uses and 2 subject to the following restrictions: u_ a a) The maximum size of new office developments shall not exceed 100,000 CO a square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established prior to F- _ mm/dd/yy (the effective date of the adoption of the ordinance). Z b) No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are w o north of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand -alone office 2 D uses are shown on the map attached to the ordinance. o Ca 2. An existing office development established prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date o D- '- of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan) may be allowed to exceed the = w maximum size limitations and/or convert to a stand -alone office use subject to F obtaining Conditional Use approval. " z w � Also, attached is the draft ordinance for the public hearing. 0 1 2 H. L02 -064 Comprehensive Plan amendment—Revise Sensitive Areas policies L02 -064 Zoning Code amendment—Revise Sensitive Areas policies Request: Approve "placeholder" amendment for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to include "best available science," other issues per State of Washington Growth Management Act requirements. Planning Commission recommendation: Defer consideration until 2003 -2004 Growth Management Act update 111. L02 -067 Rezone LDR to 0 (Barghausen/Robb) L02 -068 Comprehensive Plan amendment LDR to 0 ( Barghausen/Robb) Request: Approve rezone /Comprehensive Plan change at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) -. ... —..,.- .�. s— r.._.»w.. ..�..-- ..._.w ._... t....._. a._ .. +..� ":1w1r1:......._........i ...._ ...., »... _ _ . .ve w..+ uc,�rK Planning Commission recommendation: Deny request. Applicant may reapply for consideration if access and encroachment issues are resolved before 12/31/03. Next steps: The Committee of the Whole will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on September 2, 2003. After the public hearing, the City Council may: • Adopt an amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; • Adopt a modified version of an amendment; • Reject the amendment; or • Ask for additional information prior to making a final decision on the request. 'z.�.w...y.. .r - v.u�..Ir.. i4,aa�f4A44uiiv' • 1 A. �, !`^..w o,.1 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA. AND AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS TO ALLOW LIMITED OFFICE USE IN THE MIC/H ZONE; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1865 AND 1758 AS CODIFIED IN TMC SECTION 18.38.040; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations may be reviewed and updated as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to be consistent with the King County -Wide Planning Policies that recognize Tukwila's manufacturing center as a designated industrial center and require local jurisdictions that include a manufacturing center to allow limited office and retail uses in the industrial centers; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to preserve properties that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin for water related industrial uses; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to preserve and encourage the aggregation of land parcels for manufacturing /industrial uses; and WHEREAS, the City of 'Tukwila desires that the area zoned MIC /H continue to serve a valuable role for future needs of industrial users and at the same time provide some flexibility to go with the changes in the industries and allow some office uses; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2003 the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the Zoning Code to allow limited office use in the MIC /H zone and on July 24, 2003 adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2003, the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Manufacturing Industrial Center Chapter Policy 11.1.5 under Goal 11.5, as adopted by Ordinance 1757, is hereby amended to read as follows: 11.1.5 Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while limiting unrelated uses. Section 2. Ordinance 1865, §44, and Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.38.040, are amended as follows: 1 18.38.40 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Colleges and universities. 2. Electrical substations - distribution. 3. Fire and police stations. 4. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (off -site) subject to compliance with state siting criteria. (RCW 70.105; see TMC 21.08). 5. Offices not associated with other permitted uses, subject to the following location and size restrictions: a. New Office Developments: i. New office developments shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established prior to the effective date of the adoption of this ordinance. ii. No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand -alone office uses are shown in Figure 18 -12. b. An existing office development established prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan) may be allowed to exceed the maximum size limitations and /or convert to a stand -alone office use. 6. Park and ride lots. 7. Radios, television, microwave, cellular or observation stations and towers. 8. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 9. Retail sales of health and beauty aids, prescription drugs, food, hardware, notions, crafts and craft supplies, housewares, consumer electronics, photo equipment, and film processing, books, magazines, stationery, clothing, shoes, flowers, plants, pets, jewelry, gifts, recreation equipment and sporting goods, and similar items; limited to uses of a type and size that clearly intend to serve other permitted uses and /or the employees of those uses. Section 3. 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 4. 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 and effect 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 , 2003. Al i'EST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney it ...1.o;Plan Amendments 8 /29/03 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: 2 z ~ w tY i U 0 UU w J F•— � to u . i �.- z � �-- O z U 0 g 0 = � F ' w U 0 M1CIH Boundary Duwamish River M1C1H parcels ineligible for -lone office uses new stand-alone Figure 18-12 MIC /H Parcels Ineligible For Stand-Alone Office Uses Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION . a_ 1, i lc L &ro HEREBY DECLARE THAT: f K Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: _ Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: Pr-jn,rt, Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt . Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20©3, P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM 5?r. , ,cryw� ; • day of in the A, z -- 6 00 co o Lu w � _ I— Is z 1--0 w ~ 0 0 O N O I— W W � - L I 0 z P ~ . z Project Name: ( - Project Number: _ Mailer's Signature: -1) Person requesting mailing: Pr-jn,rt, Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20©3, P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM 5?r. , ,cryw� ; • day of in the A, z -- 6 00 co o Lu w � _ I— Is z 1--0 w ~ 0 0 O N O I— W W � - L I 0 z P ~ . z NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 2, 2003, beginning at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, Washington, to consider the following: An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan map and policies, and zoning map. The proposed amendments are as follows: 1) Allow new office developments in the Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy zone as Conditional Uses if smaller than 100,000 square feet and if not adjacent to the Duwamish River north of the turning basin; 2) Approve amendment to revise Sensitive Areas policies per Washington Growth Management Act requirements; 3) Rezone /Comprehensive , Plan change at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard from Low - Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0). All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on this issue. Those unable to attend in person may submit written testimony to the City Clerk's office until 5:00 PM on the day of the hearing. Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The City strives to accommodate people with disabilities; reasonable accommodations are available at the Public Hearing with advance notice. This notice is also available in alternate formats for individuals with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (206)433 -1800 or TDD (206)248 -2933 if we can be of assistance. Dated this L day of aCti 1 �C) , 2003. / Published: Seattle Times, August 15, 2003 0 L CD E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk ^SS City of Tukwila f±Y�I� M�YI�T'.Y,"�}�,'.�. YtN'd'„M._ }I$*,? T!:'£.•Yf+.`.y.R•A2.!.r.s± .e.; +Y1E.a; H�:!'4K'!'M1: S?X,.h',TY \ "v�N�Y•c�Ha �. MEMORANDUM August 19, 2003 City of f Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2003 Background Three proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments were submitted for consideration in the 2003 -2003 annual amendment process. The City Council held a public meeting on the amendments on March 17, 2003 and forwarded them to the Planning Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on June 26, 2003. One amendment was carried over to July 24, 2003, and considered at that time. The Community Affairs and Parks Committee discussed the amendments on 8/12/03 and forwarded the amendments to the City Council for a briefing and public hearing. The requested amendments and the Planning Commission recommendations are the following: 1. L02 -062 Comprehensive Plan amendment — Office in MIC/H L02 -063 Zoning Code Amendment — Office in MIC/H Request: The Council asked staff to study the changing shape of industry, the viability of industrial retention and the market for office uses in the MIC/H area to decide whether office should be allowed as a stand -alone use in the MIC/H zone. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission recommended the following: Allow new office developments in the MIC/H zone as Conditional Uses and subject to the following restrictions: a) The maximum size of new office developments shall not exceed 100,000 Square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established priof to mm/dd/yy (the effective date of the adoption of the ordinance). b) No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and North of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand -alone office uses are shown on the map attached to the ordinance Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Suitesl#.1,00. „Aysyy la, ERAfngto,, -98 8 Phorva06- 431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 c) An existing office development established prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan) may be allowed to exceed the maximum size limitations and/or convert to a stand -alone office use subject to obtaining Conditional Use approval. Based on the direction by the Planning Commission, staff has prepared the attached draft ordinance for the City Council's consideration. 6 v 00 u)° II. L02 -064 Comprehensive Plan amendment Revise Sensitive Areas policies Ili L02 -064 Zoning Code amendment Revise Sensitive Areas policies Lu 0 Lu Request: Approve "placeholder" amendment for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to g 5 include "best available science," other issues per State of Washington Growth Management Act requirements. I W z= Planning Commission recommendation: F- 0 Defer consideration until 2003 -2004 Growth Management Act update w w III. L02 -067 Rezone LDR to 0 (Barghausen /Robb) p N L02 -068 Comprehensive Plan amendment LDR to 0 (Barghausen /Robb) w W ! - Request: u. Approve rezone /Comprehensive Plan change at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter z Boulevard from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) o 0 ~ Planning Commission recommendation: Deny request. Applicant may reapply for consideration if access and encroachment issues are resolved before 12/31/03. Next steps: The amendments will return before the City Council for a final public hearing on September 2, 2003. After the hearing, the City Council will make their decision. At that point, the City Council may: • Adopt an amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; • Adopt a modified version of an amendment; or • Reject the amendment. Consideration of these amendments is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial. Reminder: Please remember to bring the Comprehensive Plan Amendment binder that was distributed in March, 2003. CD C ::':5+cii`?sit'4tz.4?';4 4 ya`;2. 111 °�crCl+1,'it�t_u�i ir'ui '�" tz z Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Joe Duffie, Jim Haggerton Steve Lancaster, Nick Olivas, Rhonda Berry, Bruce Fletcher, Minnie Dhaliwal, Lucy Lauterbach; Shaunta Hyde- Boeing Company 1. Comp Plan Amendments The Council held a public hearing on three proposed comp plan amendments last March. The issues then went to the Planning Commission, which held a public hearing on them. The first issue regards possible office zoning for the Heavy Manufacturing and Industrial zone (MIC /H) in the north of the City. The ECO Northwest report had looked at this issue of saving industrial land or using it for more readily available commercial uses such as office. They concluded it is uncertain what future industrial uses will need the land, but that it is increasingly rare, and Tukwila's position close to Seattle and the ports makes it valuable as industrial land. Shaunta said Boeing owns land north of the turning basin, which is at about 103 Street. The Planning Commission recommended that land on the river north of the turning basin not allow stand -alone offices, as industrial uses there could ship industrial products out on the river. Shaunta expressed concern that Boeing's offices could become non - conforming, as they are on the river north of S. 103 She asked that the entire MIC/H area be allowed to have conditional use offices. Though they only own 2% of the lots, Boeing owns 25% of the land area in that north area. They would lose flexibility if their offices attached to manufacturing buildings on the river could not be stand -alone offices. In talking about what kinds of future uses could need MIC/H land, Steve said computer companies which have big generators make a lot of noise, and could sited in industrially zoned land. The second amendment was a placeholder in case the City had time to do an update to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, but the update won't be done this year, so the issue can be deferred to 2004. The third amendment was a request for a rezone of the area just east of City Hall at the T -line bridge. The owners have requested rezoning from low density residential to office zoning. The committee talked about access to the properties, and agreed with staff that it was too difficult to allow more than residential use until better access can be obtained. Recommend amendments to COW. 2. Second Quarter Reports The Committee asked about Cascade Park's schedule. Bruce said it should be seeded this month. Public Works will put sidewalks in on the half - street on 37` this month also. Also, the house at the northwest corner has been purchased and will be demolished. On Codiga Farm, the Army Corps is going through some changes in their Chief Administrator, which could be why park development is going slowly with them. They claim the bank is too steep for a boat ramp. The barn has been taken down. The issue of using people convicted of non - violent crimes, to work out their fines by picking up trash and other community service work is being pursued by Judge Walden through using King County to supervise. On Community Development, the committee asked about code enforcement. Steve said there are some culture clashes in Tukwila between those who've lived a certain more rural way for a long time who are willing to put up with some junk cars or other code enforcement issues, and others who like yards and houses neat, clean, and trim. The City walks a fine line, trying to address the more flagrant violations, but not all the smaller minor violations. Joe heard reports from the community that one car that has been repeatedly tagged for too -long parking violations merely erases the police messages on his window each time he gets them. Joan asked about development below Fosterview, and was told it is an 8 -9 home short plat. Finally, Steve reported that Sound Transit may be locating its track through some of the property east of S. 51 at I -5. Information. Committee chair approval • �� ,c lii + '�..ul�:�'.'!F�EN'�.(..' emu Community and Parks Committee August 12, 2002 .ryy •a , " '*7s "...3:z . t. Attachment 1 ter; 8174/NW The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Attachment 2 Public Testimony provided to the Tukwila Community Affairs and Park Committee re: L -02 -062 Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Office in MIC/H and L -02 -063 Zoning Code Amendment — Office in MIC/H August 12, 2003 z Distinguished Committee Members: w it Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. v O 0 (0 -I _ F � LL w 0 � d � w z = z O W • w 0 O n wW 1— w Z U = 01 — O • As you know, the Boeing Company came before you earlier this year, outlining its support of the staff member recommendations on this comprehensive plan . amendment which outlined allowing development of some stand alone office use in the MIC/H Zone but to limit the size to 100,000 square feet and list it as a conditional use to address traffic mitigation. • The staff further recommended allowing all existing office development to be converted to stand alone office use. This would allow offices that are accessory to other currently permitted uses to be used as stand alone offices if future circumstances warrant such a conversion. Existing office buildings associated with currently permitted uses and exceeding 100,000 square feet could be allowed to convert to stand alone office uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. • When the issue was reviewed before your Planning Commission they agreed with the staff's recommendations, but felt it necessary to carve out all property that bordered the river to preserve the opportunity for a future industrial owner to the river for manufacturing or water dependent purposes. • While we still agree with the Planning Commission on the zoning and comprehensive plan recommendations, we would ask that you include all property in the Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC). Several existing office buildings could become non- conforming uses if shoreline properties are carved out of the zoning reform as suggested by the Planning Commission. • The staff recommendations are based on the fact that several corridor properties have been vacant for years and on the City's report prepared by EcoNorthwest addressing the issue of whether the city "should preserve the industrial zoning and the land for industrial use. We agree with that assessment. • It is time to reevaluate the purpose of the area and the realistic opportunities for future land use and growth. The potential for urban growth and economic development present an enormous opportunity for the City and one we would like to be included in. • We will continue to maintain a large and vibrant presence in the corridor for the foreseeable future, but we would like to have the same flexibility with our property that is being given to everyone else in the MIC. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak with you this evening and we look >f� 0 •o -O forward to working with you in the future. Shaunta Hyde, Manager Local Government Relations, South Puget Sound The Boeing CompanyP.O. Box 3707, MC 14 -49 Seattle, WA 98124 z CASE NUMBER: L03 -002 APPLICANT: Stephen B. Meadows for Nextel Communications (withdrawn by the applicant — to be re- scheduled at a later date) CASE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MINUTES JUNE 26, 2003 L02 -062, L02 -063 City of Tukwila Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center —Heavy (M/IC -H) zones. All M/IC -H zones citywide, Tukwila, WA Attachment 3 a The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Whisler at 7:00 PM. Present: Chair, Kirstine Whisler, Vice Chair, George Malina, Commissioners: Vern Meryhew, Bill Arthur, and Henry Marvin. Excused Absence: Margaret Bratcher and Allan Ekberg Representing City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Rebecca Fox, Minnie Dhaliwal, and Wynetta Bivens. GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WORKSESSION MINUTES FROM MAY 22, 2003. VERN MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM MAY 22, 2003. VERN MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Rebecca Fox gave a brief overview with some background on the three proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendments. Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. Staff recommended a combination of option B (1) and B (4) B. Modify the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code © 1. Allow some office use but limit the size to 100,000 sq. ft. and list it as a conditional use to address traffic CD mitigation. No change is required to the County Wide Planning Policies. It will require Comprehensive Plan © and Zoning Code amendments. 4. Allow all existing office development to continue to be used for office use. This would allow offices that are C. currently accessory to other permitted uses to be used as stand alone offices. Existing office buildings associated with manufacturing uses and exceeding 100,000 sq. ft. could be allowed to convert to stand alone office uses subject to a Conditional Use permit. Shaunta Hyde, from the Boeing Company gave testimony in support of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments. The Boeing Company agrees with staff's recommendation as they represent a good balance for the future. • Ms. Hyde also answered questions. Minnie Dhaliwal and Steve Lancaster answered several additional questions for the Commission. Staff will provide the Planning Commission with the current price value for the industrial zone lands vs. the office zone land. The Planning Commission asked staff to take a look at the possibility of preserving the area along side of the river where there is r.._. Y... .�.v.._.�!�S. .+..h..•zf.yy�w.,' nwr�x'.!i,M'�rr;r..mw.wr+r. ���.�r.nc.ar,... availability to deeper waters for industrial use only. Staff will prepare an ordinance based on the Planning Commission's recommendation for their review. There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Chair Whisler. The Commission deliberated. VERN MERYHEW MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR CASE NUMBER L02 -062, L02 -063 FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT /ZONING CODE WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE PROPOSED BE LIMITED TO Ink. PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT ABBUTTING THE RIVER BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. CASE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Chair Whisler. The Commission deliberated. CASE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L02 -064, L02 -065 City of Tukwila Approve future amendments to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code as it pertains to Sensitive /Critical Areas to include Best Available Science, and other issues per Growth Management Act requirements. All properties designated environmentally "Sensitive Areas" throughout Tukwila, WA Rebecca Fox gave the presentation for staff. Staff is working on incorporating a review of "Best Available Science ", which is a State of Washington requirement. Staff will bring proposed changes to the Commission for consideration prior to the 2004 deadline. At this time staff recommends approving a general "placeholder" amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which updates the Sensitive Areas/Natural Environment related policies to reflect changes in the Growth Management Act requirements including consideration of `Best Available Science." The Planning Commission expressed some confusion regarding this amendment and their roll with this amendment. Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development provided clarification by giving some background. Mr. Lancaster explained what staff is in the process of doing, and he also, explained what the Planning Commission's roll is in the process. VERN MERYHEW MADE A MOTION TO DEFER CASE NUMBER L02 -064, L02 -065 FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONING CODE UNTIL 2004. BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. L02 -067, L02 -068 Eric Robb/Barghausen Consulting Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code designations from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA Rebecca Fox gave the presentation for staff. Given the property's encroachment issues, site development constraints including steep slopes and difficult access, and the availability of office use in other zones, staff recommended denial of the applicant's request at this time. Further staff recommended that if the applicant can resolve property encroachment issues and M N.!M.N c• cF4 !+Y:W! :.?4Y.T wM2- Yr{Y'M1rvlavc'�A�UTFS 'ANA .f : .lY .. NFW.. GSROf MYkMl�MRICMiG Y7JI7'!t41?`� /�� J4'44/, ES develop a feasible alternative access plan by December 31, 2003, then the City will consider the request as part of the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code update in 2004. There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Chair Whisler. The Commission deliberated. GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR CASE NUMBER L02 -067, L02 -068 FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT /ZONING CODE. HENRY MARVIN SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Chair Whisler called a five minute recess. The public hearing reconvened. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Chair Whisler swore in those wishing to provide testimony. CASE NUMBER: L03 -035 APPLICANT: Starfire Sports, Christopher G. Slatt, President and CEO REQUEST: Design Review for Starfire Sports project that includes upgrading athletic fields (addition of synthetic turf to four existing soccer fields and development of three new synthetic soccer fields), construction of a 84,074 square feet athletic building with two indoor soccer fields, construction of a maintenance building and a cover over an existing grandstand. LOCATION: Fort Dent Park, east of Interurban Avenue and. north of Fort Dent Boulevard (adjacent to the Green River) in Tukwila WA. Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. Staff recommended approval of the Design Review application. Bruce Fetcher, Director, Parks and Recreation, the lead staff on the project, gave some history on how the City acquired the park and how Starfire entered into an agreement with the City. Mr. Fetcher explained what the agreement entitles and how it will allow the City to keep the park open. Mr. Fetcher expressed the agreement between the City and Starfire as a true winning partnership that will give the residents a quality 54 -acre sports park. Christopher Slatt, for the applicant, explained how Starfire came to approach the City with the idea of a non - profit organization to create, "a world class facility ". Jud Youell, Landscape architect, for the applicant, described what the Sports Park would offer, discussed the design of the field, and the material used for turf on the field, and the advantages of using the material. Mr.Y.ouell also explained what will happen with the landscaping, as well as, answered questions. Christopher Slatt, answered questions concerning parking issues. Mr. Slatt explained it's hard to model parking and that CO they did the best they could to estimate from experience and by talking to others. Mr. Slatt stated Starfire is required to © provide a monitoring plan, which the City must approve. CJ O Don Carlson, architect, for the appliant, gave an overview discussing the characteristics of the building. Mr. Carlson stated © his company has learned a lot of lessons about how to make large buildings friendly to the environment, stating it's the kind of background they are bringing to the project. Q:\PLANCOM \MINUTES \6- 26- 03.doc 3 OF fc. Mln;clrES Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development, provided clarification to some additional questions raised by the Planning Commission, regarding the parking issues. Mr. Lancaster explained there are two studies going -on, 1) a very specific parking management strategy, which needs to be approved by him, as the City's SEPA official, before Starfire can occupy the facility. The second study is a traffic analysis, to determine the traffic impact. This will be a program to monitor those events that are too hard to analyze before they happen. z Mr. Lancaster also, addressed a question regarding handicap access. Mr. Lancaster stated that the project would be = z evaluated against the Washington State Accessibility code as part of the building permit review process. There must be a o 2 sufficient number of handicap parking spaces based on an analysis of the occupancy of the structure, and if possible the J v spaces must be located to prevent people from crossing drive ways or other obstacles. 0 co oo u) Christopher Slatt addressed a question regarding when the food court will be open. Mr. Slatt hopes the concession will be _ open as often as people want to use it, the main purpose of the concession is to support the athletes and the events. co o w Starfire also addressed a question regarding the location of their trash. g Public Testimony: None N D F- 1 . 1 - 1 Rebuttal: None z _ 1- O There were no further comments. LU ul D Public Hearing closed by Chair Whisler. 0 cn oF- The Commission deliberated. = v ~�= Commissioner Malina suggested that discounts for Tukwila residents and also the handicapped, be considered. "-- z w HENRY MARVIN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR CASE NUMBER L03 -035 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT. o . z GEORGE MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. DIRECTOR REPORT • Commissioner Meryhew requested that staff forward the information regarding the current price value for the industrial zone land vs. the office zone to the City Council, and himself. • Chair Whisler requested a calendar of the next six months Planning Commission meetings. • Chair Whisler reported she would be absent from the August Planning Commission meeting. Adjourned at 9:55PM Respectfully Submitted Wynetta Bivens Administrative Secretary Q:\PLANCOM\MINUTES \6- 26 -03.doc 4 OF .cf cL t o i n1L S DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MINUTES JULY 24, 2003 The Public Hearing was called to order by Vice Chair Malina at 7:00 p.m. Attachment 3 (b) Present: Vice Chair, George Mallina, Commissioners: 'Bill Arthur, Henry Marvin, and Margaret Bratcher Excused Absence: Chair, Kristine Whisler, Vern Meryhew, and Allan Ekberg Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Minnie Dhaliwal, Brandon Miles, and Joyce Trantina HENRY MARVIN MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26, 2003 MEETING. BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE GIVING TESTIMONY WERE SWORN IN BY VICE - CHAIR MALINA. OLD BUSINESS Discussion continued regarding the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning code Amendment allowing office uses in Manufacturing/Industrial Center/Heavy (MIC/H). Minnie Dhaliwal provided further clarification of the proposal, indicating that based on the Planning Commission's recommendations the proposed changes would allow up to 100,000 sq. feet of office use per lot as a conditional use in the MIC/H zone, except on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin. After the June 26' meeting, Commissioner Meryhew talked with Steve Lancaster to clarify that the areas that needed to be preserved for water related industrial were those that were north of the turning basin. An additional concern involved how we look at existing offices. The Planning Commission recommended allowing existing office development that is currently accessory to other permitted to exceed the new size limitations provided they are approved as a conditional use when they are disassociated with manufacturing in the area. The example for that is the Boeing headquarters office building. i[C• : ?itiV.; s k'� T:l w? „i::H.�a"w,' uS'•i^1tx^+•i: ssuY:: "a.c.V a i r _ AY Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 2 z With regard to the land values in the industrial area compared to commercial land values, staff looked at the King County Assessors office and they do reports for the different areas of the county and according w cc to their estimates, land values are $10 per sq. ft. along the Boeing property all the way down to Boeing v access road. Comparable commercial zoned land ranges from $8 to $18 per sq. ft. Staff also included the v O lease rate information since once the buildings go in, the lease rates are much higher for commercial than , 0 industrial. w = F- LL The other issue had to do with preservation of the existing large lots for industrial uses and to achieve that w O objective the provision was to allow 100,000 sq. ft per lot that is in existence at the time the ordinance is 2 adopted. Our zoning code currently has a definition of "lot ". In order to determine a legal lot, we have to g Q look at it on a case -by -case basis. We are recommending that at the time the Conditional Use Permit u Application comes in, we would look at the status of the existing lot to determine if it was in existence the z w day the ordinance was adopted or if it was created subsequent to that date. If Council adopts this Z ordinance sometime in August or Sept., then that is the date we would go by. The other option to include H O a map showing existing lots of record was not pursued since the only maps that are accurate are the w (- assessor's maps and they don't necessarily mean they are legal lots. The property owner can have three ? o tax bills for one parcel, which doesn't necessarily mean there are three lots there. Therefore, we are v recommending we look at these on a case -by -case basis at the time of Conditional Use permit. Ea o t-. w — If we take out the properties that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin, and we take i v out the area covered by the airport and Burlington Northern, we still have about 50% of the land area that u- p is available for office uses. The number of lots is only 12 because they are very large lots, which is only iii z 2% of the number of lots, but is 50% of the total land area which is still available for office use. 0 O h . In the Ordinance, under Conditional Uses, we have amended it to say the new office development shall z not exceed 100,000 per lot that is a legal lot on the date of the ordinance, and no new offices shall be permitted on lots that abut the Duwamish and are north of the turning basin. Also, the ordinance would incorporate a map highlighting the parcels where we would NOT allow stand alone office buildings. The existing office developments that were established prior to the date that we adopted our comprehensive plan would be allowed to exceed the maximum size limitations provided they obtain conditional use approval. The two examples we know of where the 100,000 is exceeded are the Boeing headquarters office building and a technical park office building by the post office development (Sabey Office Bldg.). After further discussion, BILL ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S DRAFT PROPOSAL ON MIC REGULATIONS. HENRY MARVIN SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER: L03 -027 APPLICANT: T- Mobile REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless communication facility at 14240 Interurban Ave. S. BILL ARTUR MADE THE DECLARATION THAT HIS WIFE IS EMPLOYED BY VERIZON AND DAUGHTER IS EMPLOYED BY AT &T. HE IS EMPLOYED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER WHOSE PROPERTY IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND IS IN DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT OF THIS FACILITY. BE DID FEEL THAT IN SPITE OF THESE DECLARATIONS, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO FULFILL HIS RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE COMMISSION WITHOUT ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE APPLICANT HAD NO OBJECTION. Justin Abbott, 1530 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 600, Seattle, WA BRANDON MILES — indicated the City had a CUP to locate a wireless facility at 14240 Interurban Ave. S., currently zoned commercial/light industrial. The building is currently used for commercial activity, the Fairway Center, south of the Riverside Inn. The building contains offices and the staff report contains a list of businesses and uses. While most of the activity in this area is commercial, there are some residential homes across the street, but the underlying zoning is commercial. The proposed facility consists of 3 antennas that would be attached to the existing building. The ground equipment would be located on a concrete slab adjacent to the building. The ground equipment will be covered by a fence that is consistent with the existing building. It will be painted to match the same color as the building. The ground equipment will not be visible from Interurban, but will be from 143` The antennas, are proposed to be 40 ft. in height, but it's only about 8 feet higher than the building, so it will not stand out as significantly unusual or obtrusive. This is the tallest building in the area, and this will have very little impact on the look of the building. Discussion followed regarding a requirement by the fire department for a cut -off switch. This is not a condition of the permit, but is something they have asked for relative to this application. The reason is that in the case of fire, some cell facilities can cause interference with fire department radios and communication equipment. The staff recommended approval of the CUP as submitted. Justin Abbott, Applicant — shared that the facility was designed to create the most visually unobtrusive _ facility possible. A 7 -ft. cedar fence will surround the ground equipment and landscaping that will C41 provide a visual buffer from any other property. Tom Nguyen, T- Mobile radio frequency engineer was r" also present to answer questions as needed. Typically when a fire dept. goes into a building, it will shut the breakers off, but it appears as though the fire dept. is concerned about interference from the frequency of the antenna's, and their own equipment. Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 4 Tom Nguyen, 19807 Northcreek Parkway North, Bothel, WA 98011 Licensed by the FCC for blocks E and F, which are not even close to the spectrum that the fire dept. uses. T- Mobile has located their equipment on many fire stations, with no difficulty of any kind. He feels it is more of a safety issue than interference – in case the fire dept. wants to shut down the antenna, due to electricity getting to those antennas. With regard to the equipment, he did not think that any switch would work. The best way to shut off the equipment is through a remote switch. Margaret Bratcher brought up some questions regarding the appearance of the building with the antenna and elevation drawings were presented. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. HENRY MARVIN MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND APPROVE CASE NO. L -03 -277 BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. MARGARET BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Jack Pace reminded the c commissioners that there is a Conference for the Planning Commission and Planners scheduled for October in Spokane. We will make sure that all the commission members receive the information next week. There is funding in the budget, and individuals interested in attending should complete the form and return it to Wynetta as soon as possible. With regard to large -scale projects, Southcenter Mall is planning a 500,000 expansion, which is currently going through environmental and traffic review. The expansion includes a combination of parking, theatre, food court, and major tenant. In addition, J. C. Penny's will be tearing down a portion of the warehouse and putting up 180,000 – 300,000 retail space. Lastly, light rail is a big issue. Because light rail requires unclassified use as well as design review, it will automatically go to the Council, so the Council will be handling the application for light rail. If you would like some time this winter, I could give you a brief overview of the status of light rail, and what the station looks like. Update on sexual predator facility – the State will be holding public hearings on a 4 location, in the SoHo area (industrial area). The City of Tukwila will prepare and deliver comments at the hearing. Discussion continued regarding the Park and Fly near Lewis and Clark theatres and the need for landscape maintenance. Jack indicated he would look into it. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P.M. z w cc 2 JU 00 co w J H w w o 2 �a = a I -W z I- 0 z I- LL! Li] U 0 0 — ci w H U u_ — Z W U F- _ 0 I Z MEETING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development June 26, 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: MIC/H Notice published in the Seattle Times, June 12, 2003 . L02 -062 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) L02 -063 (Zoning Code Amendment) City of Tukwila Allow office uses in Manufacturing/Industrial Center/Heavy ( MIC/H) • MIC/H Zones citywide MIC/H A. B. C. D. E. F. STAFF REPORT • TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment 4 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Memo to Community and Parks Committee (2/03) Application along with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria. Map showing existing land uses in the MIC/H area. Aerial photo of the MIC/H area. List of allowed uses in the MIC/H area. Eco Northwest market analysis report 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 DISCUSSION FINDINGS A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; The proposal is to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses throughout the MIC/H zone. The Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2001 to allow offices as a permitted use in the MIC/L zone. The City Council has asked staff to study the changing shape of industry, the viability of industrial retention and expansion and the market for office uses in the heavy manufacturing areas closer to the Duwamish area. The Council has asked an evaluation of this issue to decide whether office should be allowed as stand alone use in the MIC/H zone. BACKGROUND 2 L02 -062 & L02 -063 Office uses in MIC /H zone On February 11, 2003, Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) was briefed on the issues with allowing office rises in the MIC/H zone. The detailed background information on the proposed code amendment is included in the attached memo to CAP (attachment A). The Committee agreed with the staff's recommendation to allow office uses of limited size and also allow existing office development that is currently accessory to other permitted uses to be used for stand alone offices. On March 17, 2003, Committee of the Whole was briefed on this issue and they decided to refer the proposal to the Planning Commission for further review. The staff also asked EcoNorthwest, Market Analysis firm to look at demand and supply factors related to industrial land and advantages/disadvantages of maintaining the industrial zoning. Attachment F is the report prepared by EcoNorthwest. Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center is an important regional center of industrial activity. It is one of the four regional centers of industrial activity designated in the King County's County Wide Planning Policies (CPP). Per CPP's local jurisdictions that include a manufacturing industrial center within their boundaries are required to have zoning that discourages land uses which are not compatible with manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses. Also, there must be limits on the size of office and retail uses unless they are an accessory use. The Growth Management Policy Board has recently released new draft criteria for public comment that will be applicable to Manufacturing Industrial Centers. Some of the highlights of proposed new criteria are: a) Required activity levels- employment thresholds: minimum existing employment level of 10,000 jobs and minimum employment target of at least 20,000 jobs. (In 2000 Tukwila MIC - had 11,881 jobs). 2) Impacts The proposal could be expected to result in more office development and a decrease in land available for and affordable to industrial uses in the MIC/H zone. More office development could result in more employment with greater traffic impacts. Other impacts to consider would include: 1) will having additional industrially -zoned land available for office development negatively impact industrial growth and retention in the ( -MIC/H zone; and 2) will allowing office in the MIC/H threaten the Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation. O b) Commitment to preservation of an urban industrial land base that shall include the following requirements: i) 80% of property within MIC must have planned future land use and current zoning designation for industrial and manufacturing uses. ii) Protection from incompatible land uses. iii) Regulations and plans to preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non - manufacturing or industrial land parcels for manufacturing/industrial uses. = z Staff has taken into consideration the County Wide Planning Policies, looked at what other 2 designated industrial centers allow, and reviewed the market analysis report prepared by • o EcoNorthwest to determine if office uses should be allowed in the MIC/H zone. co ° i REVIEW CRITERIA w • 0 1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not 2 adequately addressed, is there a need for it? _ The Comprehensive Plan envisions th&MIC as the focus of significant industrial activity. c a This is stated in Goal 11.1 and its associated policies: •:� • ? E- Goal 11.1(Manufa..uring/Industrial Center); z o Support for existing 'industrial activities in the Manufacturing /Industrial Center and g uj development of industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic v ° benefits to the eo le of Tukivila and the regional, while minimizing impacts on P- P P f Si g P o P- residential neighborhoods. w w The Comprehensive Plan states the MIC zones are intended primarily for industrial uses or z activities that support these uses: v (1) I Policy 11.1.5: Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, z including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while prohibiting unrelated uses. Current Comprehensive Plan regulations could be reconsidered to evaluate the declining role of manufacturing in society and the expanding role of office in the Manufacturing Industrial Center. If the Council decides to allow some office in the MIC/H zone, the policy will need to be amended to state while limiting unrelated uses instead of while prohibiting unrelated uses. 3 L02 -062 & L02 -063 Office uses in MIC/H zone Additional jobs which might come from increased office development should be weighed against the possible loss of the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIIC) designation, impacts on redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center and along Tukwila International Boulevard, as well as increased costs of industrial Iand. If office is allowed as a stand -alone use we will need to reevaluate the environmental work- EIS 2 z and Planned Action. The impacts of future office construction were not considered and mitigated w at that time. If other non - industrial uses are permitted, there could be potential traffic issues with industrial traffic mixing with the office traffic. Also, transportation mitigation would need to be -J 0 reevaluated. One option would be to allow office uses as conditional uses and not consider any co 0 office development as a Planned Action instead require SEPA review if the proposal did not co meet State Law exemptions for SEPA. cn w w 0 3) Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? g What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? � j co 1. d The proposed change addresses the public need (as expressed in developer interest and request i for consideration by die City Council)-for more office uses by considering allowing office in the Z MIC/H zone. The `:identified public need" for office in MIC/H could be met through various o uj means, which range froth allowing office outright in the MIC/H zone to limiting the size of the offices and the locations in which they are allowed. c to '- Within the Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center in Seattle office uses are allowed but = w limited to 50,000 sq. ft. in some areas and 100,000 square feet in other areas. If the Planning 0 Commission decides to allow office uses in the MIC/H zone then there are two issues that will �` 0 need to be addressed: o 1) Maximum size of office: Establishing a limit on the maximum size of any office development z (e.g. 100,000 sq. ft as in Seattle's case) to meet the County Wide Planning Policies. This limit should be per lot and the regulations must have provisions to restrict the subdivision of land into smaller parcels to accommodate 100,000 square feet office uses on each lot. Since one of the goals of the new MIC designation criteria is aggregation of vacant and non - industrial parcels, one option to restrict potential requests for subdividing lots would be to allow 100,000 square feet of office per legal lot of record on the date the ordinance goes into effect. 2) Existing Office Uses: The other issue that needs to be addressed is the status of existing office buildings under the new code. The current code allows office uses in MIC/H zone only if they are associated with other permitted uses in the area (e.g. Boeing Headquarters building is permitted since it is associated with manufacturing in the area). In the event the permitted use ceases, the Planning Commission may want to consider recognizing such office uses that were originally associated with other permitted uses and allowing them as stand alone office uses even when they are not associated with other permitted uses. For existing buildings larger than 100,000 square feet, Planning Commission may want to consider allowing them to exceed _maximum size limitations and requiring Conditional Use permit at the time the associated permitted use ceases. 4 L02 -062 & L02 -063 Office uses in MIC/H zone CD 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what result can be expected and why? The proposed change could benefit the community by providing additional office space and employment. Alternately, additional office space in MIC/H could reduce the amount of regionally scarce industrial land and raise the price beyond the reach of manufacturing uses. Additional office uses in MIC/H might jeopardize the County's Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation for the area. CONCLUSIONS L w The city will be looking at other permitted uses and the boundaries of the MIC/H area and o determine if any changes need to be made as part of 2004 GMA update to the Comprehensive ❑ Plan..At that time staff will study the area south of the Boeing Access Road (in between Tukwila J International Boulevard and East Marginal Way) since it has slightly different characteristics co (smaller lot sizes and more service oriented businesses) than the area north of the Boeing Access u 0 Road. At this time staff is only looking at th of allowing office uses in the MIC/H zone in N response to a request by the City Council and has identified the following policy options for the Planning Commission: z 1-- z�— A. Status quo optioia: Do not allow office as a stand -alone use in the . MIC/H zone but only as an accessory use to other allowed uses. B. Modify the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code: w w 1. Allow some office use but limit the size to 100,000 square feet and list it as a conditional use to address traffic mitigation. No change is required to the County v_ z Wide Planning Policies. It will require Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code (1) o amendments. 2. Allow office use as outright permitted but limit the size to 100,000 square feet. z 3. Allow office use as outright permitted use with no size or other restrictions. This would entail withdrawing Manufacturing Industrial Center designation from the Countywide Planning Policies. It will require Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. 4. Allow all existing office development to be continued to be used for office use. This would allow offices that are currently accessory to other permitted uses to be used as stand alone offices. Existing office buildings associated with manufacturing uses and exceeding 100,000 sq. ft. could be allowed to convert to stand alone office uses subject to a Conditional Use permit. I CO C. Defer consideration as part of 2004 GMA update to the Comprehensive Plan. The scope of the issues looked at during the 2004 update would include looking at MIC/H boundaries, retail and office uses. RECOMMENDATIONS _In the light of findings and implications discussed in this report, staff recommends a combination of option B (1) and (4). 5 L02 -062 & L02 -063 Office uses in MIC/H zone City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Community Affairs and Parks Corr . nittee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Directo RE: MIC/H study DATE: February 6, 2003 The Council'asked staff to find out answers to some questions regarding the changing shape of industry; the viability of industrial retention and expansion; and the importance 'of Tukwila's industrial land base to the city and regional economy. The Council wanted to study this issue to decide whether office and similar non- industrial'uses be allowed as stand alone uses in the Heavy Manufacturing Industrial Center ( MIC/H) zone. Currently, offices in the MIC/H zone must be associated with another permitted use rather than being permitted outright. I. . BACKGROUND Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center is an important regional center of industrial activity. It is one of the four regional centers of industrial activity designated in the King County's County Wide Planning Policies. This designation reflects the corridor's long history of industrial uses and its current importance in the regional economy. It is well served by the regional transportation system and existing utility infrastructure. Since 1995, over 370 building permits have been completed in the MIC area. The total valuation of these permits exceeds $100,000,000. In•1998 the city of Tukwila,did a comprehensive environmental review and adopted the "planned action" option for SEPA review in an effort to streamline the environmental review of any future development proposals. Since the adoption of the Planned Action ordinance there have been 32 SEPA reviews that were determined to be . planned action. Some of the major projects that were reviewed as planned action include Wind Tunnel for Boeing and Museum of Flight addition. In 2000, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code was amended to allow office use less than 20,000 square feet as a permitted use.in the MIC /L (Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light) district. Office use over 20,000 square feet was allowed as a conditional use in order to address traffic impacts and access any mitigation due to the proximity to the residential neighborhoods. M Alia -S g!thcenter; B(Hilevard:1:5nitts. T310ar 4 , ; ..,ty; {shi;p op,4 J 8 • Pl, ?ate: 20o-131-3670 • Fax: 200-431-36o ATTACHMENT A Steven M. Mullet, itifayor 0 III. PUGET SOUNG REGIONAL COUNCIL'S NEW DESIGNATION CRITERIA FOR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTERS. Growth Management Policy Board (GMPB) has released new draft criteria for public comment that will be applicable to Manufacturing /Industrial Centers. GMPB will make a final recommendation to Regional Council's Executive Board who will then take final action on the new criteria in winter or spring 2003. It was decided .that GMPB and Executive Boards should review approve Manufacturing /Industrial Center designations. Although VISION 2020 describes the characteristics and roles of regional Manufacturing /Industrial centers, it does not contain thresholds or standards for activity levels within them. The new proposed criteria has the activity and employment thresholds. Following are some highlights of the proposed new criteria: a) Required activity levels - employment thresholds: minimum existing employment level of 10,000 jobs and minimum employment target of at least 20,000 jobs. (In 2000 Tukwila MIC had 11,881 jobs). b) Commitment to preservation of an urban industrial land base that shall include the following requirements: • i) • 80% of property within MIC must have planned 'future land use and current zoning designation for industrial and manufacturing uses. ii) Protection from incompatible land uses. iii) Regulations and plans to preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non - manufacturing or industrial land parcels for manufacturing/industrial uses. IV. CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE POLICIES The City's current Comprehensive Plan Policies clearly state that uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity such as offices and laboratories shall be allowed, while uses' unrelated to manufacturing and industry shall be prohibited. V. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The staff asked EcoNorthwest, Market Analyses firm to look at demand and supply factors related to industrial land and give an assessment of the advantages and disadvanta of maintaining the industrial zoning. A complete report prepared by EcoNorthwest is attached to this memo and following are some key findings of the report • Industrial uses are similar to export companies that bring new revenues into the region as opposed to shifting resources within the region more typified by office uses. This introduces non -local spending into the economy as goods are sold *outside the region. Such spending has higher multiplier effect on local employment and income than spending created by diverting spending from one area to another internally to the region. Tukwila already has a substantial commercial base in the Tukwila Urban Center area. CJ n3 • If the price of land is perceived as low then demand for industrial land will be high. If price rises substantially primarily because of assessment of developers and businesses that alternative uses (e.g. 3 3 • If office use is allowed as a stand alone use in the MIC/H zone, the type of office development that the city may get in the MIC/H zone will be different than the type of office development in TUC and Tukwila International Boulevard area. It is likely that if the City allowed stand alone office use in the MIC /H area it will get larger scale office than the typical office building with suites that are used by small office companies. • Higher clean up standards apply to non - industrial uses under the Model Toxic Cleanup Act. Also, in the past the Duwamish Coalition as part of the Brownfield Cleanup has made long standing attempt with Department of Ecology to lower the standards of cleanup for industrial uses in the area. The Department of Ecology has not agreed to lower any standards so far. If non - industrial uses are allowed the chances of getting lower standards is further diminished. VII. POLICY OPTIONS AND NEXT STEP There are three policy options for the Council: A. Do not allow office as a 'stand -alone use in the MIC/H zone but only as an accessory use to other allowed uses. • B. Allow all existing office development to be continued to be used for office use. This would allow offices that are currently accessory to other permitted uses to be used as stand alone offices. C. Allow some office use but limit the size and list it as a conditional use to address traffic mitigation. No change is required to the County Wide Planning Policies. It will require Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. D. Allow office use as outright permitted but limit the size to 100,000 square feet. E. Allow office use as outright permitted use with no size or other restrictions. This would entail withdrawing Manufacturing Industrial Center designation from the Countywide Planning Policies. It will require Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. In the light of the market analysis by EcoNorthwest and other findings and implications discussed above staff recommends a combination of option B and D. If the Council chooses to make changes to the existing policies and allow other non - industrial uses in the MIC/H zone, it will require updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopting new zoning code amendments. It may also result in a loss of status as a manufacturing/industrial center under the County Wide Planning Policies and under Vision 2020. If the decision is made to further pursue the path to make amendments then it needs to be decided whether to consider them during the 2004 GMA update to the Comprehensive Plan or as part of 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Attachments: A: Map showing existing land uses in the MIC /H area. B: Aerial Photo of the MIC /H area. C: Market Analysis by EcoNW • R E ITTACHMENT B DEC 2 3 2002 CITY OF TUKWILA CLmrviU T y C OMPREHENSIVE Department of Community Develop'm'eitEi_o pM EN T 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 PLAN /ZONING CODI Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 AMENDMENTS E-mail: tukplanrci.rukwila.wa.us NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENNt: Consider revising Comprehensive Plan policies to allow office uses in Manufacturing /Industrial Center - -Heavy (MIC /H) LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, f vacant. indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. All MIC /H zones city wide Quarter. Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards. and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Rebecca Fox /City of Tukwila Address: Phone 43 1 - 3 68 3 Signature: G V.PPHAMLANDUSE.APP C0h1PAPP.doc. 06121/00 FAX: 206 - 431 -3665 Date: 17/76/(17 Z W cc J 00 CO 0 W= —/u, E— VI WO u. co � w Z= i— O w ~ • w • 0 O • - • 1- W F U L O W Z U_= z • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: Various, including LDR, TUC, MIC /H Proposed: No change proposed B. ZONING DESIGNATION:. z Existing: Various, including LDR, TUC, MIC/H No change proposed w Proposed: JU 00 C. LAND USE(S): w i J Existing: Varirntc, ri ap nriing nn 1nrarinn N u- w O Proposed: No change proposed (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) I a = w D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: iv .. A—I.. Describe the existing uses located within 1, feet in all directions from the property or area for w o w which a change is proposed. Various, depending on location U O 0 H w w Z U. W z H =. O~ G AAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPrCOI.PAPP.doc. oN2NC0 z A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMA 18.80.050) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? w The current Comprehensive Plan policies should be evaluated to consider the o: declining role of manufacturing in society and the expanding role of office in - o the Manufacturing /Industrial Center, especially the MIC /H. u, o W - I 2. Why is the proposed changed the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified . public need? g a The proposed change,addresses the public need (cis expressed in developer interest cn a and request for consideration by the City Council) for more office uses by allowing _ office in the MIC/H zone. It woutd be necessary to consider the impacts of allowing ? 1- additional offica.use -on the Manufacturing /Industrial Center designation. It would w o also be necessary to take traffic impacts into account when considering this proposal. ? o U c 3. Why will the proposed changes result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type o H w • w: � LL. The proposed change could benefit the community by providing additional office space ui z and employment. Alternatively, additional office space in MIC /H could reduce the c) amount of regionally- scarce industrial land and raise the price beyond the reach of o r- manufacturing uses. Additional office uses in MIC /H might jeopardize the County's z Manufacturing /Industrial Center designation for the area, and also divert office uses from the Tukwila Urban Center and Tukwila International Boulevard. of benefit can be expected and why? COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (TMC 18.80.010) 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; The proposal is to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses Throughout the MIC /H zone. The Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2001 to allow offices as a permitted use in the MIC /L zone. Developers have expressed interest in allowing additional office uses in the heavy manufacturing areas closer to the Duwamish area, and the City Council has requested an evaluation of the proposal. • • 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; The proposal is expected to result in more office development and a decrease in land available for industrial uses in the MIC /H zone. The key issues are: 1) will having additional industrially -zoned land available for office development negatively impact industrial growth and retention in the MIC /H zone; 2) will allowing office in the MIC /H threaten the Manufacturing /Industrial Center designation; 3) will additional land available for office redevelopment along Tukwila International Boulevard and in the Tukwila Urban Center. 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or • development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; _ • Current Comprehensive Plan regulations should be reconsidered to acknowledge the declining role of manufacturing in society and the expanding role of-ef f ice the Manufacturing Industrial Center, especially the MIC /H. The Comprehensive Plan envisions the MIC as the focus of significant industrial activity. This is stated in Goal 11.1 and its associated policies: Goal 11.1 (Manufacturing/Industrial Center); Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the peop /e of Tukwi /a and the regional, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan states the MIC zones are intended primarily for industrial uses or activities that support these uses: Po /icy 11.1.5: A / /ow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while prohibiting unrelated uses 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; The proposal promotes the following goals from the Growth Management Act: • •Urban Growth—Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner... • Economic Deve %opment -- Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive Plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens for this state,... 5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Policies; Countywide Planning Policies discuss Manufacturing /Industrial Centers. Manufacturing /Industrial Center's are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing;riadust"rial and advanced technology employment. They differ from other employment areas, such as business /office parks, in that a land base and the segregation of major non - manufacturing uses are essential elements of their operation. FW -15 Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies shall assure the creation of a number of locally determined Manufacturing /Industrial Centers which meet specific criteria. . The Manufacturing /Industrial Centers shall be characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. Intensity /density of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses; c. Reasonable access to regional highway, rail \, air and /or waterway system for the movement of goods; d. Provisions to discourage large office and retai/development; e. Fast -track project permitting. LU -52 Each ,jurisdiction which contains a regional Manufacturing /Industrial Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the Center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the Center. Jurisdictions with - Manufacturing /Industrial Centers shall have zoning and detailed plans in place to achieve the following goals by the year 2010: a. Preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non - manufacturing /industrial kind parcels for manufacturing /industrial uses; b. Discourage land uses which are not compatible with manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses; c. Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs, and; d. Limit the size of offices and retail unless as an accessory use. County -wide Policies discuss providing buffers around the periphery of the Manufacturing /Industrial Center as follows: LU -58 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for regional Manufacturing /Industrial Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the _criteria. In order to promote manufacturing /industrial_ growth, the Manufacturing /Industrial Center plan for each jurisdiction shall establish strategies; a. To provide capital facility improvement projects which support the movement ofx, joo rs.and manufacturing /industrial operations; • b. To coordinate planning with serving utilities to ensure that utility facilities are available to serve such Centers; c. To provide buffers around the Center to reduce conflicts with adjacent /and uses; d. To facilitate land assembly; and e. To attract the type of businesses that will ensure economic growth and stability. 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans 0.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; No changes known at present. 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; and No additional changes are known at present. G C C 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. No additional changes are known at present. ' ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) o: 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity C U D o with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the w = provisions of this title, and the public interest; N w: Any change will be prepared in conjunction with an amendment to the Comprehensive wo Land Use Policy Plan and the public interest. cn ... . • mo Z � . 2. The use or; change in zoning requested in the zoning . map or this title for i- the establishment of_ commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported w by an archifecttircl'site plan showing the proposed development and its n relationship to surrounding o Not applicable. c:11— o ..z U2 z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. A TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE Pa • e 1 Chapter 18.38 MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER - HEAVY (MIC /H) DISTRICT Sections: 18.38.010 18.38.020 18.38.030 18.38.040 18.38.050 18.38.060 18.38.070 18.38.080 Purpose Permitted Uses Accessory Uses Conditional Uses Unclassified Uses On -Site Hazardous Substances Design Review Basic Development Standards 18.38.010 Purpose This district implements the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial Comprehensive plan designation. It is intended to provide a major employment area containing heavy .or bulk manufacturing and industrial uses, - distributive - and light manufacturing and industrial uses, and other uses that support those industries. - hie district's lzs and standards are intended to .enhance the redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor.` `' • - (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.38.020 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted outright within the Manufacturing Industrial Center - Heavy Industrial district, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 1. Adult entertainment establishments are permitted, subject to the following location restrictions: a. No adult entertainment establishment shall be allowed within the following distances from the following specified uses, areas or zones, whether such uses, areas or zones are located within or outside the City limits: (1) In or within 1,000 feet of any LDR, MDR; .HDR, MUO, 0, NCC, RC, RCM or TUC zone districts or any other residentially zoned, property; (2) In or within 1/2 mile of: (a) Public or private school with curricula equivalent to elementary, junior or senior high schools, or any facility owned or operated by such schools, and (b) Care centers, preschools, nursery schools or other child care facilities; • (3) In or within 1,000 feet of: (a) public park, trail, or public recreational facility; or • !` (b) church, temple, synagogue or chapel, or (c) public library. b. the distances specified in TMC 18.38.020.1.a. shall be measured by following a straight line from the nearest point of the property parcel upon Aft ATTACHMENT E which the proposed. use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel of property or land use district boundary line from which the proposed land use is to be separated. c. No adult entertainment establishment shall be allowed to locate within 1,000 feet of an exist- ing adult entertainment establishment. The distance specified in this section shall be measured by following a straight line between the nearest points of public entry into each establishment. 2. Automotive services: a. gas, outside pumps allowed; b. washing; c. body and engine repair shops (enclosed within a building). 3. Beauty or barber shops. 4. Bicycle repair shops. 5. Brew pubs. 6. Bus stations. "7. Computer software development and simi- lar uses. 8. Contractor storage yards. 9. Day care centers. • 10. Financial: a. banking; b. mortgage; c. other services. 11. Heavy equipment repair and salvage. 12. Heavy metal processes such as smelting, blast furnaces, drop forging, or drop hammering. 13. Hotels. 14. Industries involved with etching, film pro- cessing, lithography, printing, and publishing. 15. Internet data /telecommunication centers. 16. Laundries: a. self- serve; b. dry cleaning; c. tailor, dyeing. 17. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 18. Manufacturing, processing and /or assem- bling chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, soaps, wood, coal, glass, enamels, textiles, fabrics, plaster, agricultural products or animal products (no rendering or slaughtering). 19. Manufacturing, processing and /or assem- bling of previously manufactured metals, such as iron and steel fabrication; steel production by electric arc melting, argon oxygen refining, and consumable elec- trode 'melting; and similar heavy industrial uses. 20. Manufacturing, processing and /or assem- bling previously prepared metals including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand - forging. 21. Manufacturing, processing and /or assem- bling of electrical or mechanical equipment, vehicles and machines including, but not limited to, heavy and light machinery, tools, airplanes, boats or other trans- portation vehicles and equipment. Pstn d.lanua CO -C. C , C 22. Manufacturing, processing and /or packag- ing of food, including but not limited to, baked goods, beverages (including fermenting and distilling), candy, canned or preserved foods, dairy products and byprod- ucts, frozen foods, instant foods and meats (provided that no slaughtering is permitted). 23. Manufacturing, processing and /or packag- ing pharmaceuticals and related products, such as cos- metics and drugs. 24. Manufacturing, processing, and /or packag- ing previously prepared materials including, but not limited to, bags, brooms, brushes, canvas, clay, cloth - ing, fur, furniture, glass, ink, paint, paper, plastics, rubber, tile, and wood. 25. Manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging and /or repairing electronic, mechanical or precision instruments such as medical and dental equipment, photographic goods, measurement and control devices, and recording equipment. 26. Motels. .. 27. Offices; must be Associated with another permitted uses (e.g., administrative offices for a manu- facturing company present-within the MIC). 28. Outpatient, inpatient, and emergency med- ical and dental. • . M . - 29. Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. • 30. Railroad tracks, (including lead, spur, load- ing or storage). 31. Recreation facilities (commercial - indoor), athletic or health clubs. 32. Restaurants, including: a. drive - through; b. sit down; c. cocktail lounges in conjunction with a restaurant. 33. Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture, marble work, and the assembly of • products from the above materials. 34. Sales • and rental of heavy machinery and equipment subject to landscaping requirements of the Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/Solid Waste Space Requirements chapter of this title. 35. Salvage and wrecking operations. 36. Schools and studios for education or self - improvement. ' 37.,,Storage (outdoor) of materials is permitted up to a height of 20 feet with a front yard setback of 25 feet, and to, a height of 50 feet with a front yard setback of 100 feet; security required. - ' 38. Storage (outdoor) of materials allowed to be manufactured or handled within facilities conforming to uses under this chapter; and screened pursuant to the Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space Requirements chapter of this title. 39. Taverns, nightclubs. Printed January 2, 2003 40. Telephone exchanges. 41. Tow truck operations, subject to all addi- tional State and local regulations. 42. Truck terminals. 43. Warehouse storage and /or wholesale dis- tribution facilities. 44. Other uses not specifically listed in this title, which the Director determines to be: a. similar in nature to and compatible with other uses permitted outright within this district; and b. consistent with the stated purpose of this district; and c. consistent with the policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 1986 514, 2001; Ord, 1974 §10, 2001; Ord. 1971 §16, 2001; Ord. 1814 §2, 1997; Ord. 1774 §4, 1996; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.38.030 Accessory Uses Uses and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted 'use, and clearly incidental to such permitted use, are allowed within the .Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial district, as follows: 1. Billiard or pool rooms. 2. Dormitory as an accessory use to other uses that are otherwise permitted or approved condi- tional uses such as universities, colleges or schools. 3. Parking areas. • 4. Recreational area and facilities for employ- ees. 5. Residences for security or maintenance personnel. (Ord. 1976 §57, 2001; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.38.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial district,.subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Colleges and universities. 2. Electrical substations - distribution. 3. Fire and police stations. 4. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (off -site) subject to compliance with state siting criteria (RCW 70.105; see TMC 21.08). 5. Park and ride lots. • 6. Radios, television, microwave, cellular or observation stations and towers. 7. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. • 8. Retail sales of health and beauty aids, pre- scription drugs, food, hardware, notions, crafts and craft supplies, housewares, consumer electronics, photo equipment, and film processing, books, magazines, stationery, clothing, shoes, flowers, plants, pets, TITLE 18 - ZONING Page 18 -69 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE jewelry, gifts, recreation equipment and sporting goods, and similar items; limited to uses of a type and size that clearly intend to serve other permitted uses and /or the employees of those uses. (Ord. 1865 §44, 1999; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.38.050 Unclassified Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.66, Unclas- sified Use Permits. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. ' Correctional institution. 4. Electrical substation transmission /switching. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. - ..... ,.. . 7. Landfills and excavations which • the responsible official, ,acting:- pirsuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Manufacturing,. refining, or storing highly �..-; volatile noxious or explosive products (less than tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, or gas, matches, fertilizer or insecticides; except for accessory storage of such materials. 9. Mass transit facilities. 10. Railroad freight or classification yards. 11. Removal and processing of sand, gravel,.' rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 12. Secure community transition facility, sub- ject to the following location restrictions: a. No secure community transition facil- ity shall be allowed within the specified distances from the following uses, areas or zones, whether such uses, areas or zones are located within or outside the City limits: (1) In or within 1,000 feet of any resi- (2) Adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a "risk potential activity/facility" as defined in RCW 71.09.020 as amended, that include: (a) Public and private schools; (b) School bus stops; (c) Licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities; (d) Public parks, publicly dedicated trails, and sports fields; (e) Recreational and community dential zone. centers; (f) Churches, synagogues, tem- ples and mosques; and (g) Public libraries. (3) One mile from. any existing secure community transitional facility or correctional institution. . b. No secure community transition facil- ity shall be allowed on any isolated parcel which is otherwise considered eligible by applying the criteria listed under TMC 18.38.050 -12.a, but is completely surrounded by parcels ineligible for the location of such facilities. c. The distances specified in TMC 18.38.050 -12.a shall be 'measured as specified under Department of Social and Health Services guidelines established pursuant to RCW 71.09.285, which is by following a straight line from the nearest point of the property parcel upon which the secure community transitional facility is to be located, to the nearest point of the- parcel of property or land use district boundary line from which the proposed land use is to be sepa- rated. d. The parcels eligible for the location of secure community transition facilities by • applying the siting criteria listed above and information available as of August 19, 2002, . are shown in Figure 18 -11, "Eligible Parcels for Location of Secure Community Transition Facilities." Any changes' in the development pattern and the location of risk sites /facilities over time shall be taken into consideration to determine if the proposed site meets the siting criteria at the time of the permit application. 13. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. (Ord. 1991 §9, 2002; Ord. 1976 §58, 2001; Ord. 1865 §45, 1999; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.38.060 On -Site Hazardous Substances No on -site hazardous substance processing and handling, • or hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be permitted, unless clearly incidental and secondary to a permitted use. On -site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be subject to the State siting criteria (RCW 70.105). (See TMC 21.08.) (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.38.070 Design Review Administrative design review is required for new developments within 300 feet of residential districts or .within 200 feet of the Green /Duwamish River. • (Ord. 2005 §14, 2002; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995 C) CD Printed January 2, 2003 Section 1 Introduction ATTACHMENT F 1.1 BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila is preparing for the possibility that large amounts of industrial land in North Tukwila currently owned by Boeing may come on the market if Boeing downsizes. The City asked ECONorthwest for advice on how to respond if either buyers • or sellers of that property make the case that it should be rezoned to allow non - industrial uses. In particular, the City seeks an answer to the question: "Should the City preserve the industrial zoning and the land for industrial use, or should it rezone the land ?" To that end, the City hired ECONorthwest to look at demand and supply factors related to industrial land, and give an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the industrial zoning. 1.2 METHODS Industrial Land in North Tukwila Both the City and ECO acknowledge that this area of research could warrant a study well beyond the scope of this project. For example, a detailed analysis of the importance of the industrial land in Tukwila could benefit from a careful inventory of the amount, attributes, and price of industrial land throughout the entire Puget Sound region. This study could not conduct that analysis. Instead, it relies on existing data and synthesizes from various sources (data sets, reports, interviews) to create an understandable overview of demand and supply conditions for industrial land. 1.3 ORGANIZATION The rest of this report examines the demand and supply for industrial land. National trends are discussed, along with the relevance of the national trends to Tukwila's zoning. The discussion regarding demand for industrial land begins with defining industrial land and identifying the users of industrial land. It discusses the national and regional trends in industrial employment, and the changing nature of the demand for industrial lands. The supply for industrial lands within the central Puget Sound region is summarized next, along with infrastructure issues that affect the suitability of existing industrially zoned lands for industrial uses. Finally, the supply of land in Tukwila's industrially zoned areas is discussed and examined in terms of factors that affect the future supply and demand for Tukwila's industrial lands. ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 1 Section 2 Framework for the Evaluation 2.1 WHAT IS INDUSTRIAL LAND? What is commonly referred to as "industrial" land is land designated by a local government (in its Comprehensive Plan, implemented by its zoning ordinances) to allow (but not necessarily require) industrial uses. These industrial uses are described below. The land is designated industrial because it meets the needs of the industrial users. These needs include: proximity to transportation routes (interstate roadways, rail, water ports, airports), relatively low -cost land (to accommodate the relatively large land needs of many industries), and a location that reduces conflict with other uses. 2.2 WHO USES INDUSTRIAL LAND? Industrial uses are usually identified as a collection of sectors from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system: • Manufacturing • Transportation, Communication and Utilities • Wholesale Trade • Mining and Construction These sectors share some basic characteristics. First, they are often referred to as "traded" or "basic" sectors, which tend to be export- oriented and involved in direct creation of physical goods: (But note that this distinction has always been fuzzy and is getting blurrier in today's economy. Many businesses in the Services sector are export- oriented: e.g., business services and tourism). Second, they generally have the same building and land needs and site requirements. They cannot typically locate in high -rise office space or in storefront retail space, or in converted homes. This limitation is in part related to possible external effects that can make them unattractive neighbors; they can be noisy, dirty, smelly, or ugly. (But note that many industrial uses can have fewer external impacts than businesses in other sectors: e.g., on traffic). The limitation also relates to their general need for cheap land and proximity to transportation routes. There are two important points with regard to the relationship between industrial land and these "industrial" sectors. • Not all jobs in "industrial" sectors use industrially- designated land. For example, a head office of a manufacturing company is likely to be in a downtown office /commercial zone rather than in an industrial part of a city. Another example is that some firms in the industrial sectors are allowed to locate in general commercial or mixed -use zones and may do so. • Not all industrially- designated land is used by "industrial" sectors. Some businesses that are referred to by the SIC system as "services" need industrial land (for example, auto repair) because they share the same need for a location where land is cheap and where their activity is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, non - industrial uses that don't necessarily require the characteristics of industrial land (low price, access to transportation, etc.) may nevertheless locate there if (1) they are not prohibited from doing so, and (2) the market conditions allow them to out -bid industrial uses. For example, services ECONorthwest January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila Figure 1. How industrial and non - industrial businesses use industrial land Industrial Land in North Tukwila Industria may locate in an industrial area to serve food and other convenience needs of industrial workers. Residential uses may also find an industrial area attractive if the environmental effects of industry are not too deleterious and the location is convenient for residential living. Most significantly, given the focus of this study, professional offices and other commercial uses may locate on industrial land because they can out -bid industrial uses. This is the City of Tukwila's concern: that large amounts of industrial land will convert to non - industrial uses. Figure 1 shows this relationship between "industrial" jobs and "industrial" land, and why studies of industrial land like this one are tricky. On the "Land" side, our analysis is concerned with only land designated industrial, and is concerned with both vacant and developed industrial land. On the "Employment" side, the study cannot limit itself to industrial SICs: non - industrial users use industrial land. It also cannot limit itself to a subset of businesses that in some sense "need" industrial land, because many businesses that fail to meet whatever need criteria we might develop will still be users of industrial land. LAND Non Industrae t Industrial SIC 4 Need Industrial Land EMPLOYMENT Will Use Industrial Lan Non- Industria SIC Does Not Need Industrial Land Will Not Use Industrial Lan Among the questions that the City of Tukwila is asking with this study is "How much industrial land does the City or region need ?" Our general conclusion, described in the text above and illustrated in Figure 1, is that industrial land must accommodate most job growth in "industrial" sectors. It must also accommodate some job growth in "non- industrial" sectors. The analysis later in this memorandum attempts to quantify that general conclusion. 2.3 THE ROLE OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY IN AN ECONOMY Industrial activity generally involves the manufacturing or handling of goods for consumers or other industry. In economic parlance, industrial activity is termed "goods producing" industry. Its activity is generally considered a "high value added" activity, because relatively low -value inputs are used to create goods that have high market value. A service industry, by way of contrast, tends mainly to sell transformed labor services. Hence, the value of the service is largely linked directly to the value of the labor inputs. There is value added, of course, but this value added often is lower than in a good producing setting. ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 3 N. There are exceptions. Service sectors that use highly trained human capital may have high productivity and high value added. In addition, as technology increases the productivity of physical capital, less manufacturing and construction activity is required to produce the same output, so that incomes can rise despite lower manufacturing levels. The communication system, for example, is much more productive than it was in the past, but requires much less "brick and mortar" type activities and, hence, less construction activity. The importance of the value -added notion for a region is that a region's income depends largely upon the aggregate amount of value added that is created in that region. Although some of the value added "leaks" outside of the region as the result of non -local ownership of enterprises operating within the region, generally speaking, it is beneficial to have local firms engaged in high value -added activities, contributing to the income of the regional ownership and investors. The other advantage of a strong manufacturing sector to a region is that the industry tends to sell largely outside the region. In contrast, service industries tend to provide services more locally, and thus do not contribute as significantly to the "export" base of the region. The advantage of export- oriented businesses is that they introduce non -local spending into the local economy. Everything else being equal, such spending has a higher multiplier effect on local employment and income than spending created by diverting spending from one area to another internally to the region. Employment multipliers on pure service industries (and government) are much lower because they tend to involve "diverted" rather than "new" spending in the region. At the extreme, retail sales enterprises generally create large leakages of spending outside of the region, since most retail goods are not manufactured inside the region. In summary, industrial.activity that is high value -added and export oriented (i.e., exports outside of the region), has the greatest effect on maintaining a strong local economy, everything else being equal. There are some qualifications to this, and it is certainly the case that technology has diminished the role of traditional manufacturing, construction and mining activity in the economy. Nonetheless, most state and local governments try to encourage industrial development. Some do that by providing incentives; almost all try to ensure that they at least have provided adequate sites and infrastructure so that firms are not discouraged from moving to or remaining in the area. 2.4 IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL TRENDS FOR U.S. METROPOLITAN REGIONS A key question for this study is, Can the Puget Sound region can expect to retain much industrial activity, given the comparative cost advantage of manufacturing overseas and elsewhere in the U.S.? If it cannot, then maintaining industrial land reserves and other policies to maintain industrial site availability makes less sense. It is true that the United States, generally, and the Puget Sound region, specifically, now have a smaller share of employment in the manufacturing industries than they had in previous decades, and this share has been declining steadily. In the United States, the amount of employment in industrial sectors' has remained relatively flat over the past 45 years, but industrial employment as a share of total non -farm employment has declined dramatically from 40 percent in 1955 to 20 percent in 2000 (Figure 2). For this analysis, just the core sectors of manufacturing, mining, and construction; not wholesale trade or transportation, communication, and utilities. ECONorthwest • M C C C C January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila Figure 2. U.S. industrial employment as a share of total non -farm employment, 1955 -2000 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% .............. .-. 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 , 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: ECONorthwest analysis of United States Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This trend will not continue indefinitely. The theory of international trade explains why. Even if one country has an absolute cost advantage in every product, there will still be industrial activities that will survive in countries with the absolute cost disadvantage. The reason is that international trade patterns are driven by comparative cost advantage rather than absolute cost advantages. The theory of comparative economic advantage states that trade will occur so as to maximize the output of the world economy, given its labor and other resources. No single country is able to monopolize all industries because, if it were to do so, labor and other resources in other countries would not be utilized, and world output would decline. Exchange rates and local prices would move so as to make the relative prices in the advantaged and disadvantaged countries conducive to trade. If this were not the case, of course, trade could not occur at all in the extreme, since all flows of foreign currency would be in one direction. Hence, it is impossible for any one country or region to monopolize an industrial sector. Economists have demonstrated that as long a country is relatively more efficient at producing one good than another, it will be able to engage in the manufacture of the first good even though, in absolute terms, some other country could produce both goods more cheaply. These relative terms of trade will change over time, and there will definitely be industries that will leave the United States and the Puget Sound region for other countries. But there will remain some industries that are comparatively more efficient to operate in the United States, and industries that leave may return. The automobile 00 industry in the United States remains strong, for example, and in recent years, Japanese and German companies have found it comparatively less costly to manufacture their C vehicles in the United States. Ten years ago, it was widely believed that automobile manufacturing activity would be moving in the opposite direction. Industrial Land in North Tukwila ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 5 Page 6 Interregional (that is, within the United States) industry patterns are less subject to the law of comparative advantage, because there is no exchange -rate mechanism to contribute to the necessary adjustments in relative prices. Nevertheless, relative prices do change to maintain industry in all regions. For example, if all industrial activity tried to locate to a single, low -wage US region, the cost of housing and other amenities in the destination region would rise and higher wages would follow. Consequently, the Puget Sound region should not expect that all of its industrial activity will be lost to other regions in the United States, either. In summary, we do not interpret the long -run trends of a declining share of employment in industrial sectors in the US to mean that there will not be absolute growth in those sectors in the US, and in the metropolitan areas that compose it. As the next sections show, the official long -run regional forecasts are for growth in industrial employment. The exact amount of growth is certainly and always in question, but the underlying economic fundamentals of the US and Puget Sound economies make growth in industrial employment more likely than decline in the long run. ECONorthwest January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila C7) M Industrial Land in the Section 3 Puget Sound Region 3.1 DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION 3.1.1 TRENDS IN INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION Employment statistics help clarify the relationship between regional economic conditions and demand for industrial lands. PSRC analysis revealed that more than half (57 percent) of the region's industrial jobs were located on industrial lands . Manufacturing (70 percent) and transportation (60 percent) jobs are the most concentrated on industrial lands in the four -county region of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. These regional percentages closely match the distribution of jobs within King County alone, which is not surprising since King County jobs account for about 70 percent of the region's total. Of the 410,800 "covered" jobs located on industrial lands region -wide, two- thirds are classified as industrial by.our definition (also used in the PSRC report). The remaining one -third includes primarily jobs in the Services sector —many of which may be closely related to industrial jobs. Other jobs locating on industrial lands may not be industrial at all, but allowed in a particular city's zoning code for reasons unique to that city . 4 With more than 100,000 jobs in the central Puget Sound region at the time of PSRC's studies, the Boeing Company dominated industrial jobs. In 1999, the aerospace sector alone accounted for 25 percent of industrial jobs regionwide. The PSRC study found that aerospace employment alone accounted for more than 20 percent of the jobs located on industrial lands in the region (roughly 90,000 of the 415,000 jobs on industrial land). Within the region, industrial employment growth was concentrated in certain areas during the 1990s, though those areas were dispersed across the region (Figure 3). The two darkest shaded areas in Figure 3 show the effect of employment increases at Boeing, with growth concentrated in Everett'(Snohomish County) and the Kent Valley (King County). The shaded areas south of Seattle generally follow Interstate -5 into Pierce County. 2 Technical Addendum: Employment, Land Use and Infrastructure Characteristics of Lands Designated as Industrial in Comprehensive Plans (1998). Discussed in detail in the Supply section of this report. S Sub -area analysis completed by PSRC relies on data from the Washington State Employment Security Department, referred to as "covered employment." These jobs are covered by the State's unemployment insurance % ._:. program and estimated to generally exclude 10 – 14 percent of jobs (proprietors, self - employed, others). Also, the PSRC Technical Addendum utilized 1997 covered employment data for this analysis. CD 4 These percentages are similar to those found in a recent ECO report on industrial lands in the Portland metropolitan area. Industrial Land in North Tukwila ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 7 Page 8 ';'Cam_: _ i� 4 Ji �*?y?1";",�,'r1!',..'k??�:. Figure 3. Change in industrial employment, 1990 -1998 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2001. Note: Shaded areas are Forecast Analysis Zones from PSRC's small area forecasting model. Note that Seattle and the Duwamish industrial area, including North Tukwila, actually lost industrial employment during this period. There are several reasons for this loss: * 1990 was a peak year of employment for Boeing, and after sharp employment declines in from 1991 to 1994, the area added back some, but not all, of those jobs. * Recent reductions in industrial activity in these areas represent the first phases of a transition process. During this transition process old -line industrial uses move out of the area to, in effect, clear the way for new types of industrial uses that will be better able to take advantage of the areas' strengths. * Losses in industrial activity in these areas are the result of industrial users being priced out of the market entirely. * Boeing decentralized, shifting employment to Everett and the Kent Valley. * The apparent loss of industrial employment could be partially definitional: i.e., that the mix of businesses changed to ones that still desire industrial land, but are not classified as industrial uses (e.g., automobile repair). ECONorthwest • January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila 0 o• ri!��..rry?w F"'f t*' ..,{u;;p:a7:.t a .. +t..j� • +.:r ap�w are±s,:.•r k `�7 `land in North Tukwila Within the more recent period spanning 1995 to 1999, industrial employment growth was strong across the Puget Sound region, growing by 52,000 jobs, an average annual growth rate of 3.3 percent per year. A substantial portion of the region's industrial growth during the period was driven by employment increases at Boeing. Of the 52,000 added jobs, 25,000 were added in the aerospace industry alone. Excluding aerospace employment, employment in other industrial sectors grew at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent. Across the region, the relative importance of aerospace employment growth differed among counties. In Pierce and Snohomish Counties, growth in aerospace employment dominated all other industrial activity, accounting for 78 percent of the total growth for the period. In King County, however, industrial growth was much more diversified, with increases in aerospace employment accounting for only 36 percent of total growth. King County's industrial growth enjoyed substantial contributions from air transport industries, wholesale trade, communications, and the manufacturing of non - computer electronic equipment. 3.1.2 TRENDS IN REGIONAL DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND The demand for industrial land has been watched closely in recent years by local media. In Seattle, the industrial area surrounding the Duwamish River in the southern portion of the City has received much attention from the City and the media. Land prices in and nearby to Seattle have been bid up by retailers and other users, and many industrial users have reportedly found it difficult to remain at their existing locations. As prices become increasingly expensive, industrial and manufacturing land uses are converted to other uses such as retail stores, office buildings, condominiums, and hotels, all of which can support the higher price of land. For example, before the new baseball stadium was constructed, land zoned industrial to the south of the Kingdome was selling for $12 to $16 per square foot. By 1998, it was selling for $30 per square foot . Land prices throughout many portions of the region rose just as rapidly; the baseball stadium cannot receive all of the blame for this impact. Over the past several years, however, several parcels have been rezoned to accommodate offices and data centers in areas that have long been primarily heavy industrial. We scanned the local media to provide the following sampling of notable conversions to illustrate this trend: C\ - 6 DJC, Savelle, "City Ponders Ballpark Bufferzone," 1998. Cj \ 6 DJC, Nabbefeld, "A Provident deal for Martin Smith," 2000. '4, DJC, Nabbefeld, "A Provident deal for Martin Smith," 2000. O L • Martin Smith Inc. converted in May of 2000 a 60,000 square foot furniture warehouse west of the former Kingdome into high -tech offices . • Martin Smith maintains plans to convert a seven - plus -acre industrial site into a one - million - square -foot, mixed -use, urban-high -tech campus . • In April of 2000, James Walker sought a master use permit to change 20,800 square feet of warehouse space into office space, plus construct an additional 3,000 square feet of new office space! ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 9 Page 10 • In December of 2000, Romac, teaming with Trammel Crow Co., applied to convert a former pipe - making plant into a six -story, 100,000- square -foot office building, with an additional 62,500 square feet of data- center space . These conversions speak to several trends happening in industrial real estate, discussed throughout the report: manufacturing companies employ a higher percentage of office jobs; tech companies blur the line between manufacturing and service jobs; and architects cater to warehouse -style development for offices. The trend throughout the region is clear: retail, office, and flex- tech developers are willing to pay enough for industrial land to displace many industrial uses. 3.1.3 FORECAST FOR INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION Our assessment of the national and regional trends in industrial employment that we presented in the previous section is that there will be continued absolute growth in industrial employment, even though the share of employment in industrial sectors (measured as a percent of total employment) may decline more. In the extreme, to respond to a question that Tukwila asked us, we do not interpret the long -run trend of declining shares of employment in manufacturing to mean that demand for industrial land for industrial uses in the U.S. will get small quickly and that, therefore, there will be little demand for industrial land for industrial uses. In this section we look at the Puget Sound region in more detail. In 1997, the Puget Sound Regional Council forecasted that the region would add 480,000 jobs between 2000 and 2020, 62,500 of which would be in those employment sectors that generallyrequire industrial lands. As discussed throughout this report, it is difficult to relate job types and employment sectors by type to demand for land. Demand for land use types can be generalized in terms of employees per square foot, but there is not consistent correlation of employment types to land use types. If, as other studies suggest, 60 -80% of those industrial jobs locate on industrial land, that would be about 40,000 to 50,000 employees. If all that growth were accommodated on vacant land, that would require on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 acres of industrial land. PSRC forecasts that the additional industrial jobs will span the developed portions of the region, concentrated more heavily in the southern portion of Seattle, South King County, and in Everett, where aerospace jobs are concentrated (Figure 4)." e DJC, "Office Space For Industrial District," 2000. 9 DJC, Nabbefeld, "Romac May Convert Former Pipe Plant to Data Center, Offices," 2000. io Flex -tech space refers to buildings that serve dual purposes of office and light industrial, or office and warehouse. In practice, many realtors include typical warehouse and light industrial buildings when they refer to flex -tech. The intended definition refers to buildings that tenants can reconfigure relatively easily to suit their needs—typically referring to adjusting the amount of the building dedicated to office. Many high -tech related companies prefer this type of building, allowing some areas for assembly, staging, and delivery. ii These forecasts were developed prior to recent changes in the aerospace industry and Boeing. New forecasts are expected in 2002. ECONorthwest January 2002 .. ... pr- +'hww Irisre y,'M.'a14f,Y.4titk91Nn.\'% Industrial Land in North Tukwila di C rC" C J 1 Page 12 Supply and Demand in the Central Puget Sound Region (1995), summarized analysis of the region's net supply of industrial land and characteristics of major industrial areas, such as location, parcel sizes, price, and infrastructure. In April 2000, the Puget Sound Regional Council published Technical Addendum: Employment, Land Use and Infrastructure Characteristics of Lands Designated as Industrial in Comprehensive Plans, a technical addendum to the Industrial Land report. The Technical Addendum addressed three issues raised in the original report: employment analysis of industrial and non - industrial lands, varying zoning regulations among jurisdictions, and short-term usefulness of industrial lands. The UW/PSRC industrial lands report showed projected demand region -wide for 5,600 to 7,100 acres of industrial land for the period of(1997 to 2020, with the regional supply of vacant or redevelopable land totaling 21,000 acres. Those 21,000 acres include more than 7,000 acres that were not served adequately by infrastructure and transportation accessibility at that time (1995). The study also noted a discrepancy between the location of the supply of industrial land and the areas in which industrial lands are in high demand. The report showed that only 8 percent of the region's net supply of industrial land was located along the industrial corridor from the Duwamish River in Seattle south to Auburn. Tukwila's industrially zoned lands are located in the heart of this corridor. The majority of the net supply (81 percent) was found to be located in Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap counties. 3.2.2 OTHER BUILDABLE LAND STUDIES In 1998, the King County Growth Management Planning Council commissioned a study entitled, "King County Industrial and Commercial Land Capacity." That study found net buildable capacity of approximately 66.3 million square feet of industrial floor area, half of which is on vacant land, and the other half on redevelopable land. Of that total about two- thirds of the area is vacant, and the remaining one -third is redevelopable. In the King County study, the demand side of the industrial lands issue was framed in terms of employment targets. The County and cities have all adopted employment targets as part of the GMA requirements. The study concluded that the combined commercial and industrial capacity (on vacant and redevelopable parcels) was more than double the capacity necessary to meet the employment targets for 2020. The study examined parcel sizes and reported a wide range of parcel sizes available forindustrial uses. It did not make conclusions regarding the adequacy and suitability of parcel sizes. Rather, the conclusions focused on data improvements and future needs.of land capacity data. In 1994 the Kitsap Economic Development Council conducted a study of industrial land in Kitsap County. They found that less than 22 of the more than 1800 industrially - zoned acres in Kitsap County were free to be developed." A variety of problems were identified as barriers to development: contamination, lack of infrastructure, wetlands, steep slopes, poor location, lack of services, and increasing prices (again, elevated by competition from retailers who can afford to pay more for the land). In Portland, Oregon, several agencies recently co- sponsored a study similar to that of PSRC's, which ECO helped complete. That study showed similar findings as the PSRC report: while the gross supply of industrial land appeared to meet demand through 2020, only about one -third of the land supply was considered to be ready to develop. This study helps show that the industrial land supply is important throughout the Pacific Northwest. 13 DJC, Scott, "Industrial Land Supply: Is It Later Than We Think ?" 1994. ECONorthwest January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila Industrial Land in North Tukwila Figure 4. Change in industrial employment, 1999 -2020 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2001. ECONorthwest Snohomish King U J 199 &2020 Change in Employment (number of jobs) -100 -100 100 -4,443 4,444 - 8,453 EE 8 ,454 - 17,742 ® 17,743-34,989 CIO 12 We did not have the budget or time to conduct any original research. Many cities are in the process of updating their land inventories as part of their efforts to comply with state GMA requirements. It is interesting to compare the changes in industrial employment in the 1990s (Figure 3), to these forecasts generated by the PSRC. Perhaps most striking are PSRC's forecasts of strong industrial growth in Seattle's southern industrial corridor, an area that saw industrial job reductions in the 1990s. If the PSRC's forecasts of industrial growth in these areas are to be achieved, then a reversal of recent trends must occur. Given the large concentrations of job growth forecasted for these areas, a lot hinges on whether this reversal really takes place. 3.2 SUPPLY OF INDUSTRIAL LAND IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION The previous sections have focused on the demandfor industrial land, primarily by assuming a direct correlation between growth in industrial employment and the demand for industrial land on which to construct the buildings that will house that employment. This section looks at the supplyof industrial land in the Puget Sound region by summarizing from recent studies.' 3.2.1 PSRC /UW STUDIES, 1995 AND 2000 The Puget Sound Regional Council and the University of Washington Center for Community Development and Real Estate cooperated to complete the most comprehensive study to date of the region's industrial lands. Their report, Industrial Land January 2002 Page 11 .a .., h• .. � ..k�m�ti"fT,m+vr.; ,, ,.c± , ��yt vn�gru.;�a ^v+�ay.r^��- nam^n^e'*4m;�n -...n • yr; �. r. M.:,.; e�rtna., aY�. �.,r s., o: qc^ rnz* sYt;" ,,!i1?�rai'yswr•T.�s >•:.,..,.,. Tukwila's context for zoning decisions reaches far beyond city limits or even neighboring areas like Seattle and Kent. 3.2.3 RECENT TRENDS IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION Available evidence suggests that supply constraints are putting pressure on industrial users to move to the north, south, and east of King County's urban center. These supply constraints are manifest in (1) a scarcity of suitable sites, and (2) land values that have increased to a point where traditional industrial uses of the sites are no longer viable. Even in the Kent Valley, which absorbed much of the industrial development of the last decade, virtually all that remains for development are 8- to 10 -acre parcels. 14 Nick Cassino, a broker for Trammell Crow, said that it is very difficult to find a 30 or 40 -acre tract of land. That finding is identical to one in the recent comprehensive industrial land analysis in the Portland area. Brokers like Cassino foresee a future in which the region's growing population will compel several national companies to establish large distribution centers in Kent and Auburn. They predict that each one of these distribution centers could easily demand more than 1.5 million square feet. 3.3 SYNTHESIS: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND The weight of evidence suggest that the high land prices and dwindling supply of industrial land will continue to lead developers south of Seattle in search of cheaper and more readily available industrial land. According to Nick Cassino, a broker with Trammell Crow, "most of the new industrial construction will occur in Sumner and Fife as they serve as a bridge between the Kent/Auburn Valley and the Fife/Port of Tacoma." ECO's recent experience in Sumner leads us to believe Mr. Cassino's argument has merit. In recent years, the City of Sumner nearly doubled its geographic size by annexing agricultural land and zoning it industrial. Demand for the land has been very high since that time. The Tarragon Corporation is building a two - million- square -foot industrial park complex in Sumner, and has plans for a similar development to follow this one. Sumner is close to Tacoma and provides easy access to SR -167. This access will get even better when a new on -ramp opens in 2003. It is expected that the new on -ramp will stimulate the drive for additional southward development." Some even expect that the trend of development moving to the south could reach as far as Lacey, near Olympia, along Interstate 5. 1 . One notable exception is a 200 -acre parcel that Boeing recently put on the market in the Kent valley. 15 PSBJ, Broberg, "Pure industrial deals flow south of border to Sumner," 2001. 16 DJC, Staff, "Industrial, High -Tech Vacancies Remain Low, Rents Head Higher." 17 PSBJ, Rosenberg, Industrial Market: The South Will Rise Again," 1999. 16 PSBJ, Rosenberg, Industrial Market: The South Will Rise Again," 1999. The Pierce County market area is ranked third in the Puget Sound region in terms of industrial building inventory, only surpassed by South King County and Seattle, and followed closely by East King County where the majority of industrial space has been used by high -tech companies. In 1999, more than 150 of the total 201 million square feet of industrial space was located out of Seattle proper. Forty percent of this stock was in South King County alone. The year before, in 1998, net absorption was negative 500,000 Industrial Land in North Tukwila ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 13 - .. _.�..,.. ..»...... .'... �' � ?1J �' y. ._- .....�:v""'�:,,.s s - n �� ,» N ., �-. a � y. � ..�"'�'C�'.'+5' �a »..r,��.e..,�r.>,.. -. Page 14 square feet in Seattle, while South King County absorbed 1.5 million square feet. Comparatively, Pierce County and East King County each absorbed just over 600,000 square feet. Between 1997 and 1999 the overall trend in the industrial market appears more or less the same; Seattle had a negative net absorption of 1.2 million square feet, South King absorbed 4 million, Pierce 1.9 million, East King 1.5 million, and Snohomish County more than 700,000. Other areas in the region have also seen increased demand for industrial land. North, in Snohomish County, companies from Seattle and the Eastside continue to search for larger spaces with lower rents. The strength of this trend has reportedly increased since 1995. Snohomish County, however, has seen less industrial influx than south King County and Pierce County due to Snohomish County's strict building codes. Industrial land is hard to come by in Snohomish County. Even though the North End market has good accessibility, located at the convergence of Interstate 5 and Interstate 405, very little land in the area is zoned for industrial uses. Most of the industrial growth in Snohomish County is occurring in two locations: south Everett, including Seaway Center and Paine Field, and the Harbour Pointe area of Mukilteo. The airport authority controls Paine Field, however, so there are more restrictions on land use than at Seaway. Seaway Center will also acquire more space soon when sand - and - gravel mining land is converted into industrial space 2 Industrial land in the central areas of the region is being used increasingly by non- industrial uses. More than any other reason, non - industrial users' greater willingness to pay for those lands appears to drive the displacement of the industrial users from industrial lands. Where unregulated by restrictive zoning, the market for these centrally located lands is shifting to non - industrial uses. At the same time, South King County communities have opened up more land for industrial use and provided industrial companies and developers less expensive alternatives to staying or developing in the Duwamish Corridor. These outlying alternatives have proven to be more attractive to industrial uses than bidding against other commercial uses for the interior lands. The locational advantages of the more centrally located land has not changed, however, and industrial users continue to rank those locations high. That ranking remains high based on access to the freeway system, the Port of Seattle, and rail connections. 20 PSBJ, Taylor "Snohomish County Industrial Market Feels High -tech Pull," 2001. 19 Greater Seattle Industrial Forecast: 1999 published by Kidder Mathews & Segner. ECONorthwest January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila i Section 4 Industrial Land in North Tukwila W 4.1 DEMAND: EMPLOYMENT ON LAND IN NORTH TUKWILA The North Tukwila study area, for purposes of this analysis, includes the area within City boundaries north of South 126 Street. Within this study area, our analysis focuses on those parcels zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center/ Heavy Industrial (IVIIC/H), ;F— Z Manufacturing Industrial Center/ Light Industrial (MIC/L), and Heavy Industrial (HI). 6 ,J 4.1.1 CURRENT DEMAND U 0 In 1999, the North Tukwila study area supported roughly 3,200 "covered" non- 11.1 _ Boeing jobs, 73 percent of which were in industrial sectors according to our working co L definition. Figure 5 shows the location of these jobs. w O 2 More than 2,000 of the total non - Boeing jobs were in firms engaged in g manufacturing, with a much smaller portion in the transportation, communication, and N �! utilities sector. In addition, much of the non - industrial commercial activity was in = Ci industries that served industrial users. Z �. I— 0 Z F— LU ui U O U 0 F•- w W U . U- • Z U = O ~ Industrial Land in North Tukwila ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 15 Z C C C C Page 18 4.1.2 POTENTIAL FUTURE DEMAND The Puget Sound Regional Council forecasts that, over the 20 -year period spanning 2000 to 2020, the five TAZs that include the North Tukwila study area will see net industrial job growth of 2,700, and overall job growth of 5,700. Nearly all of that forecasted growth is expected to occur in TAZs 330 and 341, which capture the northern and southern ends of the study area respectively. If we assume that the forecasted employment growth will occur in industries that require the large amounts of floor area per employee typically associated with industrial uses (600 square feet per employee), then the PSRC forecasts imply that, in total, the five TAZs will occupy 3.4 million square feet of industrial and commercial floor space. Given current vacancy rates, most of the space will have to be built. If we limit our analysis to only those uses that fall within our identified industrial categories, the demand for additional "industrial" floor area approaches 1.6 million square feet. At an average floor -area ratio of 0.4 (which is on the high side), this translates into a need for 4 million square feet of industrial land (or more than 90 acres). Beyond the demand for industrial uses forecasted by the PSRC's model, we believe that, if one takes into consideration the forces at work in industrial areas to the north in the Seattle Duwamish corridor, a case can be made for even greater levels of demand for Tukwila's industrial lands. As we noted previously, PSRC's forecasts call for strong industrial job growth in Seattle's southern industrial corridor. Recent trends, however, show that many of the areas for which this growth is slated have actually experienced losses in industrial employment. If these trends were to persist, then a couple of different conclusions could follow. First, it could be the case that the PSRC forecasts are at too great a variance with reality and would need to be adjusted. Or, second, if the aggregate forecast is still roughly correct, then the employment growth has to be shifting to other areas. As one of the next most logical places to look for a centrally located industrial site, Tukwila should be well positioned to accommodate at least a potion of this growth. 4.2 SUPPLY: CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRIAL LAND IN NORTH TUKWILA Figure 7 shows the location of vacant industrial land in North Tukwila. Among the points it illustrates is one obvious to people familiar with the area: it is primarily developed, and vacant parcels are scattered throughout it. ECONorthwest January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila Industrial Land in North Tukwila Figure 7. Vacant industrial land in study area (color coded by parcel size), 2001 Vacant Industrial Parcels (ScgFt) 1,200 - 54,885 54,886 - 133,910 ,; �: •- 133,911 - 232,280 Etifil 232,281 - 554,000 El Study Area Boundary ® Tukwila City Boundary Industrial Parcels Tukwila area parcels .'''.. • Streets EM Water Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2001. 4.2.1 ZONING Roughly 169 tax parcels in North Tukwila (the study area) have an industrial zoning designation. This area has about 1,300 acres of land in parcels (57.1 million square feet). Nearly all of this land (96 %) is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Industrial (MIC/H); 3.5 %, Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light Industrial (MIC/L); and just over .5 %, Heavy Industrial (HI) (Figure 8). ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 19 .o Page 20 Figure 8. Current industrial zoning designations in the study area, 2001 Study Area Boundary Tukwila City Boundary Tukwila area parcels Streets Water t!®J Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2001. As described in the City's zoning code, the MIC/H "is intended to provide a major employment area containing heavy or bulk manufacturing and industrial uses, distributive and light manufacturing and industrial uses, and other uses that support those industries." The heavy industrial uses permitted include a variety of manufacturing activities, including the manufacturing and processing of metals, materials (plastics, textiles, etc.), food production, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and other traditional manufacturing activities. A range of land uses that could support heavy industrial activity is also allowed, including personal services and eating and drinking places. Offices are allowed if they are associated with another permitted use, intended to provide for office space related to industrial activity. Offices permitted in both the MIC/H ECONorthwest January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila and the MIC /L areas can only be associated with other permitted uses, and not at all in areas zoned Heavy Industrial. The MIC/H and MIC /L zoning designations are similar but not identical. In the MIC /L -zoned areas, some heavier industrial uses are not allowed, such as: manufacturing, processing and/or assembling of chemicals, heavy metals, light metals, previously processed metals, plastics, textiles, agricultural products, or animal products. Rock -and concrete - related activity is permitted in the MIC /L areas, but not in the MIC/H w or the HI areas. rt 2 JU 4.2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS U O co w All of the industrial parcels in this area are well served by a network of water j _ c divided into three districts: Water District 20, Water District 125, and the co„ Tukwila Water District. Eighty-six percent of the study area is served by the Tukwila w 0 Water district, leaving 9 percent served by Water District 125, and 5 percent by the Seattle Water District. The City's entire service area is currently supplied entirely from the City of Seattle's water system through a long -term purveyor contract. Nearly all of co the water supplied to Tukwila comes from the Cedar River Watershed through the 60- � w inch Cedar River Pipeline No. 4 on the south and the 48 -inch West Seattle supply line on z z Tukwila is an 18 -inch pipe the runs underneath East H the north. The line supplying P�P �-- O Marginal Way South and draws at a rate of 10,000 gallons per minute. w t— w All of the industrial parcels are also well served by three sewer districts: Tukwila v ,._ Sewer serves approximately 47 percent of the study area, Val Vue Sewer serves roughly o H r.. 37 percent, and Seattle Sewer serves about 16 percent of the area. The sewer network w E` consists of at least 30 miles of concrete pipe with some portions of PVC, asbestos H v cement, cast iron, and ductile iron mains. The City of Tukwila owns and operates eight u_ ~O (8) sewage lift stations within its sewage collection system. .. z Uu In addition to the area's robust water and sewer system, industrial parcels in the study i o H area benefit from an extensive network of fiber optics cables. As of July 2001, six z companies (Level 3, 360 Network, Mcleod USA, Metromedia, Williams, ELI, and MCI Worldcom) maintained fiber optic lines in Northern Tukwila. Two lines run south along Interstate 5; two more run along East Marginal Way South; one along Interurban Avenue South; and one runs along the Tukwila International Boulevard. Excellent road capacity serves parcels in the MIC area, providing access to Duwamish industrial areas and the region's freeways. This access creates a comparative advantage over many industrial areas in the region, where regional congestion slows access to important freight and shipping destinations. East Marginal Way South serves the planning area. Between the Boeing Access Road and the City's northern limits, East Marginal Way S. varies between seven and nine travel lanes, with easy access to 1 -5. Industrial Land in North Tukwila ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 21 Section 5 Conclusions The City of Tukwila asked ECONorthwest for advice on how to respond if either buyers or sellers of industrial property make the case that it should be rezoned to allow non - industrial uses. In particular, the City seeks an answer to the question, "Should the City preserve the industrial zoning and the land for industrial use, or should it rezone the land ?" To that end, the City hired ECONorthwest to look at demand and supply factors related to industrial land, and give an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the industrial zoning. We were asked to give an overview of regional demand and local demand for industrial lands. We presented that overview in this report, and supplemented the overview with a discussion of national and global economic factors that influence and shape the demand for industrial land in Tukwila. In addition, we examined regional employment forecasts and analyzed the supply of industrial land in Tukwila relative to potential industrial land demand based on those employment forecasts. The main points of that analysis are summarized in this section. In addition to that summary, this section includes a final section on issues related to City decisions about zoning. It discusses the implications of competing demand for land currently zoned industrial, and some final thoughts on the value of keeping the land zoned for industrial uses. 5.1 LIKELY DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND The share of traditional industrial activity in the nation and in the Puget Sound region has declined in recent years, but it need not continue to decline from today's levels. Depending upon technological, economic, and political events, including foreign economies and exchange rate movements, it is even conceivable that the industrial share of employment could rise in the region in the future. Page 22 ECONorthwest Fundamental to a discussion of demand is a consideration of price. If price is perceived by consumers as very. low (relative to their assessment of value), demand will be high. This simple idea, which most consumers and businesses in the U.S. economy understand intuitively, has important implications for the an evaluation of industrial land. The demand for industrial land at current prices for industrial land is high. If those prices rise substantially — primarily because of the assessment of developers and businesses that alternative uses (e.g., commercial) will yield a greater return than industrial uses —then the demand by industry for that land decreases. That point has to be understood if one is to understand the evaluation that follows. In short, if public policy (e.g., zoning) constrains the uses of land to a narrow and clearly defined set of industrial uses, then those uses are competing only against themselves for land acquisition, and the value of industrial uses will dictate (and cap) the price of land. The price will also be held lower by the price of cheaper suburban industrial sites that industrial users have as alternatives. In that world, we are saying that employment forecasts and trends in the Duwamish Corridor suggest that demand for industrial land in North Tukwila will remain strong, even with decreases in the forecasted share of industrial employment region -wide. The City strives to accommodate this demand, which increases the likelihood that industrial users will choose this area. For example, the City reports that it has taken steps to reduce contamination at brownfield sites in order to make them attractive for development. These steps help reduce the cost of land that new users would ordinarily January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila J • • dustrial Land in North Tukwila incur themselves. Such measures make it easier for new industry to locate in the industrial area. There is, however, a different world we could assume: one in which "industrial" uses are broadly defined in industrial zones, or in which zoning is relatively easy to change. In that world, the price of land in North Tukwila could be strongly affected by the value of that land to commercial users. Earlier parts of the report show the differences in land z value that result. In short, land prices get high enough that many industrial users are not = H interested. In that world, demand for industrial land in North Tukwila by industrial users Z is low: they cannot bid what commercial users can. 6 U In the first world —the one where zoning limits commercial use of industrial land— (..) and— o our analysis of the commercial areas surrounding and including the northern Tukwila w w study area suggests that industrial land users will require at least an additional 90 acres of land by 2020. The land in this area is already incorporated and zoned. As a result, the O forecasted demand, as it materializes, will increase pressure for conversions of surrounding areas currently zoned for non - industrial uses, while at the same time put 5 upward price pressure on those areas already zoned for industrial uses. U- < This analysis is based on the PSRC forecasts of jobs in and around the study area. The PSRC forecasts provide a good starting point for this analysis and show that regional z economic growth through 2020 will drive employment growth in the Tukwila area as z O well. We believe that there will be growth in industrial employment provided, among w w other things, that land with suitable attributes (including location and price) is available. o U But (again) availability is ultimately a matter of price. Non - industrial commercial o j— land users have shown an ability to pay higher prices for land than many traditional = w manufacturing and industrial users. In absence of zoning, therefore, continued long -run F– expansions of the services sectors will cause a shift of industrial land toward non - "-- z 0 industrial uses. That trend is consistent with theory, evidence from studies showing non- w industrial users on industrial land, and recent experience in the Seattle region. U O In sum, there will be demand for industrial land from both industrial and non- Z industrial users. Upward pressure on land price may cause industrial users to move farther away from Seattle if the prices of industrial lands reflect commercial prices. This will happen if commercial developers know they can receive (or believe they have a reasonable chance of receiving) variances or zone changes to allow commercial development. Among the questions that the City of Tukwila is asking with this study is "How much industrial land does the City or region need ?" Our general conclusion is that industrial land must accommodate most job growth in "industrial" sectors. It must also accommodate some job growth in "non- industrial" sectors. Given the scarcity of suitable industrial sites in King County's urban core, and given the characteristics of Tukwila's industrial areas, we believe that strong demand should exist for development of Tukwila's available industrial parcels (assuming prevailing zoning and prices). Although the PSRC forecasts strong industrial growth in Seattle's industrial corridor, recent evidence suggests that growth in Seattle will need to occur in the face of increased competition from alternative uses. As the one of the next most M logical places to look, Tukwila should be well positioned to accommodate displaced 1 n users. CD ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 23 (�'.'1 Tpf To some degree, sites can be maintained in a flexibly configurable manner so that sites can be converted, as the market requires, among service and manufacturing functions. There is a limit, however, to the extent that this can be done without creating settings with incompatible uses. When this happens, the sites can become less attractive to both manufacturing and non - manufacturing uses. 71 Earlier parts of the report have described the reasons that the City might choose to protect the industrial land for industrial use.: Protecting the land for manufacturing and industrial uses will continue to provide land for-the trade and manufacturing industries, both of which typically provide relatively more stable, family -wage � - employment, for skilled and lower - skilled workers. Industrial uses are most frequently aligned with export Lt.) companies (basic) that bring new revenues into the region, as opposed to shifting resources within the region, more typified by office uses. And, Tukwila already has a substantial commercial base in the Tukwila Urban Center. O O Page 24 5.2 ISSUES RELATED TO REZONING Cities throughout the Puget Sound region should maintain a policy that does not irreversibly reduce the availability of industrial sites. Or, to make the same point from a different direction, by maintaining available industrial sites, the Puget Sound region may be able to retain or attract a disproportionate share of this activity relative to other regions. Although recent trends make it tempting to conclude that the future of the region is in information and other service -based activity, some form of manufacturing activity will remain an important aspect of the economic base of the region. Some of today's manufacturing activity looks more like service activity than traditional manufacturing activity. Many manufacturing companies employ an increasing percentage of workers in jobs stationed at desks and computers and a decreasing percentage of traditional assembly workers. Changes in technology, transportation, and communication have increased the number of office workers within industrial companies. Jobs at these companies consist of a higher percentage of engineers, logisticians, and administrative staff than in earlier industrial eras. Similarly, robotics and assembly technology advances in manufacturing companies have decreased the number of manual - labor employees necessary, while achieving greater output. These trends have affected the amount of land required by many industrial companies. Nonetheless, many such enterprises continue to require a large campus, with good transportation access, access to housing, etc. These are the same basic needs as their heavy industrial predecessors. We have prepared and analyzed all of this information to aid the City in deciding whether to change the existing zoning in the study area, currently zoned primarily MIC/H designation. We framed the analysis according to the City's request of us: keep the zoning industrial if there will be a demand for industrial lands for the foreseeable future. This analysis, then, suggests that maintaining the MIC/H designation would continue to serve a valuable role for the future needs of industrial users. The City may wish to consider a range of policy options that we were not asked to consider, but present here for future consideration. We are not making an absolute recommendation here that the City should adopt more regulations of industrial land to protect it from conversion to other uses. Rather, we are making a contingent recommendation: If the City wants more protection, then these are the kinds of regulations to consider :" ECONorthwest January 2002 Industrial Land in North Tukwila z w o: 0 0 c o • uJ J = F � w 0 2 = • a I - w z = I— O Z ~ w 0 O — o 1- w w I 1- 0 LI O w z • C° 1 I O ~ z Industrial Land in North Tukwila • In the MIC/H designations, the enforcement of its restrictive office allowances (only as accessories for companies engaged in heavy industry activity) will reduce the conversion of higher -value office space from squeezing out traditional industrial and manufacturing uses. • The City should closely evaluate the zoning allowances for MIC/H, MIC /L, and C/LI to make sure that current zoning does protect industrial land, while allowing flexibility to go with changes in industries. The evaluation should ensure that the zoning is more performance based, rather than defined by the intensity of land use. The zoning should continue to strive to accommodate those basic industries that generate regulated negative externalities not accepted elsewhere in the City or the region. ECONorthwest January 2002 Page 25 l 1.0 •O Q .CL 1.11 0. 0' MEETING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director - STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 26, 2003 Notice published in the Seattle Times on June 13, 2003 L02 -064 (Comprehensive Plan) L02 -065 (Zoning Code) - City of Tukwila ,.1- Amend Comprehensive Plan/Development Regulations for Sensitive Areas to incorporate "Best Available Science" per GMA requirements • City -wide COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Varies ZONE DESIGNATION; Varies Rebecca Fox A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Attachment 5 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 FINDINGS VICNITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description The City of Tukwila requests amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code as necessary to: 1) include "best available science" in developing policies and development regulations that protect the functions and values of critical /sensitive areas as defined in the Growth Management. Act; and 2) give special consideration to preserving or enhancing anadromous fisheries. The requested amendment serves as a "placeholder" until specific policies are developed and presented for consideration. Surrounding Land Uses Environmentally sensitive areas include wetlands, watercourses and steep slopes. They are located throughout Tukwila; in many differedt land use zones. THRESHOLD REVIEW CRITERIA ' • 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there .a need for it? Per the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) and the King County Countywide Planning Policies, Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes a Natural Environment chapter with information about critical and priority areas such as wetlands, watercourses and geologically hazardous areas. TMC 18.45 - Sensitive Areas Overlay contains development standards for protecting environmentally sensitive areas. - Since Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, the GMA was amended to clarify the state's goals and policies for protecting critical areas functions and values. Per RCW 36.70A.172 (Critical areas Designation and protection —Best available science to be used ), local governments are required to include the "best available science" in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas as defined in the GMA, and must give special consideration to preserving or enhancing anadromous fisheries. Before December 1, 2004, local governments are required to include this information in their comprehensive plans. Work has been underway to review scientific literature, inventory sensitive areas, update slope maps, and integrate new geotechnical and watercourse /wetland information into the GIS mapping system. This "placeholder" amendment will allow Tukwila to proceed with policy development. 2 0 0 2. Impacts The amendment will affect environmentally sensitive areas throughout the city. Once the review of "best available science" has been completed, policies will be developed and specific impacts will be known. 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? Amending the Comprehensive Plan is the best means to ensure that the state's requirement for "best available science" and provisions for anadromous fish can be incorporated into Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan policies and Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The review of "best available science" may show that some Comprehensive Plan policies need to be changed. Depending on the extent of the changes that are needed, it could be difficult to change the Sensitive Areas Ordinance without revising Comprehensive Plan policies. 4. Will the proposed changes result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what result can be expected and why We do not yet know.the. specific changes, that might be needed to the Comprehensive Plan or Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Revised, policies and regulations are likely to result in a net benefit to the coilitunity since the revisions will meet state requirements and will be based on a review of the best available science pertaining to slopes, wetlands and watercourses. Any changes will reflect the most recent thinking. CONCLUSIONS The State of Washington has changed the Growth Management Act. These changes • require Tukwila to incorporate a review of "Best Available Science" and provisions for . anadromous fish into its Sensitive Areas policies and ordinance. Preparing a " placeholder" ordinance is the best means to meet State requirements to ensure that new information is incorporated into policies and regulations pertaining to Sensitive/Critical Areas. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: Approve a general "placeholder" amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which updates the Sensitive Areas/Natural Environment — related policies to reflect changes in the Growth Management Act requirements including consideration of "best available science." During its review, the Planning Commission could: • Recommend approval; • Modify the proposal; • Recommend denial. : After the Planning Commission review, the proposed amendment will be brought before tfJ the City Council for a public hearing and decision. Ca rJ" 3 4 r. • NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPME 7 4 - : Upd -at.e 2'oning Code (as appropriate) pertaining to Sensitive Areas LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant. indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision makine. authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Address: City —wide _ ATTACHMENT A CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 3 2002 COMPREHENSIVE • Department of Community DevelopmelsrM M UN j 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA Sill :?„ ME PLAN /ZONING CODE Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 AMENDMENTS ENDMENTS E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us : - . - - • , Phone: ')nA— [131 -1AA3 G AAPPHAMLANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/:6ro0 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188 FAX: Signature: Date: 2n6 -431 -3665 12/26/02 rn r) C C C C FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA . Planner: Rebecca Fox File Number: LUZ — Ub. Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: 4 r. • NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPME 7 4 - : Upd -at.e 2'oning Code (as appropriate) pertaining to Sensitive Areas LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant. indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision makine. authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Address: City —wide _ ATTACHMENT A CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 3 2002 COMPREHENSIVE • Department of Community DevelopmelsrM M UN j 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA Sill :?„ ME PLAN /ZONING CODE Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 AMENDMENTS ENDMENTS E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us : - . - - • , Phone: ')nA— [131 -1AA3 G AAPPHAMLANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/:6ro0 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188 FAX: Signature: Date: 2n6 -431 -3665 12/26/02 rn r) C C C C A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: Various, including LDR, TUC, MIC /H Proposed: No change proposed 13. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: Various, including LDR, TUC, MIC /H Q No change proposed = Z ; Proposed: ' • cc ¢¢= JU 00 (0 o U) LLI J = Existing: Vari rnia, r1Pppnaing nn 1 nr•ati nn N ~ Proposed: No change proposed w O 2 (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) g � D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: 1.- I C. LAND USE(S): CD Describe the existing uses located wai 1,000 feet in all directions'. from the property or area for Z o which a change is prgposed. = WW Various, depending on location n 0 o O = O H W I ~ H L - 6 O z G :UPPNANILINDUSE.APPCOMPAPP.doc. 002t/00 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMA 18.80.050) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? Per the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) and the King County Countywide Planning Policies, Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes a Natural Environment chapter with information about critical and priority areas such as wetlands, watercourses and geologically hazardous areas. Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, the GMA has been amended as concerns "critical areas." A new section was added to the GMA that clarified the state's goals and policies for protecting critical areas functions -and values. Per RCW 36.70A.172 (Critical areas — Designation and protection —Best available science to be used ), local governments are required to include the "best available' science" in developing policies and development regulations to pFotzcf the functions values of critical areas as defined in the GMA, ad must give special consideration to preserving or enhancing anadromous fisheries. 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? A Comprehensive Plan amendment is the best means to ensure that the state's requirement for "best available science" is included in Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan policies and Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The result of the review for "best available science" is may result in changes to the Comprehensive Plan policies. Depending on the extent of the needed changes, it would be difficult to change the Sensitive Areas Ordinance without revising Comprehensive Plan policies. 3. Why will the proposed changes result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? We do not know the extent of possible changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Revised policies are likely to result in a net benefit to the community since they will be based on a review of the best available science pertaining to slopes, wetlands and watercourses. This review will be incorporated into any new policies, ensuring that they are up -to -date. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (TMC 18.80.010) 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; We propose to include "best available science" in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical /sensitive areas as defined in the Growth Management Act and give special consideration to preserving or enhancing anadromous fisheries. 2. A . statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed' change; The potential amendment will affect environmentally sensitive areas throughout the city. Once the content of the "best available science" is determined, its policies will be developed and specific impacts will be known. 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or • development. regulation are deficient or should not continue in In 1995, a new section was added to the Growth Management Act that clarified the state's goals and policies for protecting critical areas' functions and values. Local governments are required to include the "best available science" in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas as defined in the GMA and must give special consideration to preserving or. enhancing anadromous fisheries. Tukwila ' must amend • its Comprehensive Plan to include these requirements. 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; Please refer to #3 above. 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; . The proposed amendment complies with Chapter II, Critical Areas, Sections A (Overall Environmental Protection), B (Wetlands Protection), D (Fish and Wildlife Protection), and F (Geologic Hazard Areas.) �_ �IW{:flGrdi{•`J N "f'NiE z z CC w QQ J U O 0 co co J � w w 5 �Q I w Z = zI- w U � o S O H w W I- o w z U= O 1— z 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is Q adopted; • t = - W ce D Any specific impacts of the proposed amendment on functional plans -J o are unknown at this time. Possible revisions to the Natural Environment cn W policies might require chan to the Storm and Surface Water Plan. i CO W wo 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be g Q needed to support the proposed change, and how the Cl) a proposed change. will affect the capital facilities plans of -1 _ the City; and _ ? F- The specific ic any � impacts, if , of the proposed amendment on capital w o improvements oftthg capital facilities plans of the City are unknown at this ? o time. o FL) o1- 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in i W other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the u, o proposed change. ui z A specific changes to other City plans, regulations or codes are P I unknown at this time. z ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity. • with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; Specific changes are unknown at this time. All changes to the Zoning Code will be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding. No specific development is proposed with this amendment. C'r) fl CD HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: - ,_ - REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwlla Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 26, 2003 Eric Robb/Barghausen Consulting Engineers Attachment 6 Notice mailed to surrounding properties, June 12, 2003 Notice published in the Seattle Times, June 13, 2003 Site posted, June 19, 2003 • -L02.067 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) L02 -0.68 (Rezone) Change Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard (Tax Parcel #s 0003200017, 0003200018, 0003200019) Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - significance (DNS) Rebecca Fox A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application B. Aerial photo , C. Zoning Map with 2' Contours D. Zoning Map E. Sensitive Areas Map F. Site Survey G. Memo from Brian Shelton, 6/6/03 H. Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised 6/6/03) with letter and e-mail from David Schwegel Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 L02 -067, L02.068 Robb Rezone /CPA FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description The applicant Eric Robb proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map designations at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard (S. 154 St.), Tukwila from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0). Vicinity/Site Information The affected properties include three individual tax lots with a combined area of approximately .74 acres. Two separate single - family residences face Southcenter Boulevard and sit well above the roadway. One single - family residence occupies Tax Lot#003200018 (6542 Southcenter Boulevard/6542 S. 154 St.) and the other residence is located on Tax Lot #003200019 (6550 Southcenter Boulevard/6550 S. 154 St.). The two houses share steep gravel (Tax Lot#003200017) which provides the only access to Southcenter Boulevard. A third house, located at 6532 Southcenter Boulevard, but natpludedi in the request, also uses the driveway to enter and leave the property. In its Traffic Impact Analysis, Barghausen Consulting Engineers states that the driveway grade is approximately 12% based on visual observation, and by comparison to S. 178 Street. However; measurements taken from the site'survey which Barghausen prepared show that the driveway is approximately 22.5% grade. For purposes of the applicant's proposal, the driveway grade must be determined by field survey and not visual checking. Located in a 40' access and utility easement owned by the State of Washington Department of Transportation, the existing driveway is approximately 12 to 13' wide with a masonry wall flanking either side to a width of approximately 25'. The steep driveway more or less bisects the two residential properties. It lacks the 2 to 3% landing approaching the sidewalk and intersection, which is typically needed for commercial purposes. A survey requested by the City of Tukwila shows that portions of the building and retaining wall at 6550 Southcenter Boulevard (on Tax Lot #003200019) encroach from approximately 12 to 20 feet onto the adjacent lot to the north (Attachment E —Robb Site Survey) The site contains steep slopes. The Sensitive Areas Overlay shows that over 50% of the site is located within a Class 3 area of potential geologic instability. ( See Attachment D— Sensitive Areas Map) Class 3 areas are those where "landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or bedrock, and which also include areas sloping more than 40 percent." 2 L02 -067, L02 -068 Robb Rezone/CPA DISCUSSION The City Council held a public meeting on this issue on March 17, 2003 and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Traffic, circulation and site access are primary concerns in considering redesignating this site from Low Density Residential to Office. Although no specific development is proposed at this time, the City of Tukwila requested that the applicant prepare a traffic study (Attachment H) to give a general idea of the potential impacts of office development on the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis compared the effects of office, medical/dental and retail, and selected a medical/dental use for analysis, since its projected average parking need was the highest of the three uses. The Traffic Impact Analysis considers a 9,000 square foot facility, which requires 37 parking spaces . Tukwila's Zoning Code requires a minimum of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of usable space, for a minimum of 27 spaces. The Traffic Impact Analysis suggested that parking could be provided by terraced areas with stairways, but does not take into account the steep and unstable slopes which cover much of the site. No allowance was made for on- site circulation or 144dscaping. Sifillt lines are deficient. Surrounding Uses t , - , Land uses immediately adjacent to the site are: North — Single family residential; wooded vacant land South— Southcenter Boulevard and I-405 Interchange East Southcenter Boulevard and I -405 Interchange West — Office /commercial; park; single - family residential Land uses between 500 and 1,000 feet from the site include the following: North — Condominiums South — Commercial retail and service station East—I-405 Interchange, Green River, hotel/motel West — Commercial office, single - family residential REVIEW CRITERIA Planning Commission review is required for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial of the amendment based on a clear compliance with the criteria that follow. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which will make the final decision. 1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? The Comprehensive Plan's highest priority objective is the following: "To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." 3 N CD C C+ C C 2) Impacts The requested a map change would remove three lots from the Low Density Residential z (LDR) designation and add them to the Office (0) designation/zone. This would permit i z the' Office (0) to run continuously along Southcenter Boulevard to the I -405 Interchange. w w No development is proposed at this time; any future office projects would require 6 D demolishing two existing single - family units. 0 co o If the property is redesignated to 0, more intensive future development would generate additional traffic and noise. City Engineer Brian Shelton states that the steep driveway w 0 would need improvement to support future development, since the driveway is barely 2 adequate for the existing residential uses.. Sight distance is inadequate for exiting the g Q property. In addition, with wet or icy pavement, vehicles will have difficulty entering or co leaving the property. Leaving the site is especially difficult, since a vehicle which cannot 1 w stop would be hazardous to pedestrians or vehicles along Southcenter Boulevard (Memo, z June 6, 2003). These factors woufcfbe especially problematic given increased traffic z o v olumes produced4y, office development. w w o 3) Is the proposed change, the best means for meeting the identified public need? o D- - What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? o F= The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Southcenter Boulevard corridor as a buffer for i ill 0 low density residential neighborhoods to the north. The housing currently located on the u_ o site already functions as a buffer since it sits significantly above the roadway, and is w z somewhat removed from the single - family neighborhood to the north. A retaining wall o along Southcenter Boulevard separates the property from the roadway o F z ( L02 -067, L02 -068 Robb Rezone/CPA Transportation Corridor Goal 8.4 (Southcenter Boulevard) calls for "A corridor of low rise offices, residences, with localized commercial uses at major intersections all of which act as a buffer to the low- density residential neighborhoods to the north." More intensive development at this site is problematic since site conditions include steep, unstable slopes and steep access. It is not clear that there is an identified public need for the proposed change since there are numerous developed sites in Tukwila which already permit office /retail/medical uses and do not have similar access limitations. 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what result can be expected and why? Existing housing could remain until replaced with office development. The property lies in an area with high potential for geologic instability, so any construction would require extra care. Site conditions make it difficult to accommodate more intensive development. Once built, any office use will generate additional traffic which would enter and exit the property from Southcenter Boulevard via the very steep driveway. In his memo of June 6, 2003, City Engineer Brian Shelton finds that the driveway, with its limited sight angles and steep grade, is barely acceptable for the current residential use. The memo further states that any new intensified use will require a revision to the property access for safety purposes. The Traffic Report suggests the possibility of using the developed Schneider Family Home property easement connecting to the parking lot located at 6510 4 L02 -067, L02 -068 Robb Rezone /CPA Southcenter Boulevard as an alternative access to the proposed Robb development if written permission were obtained from the Schneider Family Home development owners. In August, 2002, the Tukwila City Council approved the vacation of Macadam Road from Southcenter Boulevard to Old Bluff Street pertaining to this property. This vacation becomes final if conditions are met by September 30, 2003; otherwise it will expire. It isn't clear that conditions have changed to require additional office zoning at this time. .� CONCLUSIONS - o These conclusions are based on four Review Criteria: to 0 1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not J = • adequately addressed, is there a need for it? co w 0 The issue is adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Office uses are already g located along Southcenter Boulevard. u cn 2) Impacts • =- _ F. If the property is redesignated to Office, more intensive future development would z generate additional traffic and noise. Added traffic would need t� use the steep driveway w o which is barely adegi}dte for current residential use. Sight distance is limited. Wet or 2 icy conditions would make it especially difficult to enter or exit the property. These factors would be worsened with increased traffic volumes made possible by a future o ! office development. = W 3) Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need. What u" z other options are there for meeting the identified public need? Luz to The site currently provides a buffer between Southcenter Boulevard and housing to the E_ north since it sits high above the roadway. Since there are other locations in Tukwila that z allow office use, it is not clear that this site, with its encroachment issues, steep, unstable slopes and difficult access, is needed for office at this time. 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what result can be expected and why? The properties' development potential for residential or office use will be limited by site considerations including: • Relatively small site size, • steep slopes, • potential geological instability and • safety concerns relating to the difficult access to and from Southcenter Boulevard. The Traffic Impact Study suggests that it might be possible to mitigate the driveway problems by developing alternate access via the adjacent Schneider Homes property once the City right -of -way is vacated. However, other locations without these concerns are already available for office use in Tukwila. 5 • L02 -067, L02 -068 Robb Rezone/CPA RECOMMENDATION Given the property's encroachment issues, site development constraints including steep slopes and difficult access, and the availability of office use in other zones, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request at this time. If the applicant: 1) resolves property encroachment issues, and 2) develops a feasible alternative access plan by December 31, 2003, the City will consider the request as part of the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code update in 2004. Property encroachment and setback issues must be resolved by December 31, 2003 whether or not the applicant decides to resubmit the application. All development plans must undergo applicable environmental, design and building permit review, and obtain appropriate permits. During its consideration, the Planning Commission could: • Recommend approval; - - • Modify the proposal; • Recommend denial. • After the Planning Commission review, the proposed amendment will be brought before the City Council for a public hearing and final decision. 6 4 ∎S1l i "•%n 'r:t;i4V4r41(4 4 • .kU a}S�:iS:'tiwt NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Robb Rezone ' • ' • ATTACHMENT A RECEIVED DEC 31 2QQ2 CITY OF TUKWILA COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE Department of Community DeveloR gri- DpMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 PLAN /ZONING CODE Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 AMENDMENTS E -mail: tukplan@citukwila.wa.us LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBER£ Tax Parcel no.s 0003200018, 0003200017 and 0003200019 Address: 6550 South 154th Street and 6542 South 154th Street, Tukwila, WA. 98188 Quarter: SE Section: 23 Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.- Eric LaBrie /Harley Mattson Address: 18215' 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 425 - 251 -6222 FAX: 425- 251 -8782 Signature: f tt c. . e.)∎ C \ homepage \tukwila \dcd \apps \COMPAPP.doe, O8/17/00 Date: 12.-/3o /0 2- CD) ' FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra' Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: g X File Number: L. Q1 O 6'7 ( 6 PA ; L 0 2. - 0 6 e Application Complete (Date: . ) 41103 Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: l 02 - - 0 2. Li NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Robb Rezone ' • ' • ATTACHMENT A RECEIVED DEC 31 2QQ2 CITY OF TUKWILA COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE Department of Community DeveloR gri- DpMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 PLAN /ZONING CODE Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 AMENDMENTS E -mail: tukplan@citukwila.wa.us LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBER£ Tax Parcel no.s 0003200018, 0003200017 and 0003200019 Address: 6550 South 154th Street and 6542 South 154th Street, Tukwila, WA. 98188 Quarter: SE Section: 23 Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.- Eric LaBrie /Harley Mattson Address: 18215' 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 425 - 251 -6222 FAX: 425- 251 -8782 Signature: f tt c. . e.)∎ C \ homepage \tukwila \dcd \apps \COMPAPP.doe, O8/17/00 Date: 12.-/3o /0 2- CD) CD A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: LDR - Low Density Reaidential Proposed: 0 — Office B. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: LDR - Low Density Residential Proposed: 0 — Office C. LAND USE(S): Existing: Office Proposed: Office .(for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) •:... D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. Immediately surrounding-the site the land uses are as follows: North - single family residential; vacant land West - office/commercial and single family residential South & East - Southecenter Bld. and 1-405 interchange Between 500 and 1,000 feet from the site are the following: North - condominiums West - commercial /office and single family residential East - I -405 interchange, Green River and hotel /motel South - commercial retail and service station C:\ homepage \tukwila \dcd \appACOMPAPP.doe. 08 /17/00 , a4ex,rr+w1.» 'u`w,wc'w ..., • RECEIVED DEC 31 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NIPREHENSIVE PLAN: ZONING GODS; IENDMEN E CRITE The burden of proof to demonstrate that a change to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is warranted lies solely upon the proponent. The greater the degree of change proposed, the greater will be the burden of showing that the change is justified. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review your proposal using the criteria listed below. It is essential that you describe in a clear and precise manner why the amendment request should be approved. Attach additional sheet(s) with your responses to each criterion. You may submit other documentation in support of your proposal. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.050) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstaiices justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1 1. Describe ho w the issue is ddressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? The issue is addressed sufficiently in the Comprehensive Plan under the Southcenter Boulevard Goal (Goal No. 8.4): "A corridor of low -rise offices, residences, with localized commercial uses at major intersections, all of which act as a buffer to the Low Density Residential neighborhoods to the north." The subject property is located along Southcenter Boulevard, which is a principal arterial road, and at a major signalized intersection. The property is currently zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment is proposing to change the subject property to Office (0). The requested amendment is in conformance with the Southcenter Boulevard Goal, in that it`would allow for the existing use, as well as future office uses at the major intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue South. These uses will act as a buffer to the LDR neighborhoods to the north. 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? The proposed change is the best means for meeting the identified public need for buffering between residential uses and the Southcenter Boulevard Transportation Corridor. The site is currently designated LDR, and is situated directly across from the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue South. Additionally, the property is bordered to the south and west by the Office Land Use and Zoning designations. By changing the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations to Office, the subject property will better serve the Southcenter Boulevard Goal of buffering the residential land uses to the north from the Southcenter Boulevard corridor. Other options for meeting the public need are limited. =T5 10751.002.doc 11.1MM/tepl • aly! 7 ix?! "a?4!'.;?^ttY't�Y�.t•Mrrrn rxr rwty�:+n vxn..+. N 0 O ' 3. Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? The proposed change will result in a net benefit to the community by furthering the goals of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Corridor section. B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.010) In addition to the above question, a response to each of the following circumstances is also necessary: 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and the Zoning Maps by changing the designation of the subject property to the Office land use from the currant LDR designation. The reason and rationale forthis amendment request is based on the fact that the site is bordered by the Office designation to the south and west, and is directly adjacent to Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue South. With these characteristics in mind, the applicant wishes to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations to tllow tlie "property to be compatible with surrounding uses, and to help further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for buffering residential uses to the north from the Southcenter Boulevard Transportation Corridor. 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; The anticipated impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will be limited to the affected geographic area. Because there are existing Office land uses to the south and west of the site, .there will be very little, if any, impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, including the residential uses to the north. The Office use will help buffer the residential uses from the Southcenter Boulevard Transportation Corridor and will not significantly ' impact public services, surrounding land uses, or transportation in the immediate area. The applicant wishes to continue to use the site for residential purposes and operation of a home occupation. 3. An explanation of why the current Comprehensive Plan or Development Regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific; cite policy numbers and code sections that apply!) The current Comprehensive Plan land use designation does not extend the Office use along Southcenter Boulevard to the major intersection at 68th Avenue South. The Southcenter Boulevard Goal (Goal No. 8.4) specifically states that: "The Southcenter Boulevard corridor should be a corridor of low-rise offices, residences, with localized commercial uses at major intersections, all of which act as a buffer to the Low Density Residential neighborhoods to the north." The current LDR 10751.002.doc [HMM/tep] z = z W 00 0 (Ow --I • w w 0 2 g Q = • a I— Ill Z = t- 0 Z ~ w U u) O - O 1— w W LL O w Z U= O 1— z designation does not further Goal No. 8.4 at this particular Iocation, because it is immediately adjacent to the Southcenter Boulevard Transportation Corridor and is located at the 68th Avenue South intersection. z 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the < z goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; w The proposed amendment will bring the subject property into conformance with 0 the Southcenter Boulevard Goal of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, which, in u) 0 itself, is in compliance with and promotes the goals and requirements of the w = Growth Management Act. -' u) u . 0 5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable 2 Countywide Planning Policies; g Q The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Countywide Planning = a Policies thnr dlearly delineate that the formiand•function of urban centers such as 1-- m Tukwila, will be determined at the local level. The proposed amendment will meet the goals of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and will,: in turn, be in compliance z O LU withCountywide Planning Policies. ? o U 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the o D. (` =;.• City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is w ui- :- . adopted; = 0 u_g. The proposed amendment will not require any changes to the functional plans (i.e., iii z the City's water, sewer, stormwater, or shoreline plans), because the site is 0 adequately served with public water, sanitary sewer, and transportation facilities. O F- The proposed amendment will not create a need for additional public services z beyond the existing services and facilities that are currently provided. 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; No capital improvements are necessary to support the proposed change. Therefore, it will not affect the City's capital facilities plan. 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. No other changes to the City's plans or regulations will be necessary to implement the proposed change, other than the City's Zoning Map boundaries. 10751.002.doc (HMM /tep] 1 t . N CD C. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a rezone of your property or a change in the existing Zoning Code. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; Upon approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the requested Zoning Map change will be in conformance with the new Comprehensive Plan designation. The public interest will be served by bringing the subject property into conformance with the Office Comprehensive Plan designation. 2. The tie or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or, this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set: forth in the application form. No development activity proposed. The existing structures will be left on -site andyuill continue to be used as residences, one of which operates a home occupation. A separate application will be filed if future development plans are to be pursued for the subject property. At that time, an architectural site plan will be submitted for review as required and the future development will be evaluated for conformance with the surrounding areas and applicable requirements. 10751.002.doc [HM v1 /tep] `s'q „;, y�,j,• ',t.J.".urobwccuaa lx+5a'.raKa..ric,M .tir'�.J..e-.+r.'rdw_+..ae�Wi� . z �z ce 6 J U 00 • o 1.1J = ; J � N � w LL? • a = w F- zF— Z U • 0 0- o W I 1- 0 tL O Z W • N 0 Z J • • imum of IQgu•pisaa A1Isusa MO pwla ,sw•3IPno8 0'69 Y 0969 w•wpu•WV •poo Bu1130Z 890-201 wsuwpu•ury mid •Msu•ii•.dwo1 19o-u1 w•wdolawsa Aflunwwo3 jo iu•usp•dsa 8 11Amlul Yo 410 •at11O 0 Riw•Pts•a £3tsu•0 MO 110, suopeuBIsecJ Bu juoa s•un BuluoZ *sun Ap.doid sinowo3;ood pupae, 000077 nrinoU tJ LI Ll .S ■ NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 0 0 0 0 PTia lusurpusurV (990-Z01) auluoz pus (190•Z01) usla swisueganhuo0 WPM i NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. f 0003200019 0003200017 0003200018 MDR mi ll111911r ni a HDR to" Tukwila Blvd t t at a 0. TUC RCM Legend G .T N 1 " =.5 Mile Zoning Designations LDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential TUC Tukwila Urban Center RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use 0 Office Subject Properties f �l 000079 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development L02 -067 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Proposed) L02 -068 Zoning Code Amendment (Proposed) 6550 & 6542 Southcenter Blvd Request Low Density Residential to Office NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. v41 Z W .I U O 0 coo W J = LL W O 2 u_ Q = • d W Z = I- O Z I- W 2 j • p U O � O 1- W W IL O Z U= P: 2C O Z I I if f l I I I I • • 000081 0115 1[ Don mi.. MI 104•ama x7 •187341134.10 •W lalaa• a man= Ole Nava Da vi GAWK JD f MO M ma ••Wm M r • Ds pi r - it Da a in 11111 x el aAW r Oat 0011 511•_• Manua. 1 • -31 at55lro • arum 0 aAn awn r ao t+ i 0 r■ am. DA =cm m .a Mal i • Kam 3(3110 1•104 aaa.aM arts.e Da cam wOtM n• r ert••• x imam r on r alma loll away •-w• Irma a VD. m.a MA II • 04 11 law awl 1 a117 Lama 1r • to • Y • Ina11 •r 310001 r Aribl. 0002:0 D7aw 31•1•• VIM 1 AK a ae00 Kama /•••• 104432 Jim Ym10 OO1 at (MOOD i4 Ina 7DOma same • a. Sward r •el Ia. KW - Am a MIME I it 313411131 MINIM IM MS 1 1♦y1F• ' IWI=4 ar /YW a1VL x e _ONI.41 r 1 boa 4 w' Nfl. • DAM . OfM w lr K �s LOP A 1.471 MI MAKSltT1 rO/ 1 IMAM r 117•19•11111 lea to Woo Tr ma Se n •• imam r ADDS r amae a M • amain >r 13i s7.m 70•1.4• m r Las • 1001 7•4111a121,AO 4 Dl w.. MAN n Nita Y MOAN AN Min zoom It 1 • an PK r •=4434 r Dania too s• same 7A are •1•• ••4 3474 710.00111 arm r r else Jima Lif • asCU4Mno MYNA. 3• W L••• !1131• Alas Mm W 7.3 Kowa ma.m aw•1• lame 43131.1114 r N••• Mme MWa x a _ta• OM An x IS Nat 704 Oa LIMY SOWS aL 1•1011.110111. Ilt r a Dr la fora m1sd ..• • . bora. Ma ••••o• �a Mlow W 7r K34wa marrow 3wa• a IN NOON • 7•1 LI Kali aM lii • wawa. avairm. lei 7111 tour Pan r 'Sal l 17r w l••■ K. D011ra oars a 1•1e Al loom .toe d main m r I ra 1w ninon 11.1 31 7 m MIK • ern Kovno Oam•1s Y mot Dom r a aiwD /do JO IMAM •MAU lfN a ■IMO_ v.•ram lain{ 1 'mamma 7r• •• a l asa 1•••••Y r ue® 31114 DKI Yew, = DIM • nary Nor MI M11Wr 0•• wm warm r awl. Al •er 3134 ••• ••• 1 1 I a Nal aex3a0w4K3a b iv a 5 7.04 INK l•ar s a anon an •5111 a r 1•131 aA 1311 r1 Nome ow ea WI48am. LN1®7. Pa WIN DOI 7 . P RIM a SS M II St mamma a tr x a13w'f Ow OS a al NM x MIA Sala J rtef 33• toe4•a wino aw • 1 LW amy a O Data A 4440 anal 54 x alma= WW1 •00 MAMMA a 532x•1 Dena O•efi_l x31 •_4[0 ••132 r UN= Nauman Yuma led • 55 /11.1 Anon f. 3 .mom It maAlo IN mrr•4a_ INTO K calf La JA Imo! 131 PRIM L4014111 1e3ra• a De[ K. a Lae x 141314 • sI 31 D•-c• at a Max /141006 la eOadw . It m a •t on 54 124 34181 1 a mni • ADA w Nat oa aAWM'a • -ml 34 • I mtw•Di s.l Isla • lit �w10 ° llL• r aMI57 • • 0 aa1 MID •MOM •001114 x a a low e NM• ODD b D o tae* 0 1 34 34 8_ l . 4U Imulma inn A3AHf1S OIHdVHD0d01 0N1 1VLLHYcI f AHdaNf109 W) sm4+ 111••3131 "00 550010111510 K1Am a 4nlxwal ol.{1w 31115$ Y 210111 ar Dena • a aW a as KM x awl real 1131 J• aM40 _4 I HIM 004 �p 1114 t A4 Wei 11132 4/315 aW OM JO r/ma bar Dona re VD. 1•325 r aaaA3® . main 5a 343 K•m/ 11111 MOD MAMMA 711•51e Va a Die Palox S Deem IN •am• 12{••• lMe m • Ira Daa A 1••• law P ara D e•a? 4311• ra.at Day re•.ds (II) 7 Too 17114154 V311 Wawa t A • 44 ♦ 1r R 5454 011(131 Mawr 77/0110 Dan i0 3413327111 WADI r • 311311 Pelt 01.413 wDI• 31a13 Mt ww4 t .. r Imam MY w WO Ala trial 8.41/ Waal NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 1Ir O ON3O3l • ATTAMENT G TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMO Rebecca Fox, Dept. of Community Development Brian Shelton, City Engineer June 6, 2003 Robb Rezone This response to the Robb Rezone traffic study is provided to reflect final comments to all information being submitted. The existing conditions involve three single family residential lots being jointly served by a very steep, narrow driveway that accesses Southcenter Boulevard, a very busy, high traffic volume arterial street. The applicants proposal involves three lots that include the driveway and two residences. The property is sloped moderate to steep with elevation differential of approximately fifty feet and is separated from and above the street by a retaining wall several feet in height. The steep driveway more or less bisects the properties and does not include a landing of 2 -3% approaching the sidewalk and intersection which is typically needed for commercial type access. The existing driveway is approximately 22.5% grade according to Barghausen survey. The report indicates the driveway oar ade is approximately 12% based on visual observation and comparison to South 178 Street. For the purposes of the applicant's proposal, driveway grade must be determined by field survey and not visual comparison. The entering sight distance is 88 feet for vehicles leaving the site and making free right turns on red traffic signal indication. The traffic study is based on a proposal to develop a facility of 9,000 square feet with parking need of 37 spaces on property totalling 31,926 square feet. This translates to a proportion of building to lot area of 28 percent and does not include any consideration for parking or landscaping. The proposal would generate 325 average weekday trips and 33 peak hour trips. The study included slight mention of occasional truck traffic on rare occasion and did not indicate truck size or type. The study indicates a need for 37 parking spaces which would be provided by terraced parking areas with stairways. Also, alternative access to and from the properties may be possible to 65 Avenue to the west. The existing conditions are not desireable for any access to an arterial. The low volume traffic generated by the existing uses is allowed to continue based on grandfathering. Any new intensified use will require a revision to the property access for safety purposes. The existing driveway is too steep and unsafe, at 12% or 22.5 %, for a use more intense than existing. Considering local weather conditions that involve wet or icy pavement, vehicles, including trucks, will have extreme difficulty ingressing, egressing or negotiating the driveway. Egressing the site is particularly problematic for a vehicle that cannot stop prior to the sidewalk thereby becoming a hazard for pedestrians or vehicles in the street. The entering sight distance it deficient by 237 feet according to the study; required distance of 325 feet minus measured distance of 88 feet, which indicates that • this location will have significantly' increased accident rate. The traffic study pointed out possible mitigations for the sight distance deficiency most of which are extremely costly earthwork or retaining wall construction. Signage for turn restrictions is not a basis for mitigating a sight distance safety hazard as a part of original design. The steep driveway is potentially mitigated through alternative access. Based upon the various existing property characteristics involving driveway grade, sight distance, and parking requirements the rezone request should be denied or deferred contingent upon the applicant securing acceptable, alternative access. • CO • co C C 0 Ms. Rebecca Fox Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Fox: • 3F Access Alternatives. CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES June 6, 2003 ATTACHMENT H RE: Robb Rezone Development at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard Revised Traffic Impact Analysis per your May 28, 2003 letter and follow -up discussions Our Job No. 10751 Thank you for reviewing and commenting on our Robb Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 22, 2003. We have revised the Robb Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis based on your May 28, 2003 comment letter and follow up discussions. Enclosed please find the Robb Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis dated June 6, 2003 for your review and approval. The following outline provides each of your comments in italics exactly as written on your May 28, 2003 comment letter, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed. Please provide the following previously requested information per the letter dated March 27, 2003 (enclosed) as follows: • 1A. b &d, topography and driveway(s) location and grade for existing land use. Response: Existing grade is estimated at 12 percent as indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Sections 3 and 9. • 3E Driveway design; width (25 feet minimum), throat length, grade, throat length. Response: As indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Sections 3 and 9, the existing grade is estimated at 12 percent and the existing driveway is 25 feet wide. The existing driveway is depicted in the Appendix E photographs. Response: As indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Sections 3 and 9 and depicted in the Appendix E photographs, while the only proposed access would be at the Southcenter Blvd/66 Avenue South intersection, a potential access may be available to connect with the Schneider Family Homes parking lot to the south provided written permission, in the form of an easement, is obtained from the owners. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (4251251.6222 14251 251.8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES 0 OLYMPIA. WA • WALNUT CREEK. CA • ' v barahausen.cor• Z • w J U O 0 co W W W W o 5 u.. a W Z = 1- O wF- U O - ❑ h = I- C1 LL'O w Z U 2 O H O z Ms. Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner City of Tukwila • 3G2. On -Sire Circulation. -2- June 6, 2003 z z w 6 J U U O CO 0 U) - F- � The report needs to provide additional information and discussion addressing existing w o conditions and proposed changes regarding vehicular ingress and egress including: 2 g Q • Trucks co a = w Response: Passenger cars and occasional light trucks are expected to use the facility. A few z occasional larger delivery vehicles may be expected on rare occasions. z O uj • Alternative access to the property (from the west, for example). o U ON o t— w L L' O z Response: As indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Sections 1, 9, and 10, alternatives for avoiding ingressing vehicles slowing traffic while negotiating a 12 percent grade include (a) a row parking lot on the lower level and the building on the upper level connected by stairs, (b) row parking lots on two lower levels with the building on a third upper level, all connected by stairs, and (c) an extra wide on -site access roadway to accommodate parallel parking on both sides and leading up to a row parking lot adjacent to the building. Response: As indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Sections 1, 9, and 10, and depicted on the Appendix E photographs, access from the Schneider Family Homes parking lot to the west may be possible provided that written permission, in the form of an easement, is obtained from the owners. • Ability to Provide Parking. Response: As indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Sections 1, 9, and 10, Parking Generation predicts a low parking demand of 20 spaces and an average demand of 37 spaces. Due to the project site's location adjacent to major transit lines running along Southcenter Blvd., and the site's close proximity to transit stops, the parking demand would likely be closer to the low end. Alternatives for providing parking include (a) a row parking lot on the lower level with the building on the upper level, (b) parking on two lower levels with the building on the top level and (c) an extra wide access to accommodate parallel parking and leading up to an upper level row parking lot adjacent to building also located on the upper level. • On -Site Circulation. Response: Layout alternatives that would not require ingressing vehicles to ascend a 12 percent grade or egressing vehicles to descend the same 12 percent grade (ascending and descending the grade may impact 66 Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard traffic) include (a) parking on the lower level only with stairs leading to the upper building, (b) parking on two lower levels and the building on the third (higher) level all connected by stairs, a curved and extra wide access roadway with parallel parking on both sdes leading up to a row parking lot adjacent to the building (on the same level as the parking lot). Berm excavation and retaining wall reconstruction are alternatives for improving sight distance as indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Section 5.6 as well as for enhancing on -site circulation. a.• r- . av:rtuu'emNA??4�i.Cfi��Ykkk ............a..,,_ _ ..r.. ter...... z �CD 00 Ms. Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner City of Tukwila -3- June 6, 2003 Figure 5 should be revised to include site - related traffic volumes at Intersection E. Response: As discussed with the City of Tukwila, the counts conducted in 2002 (site land use has not changed since then) show no vehicles entering or exiting the site during the PM peak hour. As indicated in the Traffic Impact Analysis Section 6.2, if additional traffic were added to these movements up to the maximum level expected by the highest potential trip generating land use on site, the Level of Service "C" rating would not change and the overall intersection average delay would increase by no more than 0.5 seconds. Finally the sight distance analysis should include evaluation based on 85 percentile. Response: It was not practical to conduct a speed study at this location. Therefore, as indicated in Traffic Impact Analysis Section 5.6, and as discussed with the City of Tukwila, a 40 -mile- per -hour design speed (posted speed plus five miles per hour) was used for analysis purposes based on a driver's eye set 10 feet back from Southcenter Boulevard. This distance would be reduced for 18 feet back from Southcenter Boulevard. Sight Distance enhancement alternatives as discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis include berm excavation and retaining wall reconstruction. Safety enhancements include "No Right on Red" and "Watch for Pedestrians" signage. We believe the above responses, together with the enclosed revised Traffic Impact Analysis dated June 6, 2003, address all of the comments in your letter dated May 28, 2003. Questions may be directed to me via telephone at (425) 656 -7424, facsimile at (425) 251 -8782, or e-mail at dschwegel @barghausen.com. Thank you. Respectfully, DMS /ath 5587c.022.doc enc: As Noted cc: Mr. Brian Shelton, City of Tukwila (w /enc.) Mr. Eric Robb (w /enc.) Mr. Eric LaBrie, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Ms. Harley Mattson, Barghausen Consulting Engineers ,10.,,=4 gni . David M. Schwegel Transportation Engineer z w ¢ � J U O 0 w J = t— �w w 2 � co = a I-- Ill Z 1- 0 w ~ w O • W w w 1-- • U LL O w z o ( P- r: O ~ s Rebecca Fox - 10751 - Robb Rezone - Sight Distance Analysis Update Page 1 From: "Dave Schwegel" <dschwegel @Barghausen.com> To: <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 6/9/03 3:29PM Subject: 10751 - Robb Rezone - Sight Distance Analysis Update Brian: Barghausen Consulting Engineers /Survey measured the entering sight distance at the Southcenter Blvd /66th Ave S intersection in the City of Tukwila for the above - referenced project based on the drivers eye being 18 feet behind the street (Southcenter Blvd). The measured entering sight distance (looking left east) is 88 feet. Entering Sight Distance requirements are met for 10 feet behind the street. Proposed Sight Distance Enhancement Measures include: (1) Berm excavation (2) Vegetation removal (3) Brick Wall reconstruction Additionally, a No Right Turn on Red sign may be installed. We trust this satisfies your request. Feel free to call, fax, or email if questions. • Thank you. David M. Schwegel David M. Schwegel Transportation Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers Phone: 425 - 656 -7424 Fax: 425 - 251 -8782 Email: dschwegel @barghausen.com CC: <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "hmattson" <hmattson @Barghausen.com >, <file @Barghausen.com> ' CO G G G 14 u fi g . ~ Q EHG‘t C ATTACHMENT H TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Robb Rezone Northwest Quadrant of the Southcenter Boulevard/ 66th Avenue South Intersection Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East Willamette Meridian Tukwila, King County, Washington Prepared for: Eric Robb P.O. Box 88510 Tukwila, WA 98188 April 22, 2003 Revised June 6, 2003 Our Job No. 10751 S, CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com +a_ .?N..w Ks: Lea _kakt g', i.. UYm: du :liL:e+"iti9nb:f'.....t.kc:e'r' rk TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 4.0 METHODOLOGY 2 4.1 Trip Generation 4.2 Trip Distribution 4.3 Existing/Projected Traffic Volume 4.4 Level of Service 4.5 Safety 4.6 Sight Distance 4.7 Mitigation 5.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 5.1 Street Facilities 5.2 Transit Facilities 5.3 Traffic Volumes 5.4 Level of Service 5.5 Safety 5.6 Sight Distance 6.0 2005 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6 6.1 Traffic Volumes 6.2 Level of Service 7.0 TRIP GENERATION 6 8.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .7 9.0 2005 CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT 7 9.1 Traffic Volumes 9.2 Level of Service 9.3 Mitigation 9.4 Driveway Design 9.5 Access Alternatives 9.6 Potential Site Constraints 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 1 10751.004.doc [DMS/tep] V`1.:,t+W."45 L':Gtll:"J�c'i ::(;� i...'��'�- iA:irk� `•T V, �: :��Y ?.,. YS.' Y:!$. v:1i:J: {x:..i�= tiWi�:tvk.d'::s: Sai it134Tiu0i'7 :1�i3�lil4u1`t _ ►= z ce W . O 0 co co W W =' . w O LL Q CO = d. F- _ , z � I- o Z 1 - 2 Ds U � O N off W W u' O w z U V O ff ' co : N; ri a O iNk 4- 141.: vaigi 0 TABLE 1 Projected Trip Generation (Office) TABLE 2 Projected Trip Generation (Medical/Dental) TABLE 3 Projected Trip Generation (Retail) TABLE 4 Parking Generation Summary TABLE 5 Trip Distribution Values TABLE 6 Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes (Intersections A to D) TABLE 7 Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes (Intersections E to G) TABLE 8 P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Summary TABLE 9 Accident Summary TABLE 10 Impact Fee Summary FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map FIGURE 2 Site Plan FIGURE 3 Existing Street Conditions FIGURE 4 2003 Traffic Volumes FIGURE 5 2005 Traffic Volumes FIGURE 6 Trip Distribution FIGURE 7 2005 Traffic Volumes With Project APPENDIX A Traffic Volumes APPENDIX B Action Statistics APPENDIX C Transit Data APPENDIX D WSDOT Annual Traffic Report APPENDIX E Photographs TABLES FIGURES APPENDICES 11 10751.004.doc [DMS/up] 're 4:cv�,ii:_:t.r tea .u:•e�s:.cK�,,:;.�!»;:usw�«;s w.vo.r,,x..:'ruv;a�:iyk'us v�;.`rs:iastwyli1AYi: ::Aii!daa�1•llia]w'+{u 44' c55t�s»aS;Y li4 :ed::vk.�ri,it�• - «> +" .,, 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the 31,926 square foot (0.733 acre) Robb parcel (northwest quadrant of the Southcenter Boulevard/66th Avenue South intersection) to determine the maximum potential impact of its development. 1. The maximum potential impact would be 33 p.m. peak hour trips. 2. All seven analyzed intersections would operate at Level of Service E or better under projected with project conditions, increasing analyzed intersection delay by no more than 0.6 seconds. • 3. Stopping sight distances and westbound entering sight distance comply with AASHTO requirements based on the driver's eye 10 feet from the nearest edge of intersecting roadway and a 40 mite per hour design speed (35 mile per hour posted speed plus five miles per hour). Eastbound entering sight distance is mitigated by the traffic signal. Options for improving sight distance include berm excavation, vegetation removal, and wall reconstruction. If entering sight distance remains a concern, a "No Right on Red" sign may be installed. If safety is a concern with vehicles encroaching on the sidewalk to acquire the required sight distance, a "Watch for Pedestrians" warning sign may be installed. 4. None of the seven analyzed intersections pose accident concerns. 5. The proposed access would be at least 25 feet wide to accommodate a 13 -foot wide entrance lane and a 12 -foot. wide southbound left -thru-right lane. The existing curb cut may be modified to provide this driveway width. 6. A possible access alternative is available to the west at the existing Schneider Family Home parking lot (6510 Southcenter Blvd) provided written permission is obtained from the owners. 7. The existing access has a grade of approximately 12 percent. Large vehicles (except for an occasional delivery truck) are not expected to use this facility. 8. The calculated potential traffic impact fee could be up to $5,903. 2.0 INTRODUCTION. At the City of Tukwila's request, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared to determine the maximum potential impact of developing the 31,926 square foot (0.733 acre) Robb parcel. The Traffic Impact Analysis was revised and the City prepared a May 28, 2003 comment letter requesting additional information on site access, circulation, and sight distance The parcel is located in the Northwest quadrant of the Southcenter Boulevard/66th Avenue South intersection in the City of Tukwila, Washington. In accordance with discussion with the City of Tukwila, this Traffic Impact Analysis contains the following elements in addition to those requested in the City's May 28, 2003 letter: 1. Trip Generation 2. Trip Distribution 3. Existing/Projected Traffic Volume 4. Level of Service 1 10751.004.doc (DMS /tep] (,r 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS VIA The existing driveway conditions as depicted in the Appendix E photographs are as follows: \?1 a �r x9 th N r 5. Safety 6. Sight Distance 7. Mitigation Figure 1 depicts the project location within the Puget Sound vicinity. Figure 2 shows the layout of the 31,926 square foot (0.733 acre) Robb parcel. The three parcel development alternatives are office, medical/dental, and retail. The highest trip - generating alternative would be used for analysis purposes. he project site presently consists of residences served by a driveway forming the north leg of the Southcenter Boulevard/66th Avenue South signalized intersection. 0 t • Driveway Width = 25 feet (wide enough to accommodate a 13 -foot wide inbound lane and a 12 -foot wide left/dull/right exit lane) • Asphalt Surface Grade = 12% (estimated based on observations of the South 178 Street 21 1 percent grade in the City of Tukwila. See Appendix E photographs) f U Win G 'L METHODOLOGY 4.1 Trip Generation Total trips represent all trips that originate or terminate within the development. Pass -by trips are trips already on the street adjacent to the site that make an intermediate stop at the development on their way to a primary destination. Pass -by trips do not involve a diversion from the motorist's travel route. Captured trips are on -site trips completely contained within a mixed -use development that go from one land use to another land use within the development. Diverted link trips are off -site trips that are already on the street network and make a diversion from their travel route to visit the development, as distinguished from pass -by trips which do not involve a travel route diversion. New trips (primary trips) are made for the specific purpose of visiting the development. Off -site trips are trips that originate or terminate off the project site and include pass -by, diverted link, and new trips. Off -site trips are calculated by deducting the captured trips from the total trips. New trips are calculated by deducting the pass -by trips from the off -site trips. 2 10751.004.doc (DMS /tepl Net new trips apply to developments that have an existing trip- generated land use and are calculated by deducting the existing trips from the new trips. Trip Generation is typically calculated based on rates and equations as a function of an independent variable quantity. Options for obtaining trip generation rates and equations include the following: 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th edition (1997). 2. Trip surveys conducted at three to five different sites with a similar land use on 2 or 3 different days, depending on land use. Trip Generation rates and equations are typically used when they are based on a large sample size, have a coefficient of determination greater than or equal to 0.75, and have a standard deviation less than or equal to 110 percent of the rate. A trip survey methodology is desirable when the proposed development land use(s) is(are) not covered by those identified in the Trip Generation, or when the above criteria relating to coefficient of determination, sample size, and standard deviation are not met. The trip survey methodology is also desirable when trip generation is desired for a land use that is more specific than the land use listed in Trip Generation, such as a specific type of high quality sit -down restaurant rather than high quality sit -down restaurants in general. Independent variables serving as a basis for trip generation calculations are selected based on accuracy, projectability, cause for trip, and variation. 4.2 Trip Distribution The Trip Distribution analysis assigns the new trips to the study network based on factors including the following: 1. Clientele expected to use the subject development. 2. The streets and traffic characteristics within the project vicinity. 3. The location of likely trip origins and destinations within the project vicinity and the most convenient travel links that .serve them. 4. The proximity and quantity of employment, recreation, shopping, and residential developments within the vicinity. 4.3 Existing/Projected Traffic Volume Existing Traffic Volumes are obtained through counts conducted at the intersections and street segments of interest. Projected Traffic Volumes are calculated by multiplying the existing traffic volumes by a compounded annual growth factor obtained from historic traffic volumes at or near the streets of interest. The Projected Traffic Volumes are calculated for the horizon year that the project is expected to be operational. • 3 I0751.004.doc [DMS /tep) C) C C� C C Projected Traffic Volumes With - Project are calculated by adding the project - generated traffic volumes from the Trip Distribution Analysis to the Projected Traffic Volumes for the project horizon year. 4.4 Level of Service The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 defines Level of Service as "a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience." Chapter 16 identifies the following Level of Service criteria for signalized intersections as a function of average delay (seconds per vehicle): A. Less than or equal to 10 B. lO to 20 C. 20 to 35 D. 35 to 55 E. 55 to 80 F. Greater than 80 Chapter 17 identifies the following Level of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections as a function of average delay (seconds per vehicle): A. O to 10 B. lO to 15 C..15to25 D. 25 to 35 E. 35 to 50 F. Greater than 50 4.5 Safety • Accident rates are calculated at intersections and street segments to determine if an accident problem is apparent. Typically accident rates of greater than 2.0 per million entering vehicles at intersections, or 5.0 per million vehicle miles of travel indicate that an accident problem may be apparent and a more in -depth analysis is recommended. Accident histories over a minimum of 3 years are used to calculate accident rates. Additionally, total accidents may be broken down into property damage only (PDO), injury (INJ), and fatality (FAT). 4.6 Sight Distance The 2001 edition of the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets identifies the minimum entering sight distance and stopping sight distance requirements as a function of speed limit. Entering sight distance requirements are necessary to ensure that vehicles leaving a driveway 4 10751.004.doc (DN1S /tcp] or side street have sufficient visibility of oncoming traffic in applicable directions to perform a desired legal turning maneuver. Stopping sight distance requirements are necessary to ensure that the motorist can perceive a 2 -foot -high or higher object in the roadway and bring the vehicle to a full and complete stop to avoid hitting the object. For analysis purposes, site distance is typically evaluated based on the 85 percentile speed. However, in the absence of speed data, design speed assumptions may be made. Typical design speed assumptions include (a) the posted speed limit in miles per hour and (b) posted speed limit plus five miles per hour. 4.7 Mitigation Agencies may assess mitigation fees based on traffic impacts of a proposed development to offset costs associated with accommodating the traffic generated by the development and facilitating the construction of street improvement projects within the project site vicinity. 5.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 5.1 Street Facilities In accordance with discussions with the City of Tukwila, the following seven intersections were analyzed: A. Southcenter Boulevard/53rd Avenue South B. Southcenter Boulevard/Macdam Road South C. Southcenter Boulevard/61'st Avenue South D. Southcenter Boulevard/65th Avenue South — E. Southcenter Boulevard/66th Avenue South F. Southcenter Boulevard/Interurban Avenue South G. Fort Dent Way/Interurban Avenue South Figure 3 shows lane widths, speed limits, traffic control, and geometric conditions at the above - referenced intersections and surrounding street network. 5.2 Transit Facilities i Appendix C contains route and timetable information on King County Metro Transit routes serving the Southcenter neighborhood. Routes 124 and 150 run along Southcenter Boulevard, Route 124 runs along 65th Avenue South, and Route 128 runs along Macadam Road South. Transit stops are located within two blocks of the proposed Robb Rezone development. 5.3 Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Tukwila for six of the seven analyzed intersections. The Southcenter Boulevard/Macadam Road South intersection was counted by • . Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., on Thursday, April 17, 2003, for the Macadam Road V) South volumes. The Southcenter Boulevard through volumes were calculated based on the volumes at the adjacent Southcenter Boulevard/61st Avenue South intersection. The Appendix A traffic counts conducted by Trafficount and Traffic Data Gathering in 2002 were ' O C) 5 10751.004.doc [DMS/tep] converted to 2003 volumes using a growth factor described in Section 6.1 of this report. The 2003 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4 and Tables 6 and 7. 5.4 Level of Service 5.5 Safety 5.6 Sight Distance According to Table 8, all seven analyzed intersections currently operate at Level of Service E or better during the p.m. peak hour time period. According to Table 9, no intersections have an accident rate greater than 2.0 accidents per million entering vehicles. While the highest accident rate was recorded at the Southcenter Boulevard/61st Avenue South intersection with a 1.26 accidents per million entering vehicle rate, accidents at this intersection were predominantly property damage only with only 10 injury accidents at this location. No fatality accidents were reported at any of the seven analysis intersections. The Robb Rezone development traffic would be served by a driveway opening onto Southcenter Boulevard in the same location as the existing driveway. The posted speed limit on Southcenter Boulevard is 35 miles per hour. A design speed of 40 miles per hour (posted speed limit plus 5 mph) was used for sight distance analysis purposes. According to the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2001), the required intersection stopping sight distances at the Southcenter Blvd/66` Avenue South intersection are 325 feet on both Southcenter Blvd approaches and 145 feet on the driveway approach. The driveway entering sight distance requirement for southbound right turning vehicles is 385 feet. The following sight distances were measured on Friday, May 2, 2003 and Monday, May 5, 2003 by Barghausen Consulting Engineers Surveying Department based on the driver's eye being set 10 feet back from the nearest edge of intersecting roadway: • Entering Sight Distance for westbound vehicles looking east = 444 feet. • Stopping Sight Distance approaching from the driveway = 193 feet • Stopping Sight Distance approaching from the east = 391 feet Therefore, stopping sight distances and westbound entering sight distance comply with AASHTO requirements for a vehicle who's driver is set 10 feet back from the nearest edge of intersecting roadway and eastbound entering sight distance is mitigated by the traffic signal. If the driver's eye were 18 feet from the nearest edge of intersecting roadway instead of 10 feet, the measured entering sight distance would be less. If 18 feet is in fact the desired setback for measuring entering sight distance to avoithedestrian arid- si.de.walk __ e rrchment, and the measure sig istances were deficient at this particular, setback, options for addressing -t is. iMiakc me u e the following: 1. Put a "No Right on Red" restriction for southbound right turning vehicles exiting the site. 2. Cut back the berm and vegetation to enhance visibility. 3. Rebuild the brick wall on either side of the existing driveway. 4. Install a "Watch for Pedestrians" Warning sign on the southbound approach. 6RF 6 's,+w.+ ?.:.wd.: . ,11C'l'tY,ft�S� "SK+�Sq�•tk.'+" , e. "r 10751.004.doc [DM Shop] 6.0 2005 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6.1 Traffic Volumes Appendix D shows traffic volumes along SR -181 near the Strander Boulevard intersection, the closest WSDOT Annual Traffic Report (2002) data available to the subject project and street network. Historic volumes cover between 1998 and 2001. These statistics show 29,000 in 1998 and 31,000 vehicles in 2000, with a sharp drop to 26,000 in vehicles in 2001. However, to ensure conservative analysis, the 1998 and 2000 volumes were used to calculate a 3.39 percent compounded annual growth rate, which served as the basis for the projected traffic volume analysis. 2005 was selected as the horizon year for this project, which is 2 years beyond the current year. Therefore, the traffic volume shown on Figure 5 and Tables 6 and 7 are based on a 2 -year projection. 6.2 Level of Service According to Table 8, all the intersections are expected to operate at Level of Service E or better under projected 2005 without- project conditions. The existing traffic volumes for Intersection `E" (Southcenter Blvd/66' Avenue South) show that no vehicles entered or 'exited the site during the PM peak hour when counts were conducted. If traffic volumes were observed on these approaches, the subject intersection would still be expected to operate at Level of Service "C" with an average delay increase of no more than 0.5 seconds, based on this being the case for the Projected 2005 with Project Level of Service results (see Table 8). 7.0 TRIP GENERATION Maximum potential trip generation was calculated for the three most likely Robb parcel development alternatives, general office building, medical/dental, and retail based on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, Sixth Edition (1997) rates. According to Table 1, the maximum potential trip generation for a general office building development would be 99 average weekday, 14 a.m. peak hour, and 13 p.m. peak hour trips. According to Table 2, a medical/dental development would have a maximum trip generation potential of 325 average weekday, 22 a.m. peak hour, and 33 p.m. peak hour trips. According to Table 3 a specialty retail development would have a maximum trip generation potential of 271 average weekday, 7 a.m. peak hour, and 17 p.m. peak hour trips. Medical/dental has the highest maximum trip generation potential and was thereby selected for analysis purposes. Maximum potential parking demand was also examined for the three most likely development alternatives. According to Table 4, potential parking demand would range from 26 for an office development to 37 for a medical/dental development based on rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, 2" Edition (1987). Actual parking demand would N likely be lower as the Robb parcel is located on a transit line within two blocks of a transit stop. 0 7 10751.004.doc [DMS /tep] 8.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION According to Table 5, a destination analysis was conducted to determine the likely origins and destinations for Robb Rezone development clientele and personnel. A street segment analysis was conducted for determining the most likely street segments that motorists would use to travel between the origins and destinations identified in the destination analysis and the Robb Rezone z development. I z 9.0 2005 CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT J U 0 9.1 Traffic Volumes (1) o J � w 2 5 a I- U- 9.2 Level of Service z 1- 0 z F- LU w V 0 0 1-- w W I u ..z w U= 0 Figure 7 and Tables 6 and 7 show the maximum potential 2005 with project traffic volumes calculated by adding the maximum potential project generated volumes to the base 2005 volumes at each of the seven analyzed intersections. For analysis purposes, it was assumed all vehicles would enter and exit the site at the Southcenter Blvd/66 Avenue South intersection. According .to Table 8, all the intersections are expected to operate at Level of Service E or better, under 2005 with- project conditions, with the highest trip generating development alternative increasing intersection delay by no more than 0.6 seconds and changing the Level of Service rating at the Southcenter Boulevard/Macadam Road South intersection only. All other intersection Level of Service ratings would remain unchanged from 2005 without project conditions. The Robb Rezone development under its maximum development potential would therefore have a very minor impact on the seven analyzed intersections and surrounding City of Tukwila street network. 9.3 Mitigation Table 10 identifies the City of Tukwila project list that serves as a basis for impact fee assessment. Seven of the nine projects are completed. Therefore, the Robb Rezone development would only be responsible for contributing to the West Valley /Strander (northbound dual left -turn lanes) and Interurban Bridge (widened for dual left- turns) projects that have not been completed. A maximum of five p.m. peak hour trips would impact the West Valley /Strander intersection, while four would impact the Interurban Bridge intersection. The calculated impact fee, as indicated on Table 10, could be up to $5,903. 9.4 Driveway Design The driveway would be widened when the land use is converted. A formal site, driveway, and circulation plan has not yet been prepared and is awaiting approval of the subject rezone. When the driveway is constructed, the driveway approach width and throat width would be constructed to City of Tukwila Standards. However, photographs of the existing driveway are contained in Appendix E. The driveway (brick wall to brick wall) was measured at approximately 25.5 feet. However, to ensure a conservative analysis, a 25 -foot driveway was ..assumed. This is sufficient to accommodate a 13 -foot wide inbound lane and a 12 -foot wide left/thru/right exit lane. The Table 8 Level of Service Summary indicates the entire signalized intersection would be expected to operate at an excellent Level of Service "C" based on this lane configuration. 8 10751.004.doc [DMS /tep] z 9.5 Access Alternatives The primary access to the site would be the north leg of the Southcenter Blvd/66` Ave S. signalized intersection. The developed Schneider Family Home property located at 6510 Southcenter Blvd has a short access easement, depicted in an Appendix E photograph, to the east that connects to the parking lot and could serve as an alternative access to the proposed Robb development if written permission were obtained from the Schneider Family Home development owners. 9.6 Potential Site Constraints According to the Table 4 Parking Generation Summary, the highest trip generating land use, Medical/Dental Clinic /Office, the average projected parking generation was 37 spaces with a low -end estimate of 20 spaces. The projected parking demand is likely to be closer to the low -end estimate as the site is located on a major transit route that runs along Southcenter Blvd., as previously discussed, and transit serves as a convenient alternative for medical/dental clinic /office clientele. In order to accommodate the 37 parking spaces and associated drive aisles, the potential development may be limited to a smaller building size. A parking and circulation plan would be designed when a future development related permit application is filed with the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. Only passenger cars and light trucks are expected to use the site, with occasional delivery vehicles. Large trucks equivalent to the WB -50 and greater are not expected to use the site. While the existing development containing two residences has a driveway with an entering upgrade of approximately 12 percent, which may pose concerns for vehicles queuing on Southcenter Blvd behind vehicles slowing to enter the development and negotiate the grade, circulation enhancement options include the following: 1. Construct a row parking lot at or near the street level and the building at a much higher level. Provide a stairway to connect the two. 2. Construct two separate levels of row parking lots, and then the building at a higher level than the parking, connecting all components with a stairway. 3. Maintain the 25 -foot throat width at the Southcenter Blvd access and then widen the access to 41 feet to accommodate parallel parking, with the wider cross section starting approximately 20 feet in to the site. The widened access would continue up to the building with the remaining required parking spaces available in a row parking lot at the building level. 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared to determine the maximum potential impact of developing the 31,926 square foot (0.733 acre) Robb parcel located in the northwest quadrant of the Souihcenter Boulevard/66th Avenue South intersection in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The, maximum trip generation potential is 325 average weekday, 22 a.m. peak hour, and 33 p.m. peak hour trips. All seven analyzed intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service E or better, increasing analyzed intersection delay by no more than 0.6 seconds. AASHTO entering and stopping sight distance requirements would be met for the proposed driveway located at the Southcenter Boulevard/66th Avenue South intersection based on the driver's eye set 10 feet back 9 • r�xr�3xw�cxusr pr 10751.004.doc [DM Simi)] 07 C C O C C 0 O from Southcenter Blvd. Accident rates are acceptable at all seven analyzed intersections. The calculated impact fee could be up to $5,903. The existing 25 -foot access throat width could be maintained to accommodate a 13 -foot wide entrance lane and a 12 -foot wide left/thru/right exit lane. Sight distance may be enhanced through berm excavation and vegetation removal. Safety enhancements related to sight distance include "No Right on Red" and "Watch for Pedestrians" signage to alleviate any safety concerns generated by motorists encroaching on the sidewalk to obtain the necessary sight distance. Circulation enhancement alternatives in lieu of motorists slowing traffic while entering at a 12 percent upgrade include (a) parking on a lower level with the building on an upper level, (b) parking on two levels and the building on a third level, and (c) an extra wide curved access driveway to accommodate parallel parking while providing a row parking lot on top adjacent to the building. Questions concerning this Traffic Impact Analysis may be directed to Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., Traffic Engineering Department, via telephone: (425) 656 -7424, facsimile: (425) 251 -8782, or e-mail: dschwegel @barghausen.com. icta; v,; i, d 1i�id% i; l' w'>, ;mr.`•:•Fiia- ��'.Z�v✓±1Av' 10 10751.004.doc [DMS/tep] PROPOSED: General Office Building (710) Enter / Exit % Captured Trips (2) Subtotal (off-site trips) Pass-By Trips (2) New Restaurant Trips EXISTING: No Existing Land Use TOTAL NEW TRIPS 0 0 0 101 LAND USE SIZE X UNITS 9.000 1000 snare feet gross floor area Remarks* (1) Per ITE rio Generotiofl Slxth Moo 97 (2) Per ITE T flon Hm_m22./11._-..--611®11( Mar h 2 50 49 99 ••■••• tgaeiageat 11.01 50 49 99 1.56 13 1 14 1.49 2 11 13 50% 50% 86% 12% 17% 83% 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 50 49 99 13 1 14 2 11 13 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 50 49 99 13 1 14 2 11 13 TABLE 1 - PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION (OFFICE) Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #: 10751 June 6, 2003 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIPS (T AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS AVERAGE RATE 1 ENTER EXIT TOTAL AVERAGE RATE (1 • , ;*: 13 1 14 11 13 Prepared By Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. u PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (7) ENTER EXIT TOTAL AVERAGE RATE 1) ENTER EXIT TOTAL NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. oaoio TABLE 2 - PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION (MEDICALJDENTAL) Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #1:10751 (June 6, 2003) LAND USE SIZE (X) UNITS PROPOSED: Medical - Dental Office Building (720) Enter / Exit % Captured Trips (2) Subtotal (off -site trips) Pass -By Trips (2) New Restaurant Trips EXISTING: No Existing Land Use 9.000 1000 sqare feet gross floor area a id n.aT .+� x ,$,. k 3:L ` .i 41A TOTAL NEW TRIPS AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIPS (7) AVERAGE RATE (1) ENTER EXIT TOTAL 36.13 163 162 325 50% 50% 0% 0 0 0 163 162 325 0% 0 0 0 163 162 325 163 162 325 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (T) AVERAGE RATE (1) ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2.43 18 4 • 22 80% 20% 0% 0 0 0 18 4 22 0% 0 0 0 18 4 22 '�.r.u+"Y'!If+ -. •Y�s T.- is ::cl; "_.•,a...•. �t.. 18 4 22 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (T) AVERAGE RATE (1) ENTER EXIT TOTAL 3.66 9 24 33 27% 73% 0% 0 0 0 9 24 33 0% 0 0 0 9 24 33 9 24 33 Remarks: (1) Per )TE Trio Generation Sixth Edition (19971 (2) Per ITE Trio Generation Handbook (March. 20011 r Prepared By Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. LAND USE SIZE (X) UNITS PROPOSED: Specialty Retell Center (614) 9.000 1000 sqare Enter / Exit % feet gross Captured Trips (2) leasable Subtotal (off -site trips) area Pass -By Trips (2) New Restaurant Trips EXISTING: No Existing Land Use TOTAL NEW TRIPS TABLE 3 - PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION (RETAIL) Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #: 10751 (June 6, 2003) AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIPS (T) AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (T) AVERAGE RATE (1) ENTER EXIT TOTAL AVERAGE RATE (3) ENTER EXIT TOTAL 40.67 183 183 366 50% 50% 0% 0 0 0 183 183 366 26% 48 47 95 135 136 271 135 136 271 0.98 6 3 9 61% 39% 0% 0 0 0 6 3 9 26% 1 1 2 5 2 7 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (T) AVERAGE RATE (1) ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2.59 10 13 23 43% 57% 0% 0 0 0 10 13 23 26% 3 3 6 7 10 17 5 , 27 7 113 17 Remarks: (1) Per JTE Trio Generation Sixth Edition (19971 (2) Per ITE Trio Generation Handbook (March. 20011. Trio Generation Handbook does not have a pass -by rate for Specialty Retail. Therefore, the related Shopping Center (820) pass -by rate was used. (3) AM Peak Hour Rate = Weekday Rate • (AM Shopping Center/Weekday Shopping Center) = 40.67' (1.03/42.92) = 0.98 000103 Prepared By Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 0001 ( •.. t�:;;:..�� �NiF.� ��i:.,y'•;,:i;i.. t � �.?: i:•. 417b� `�i`r{��.'•`"'I.`j�.'}::Y }•'�.` .. �. f3�r' +.',t`�vlX+..��`'�..�4 rflsi. F .:1JT.l��'r''.7i1' ..:I.i.n��.M :. ✓� ^�t•.:.:r•.$.:f. ..rc.+e • PARKING GENERATION RATE (1) Land Use Code General Office Building Medical /Dental Clinic/Office 711/716 630 820 -828 Description Shopping Center TABLE 4 - PARKING GENERATION SUMMARY Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #: 10751 (June 6, 2003) Low 0.75 2.22 1.02 Building Size (KSF) = 9.000 't 37 fiT`ri/. ° >' � • It. • - i;`ti� i <.fy r.• t ". `L .':.i^ - T J' _.. ... Average 2.79 4.11 3.23 High 32.29 9.67 6.17 Remarks: (1) Per Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, 2nd Edition (1987) PROJECTED PARKING GENERATION Low 7 20 10 Average 26 37 30 High 291 88 56 _ _: �� ;:J' ..ice i.45''r. �� T.b•: -rl+ � t•J � f: +.:;:7i::� - :ir':i. :�z.. ::!._ . �i .. .. .. :.!' ':4"l�'�ti r i:j�a 1: " d :. :.R(. " ::t. i^ w:r '• _.i �.a••i' .. fib ` �....:.v '� .: v . �.} �t. . _ .. .._ �.(� yti��'i �l�':_wt.i'.. {:i �.l��. f:'... ::�'i'F�•:4�. . .'FT .•. .... > ... . .a l..•.. . -.t ... -. 3�•. -i ��• - . Standard Deviation - 1.20 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS (1) Number of Studies 207 40 141 2.25 1.39 Average Size (KSF) 168 23 635 Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 000_i 05: TABLE 5 - TRIP DISTRIBUTION VALUES Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #: 10751 (June 6, 2003) L Destination Analysis: Destination (1) Renton (2) SeaTac, Burien (3) Federal Way, Tacoma, South (4) Southcenter, Kent (5) Fairwood, E. Kent, Southeast (6) Bellevue, Northeast (7) Seattle, Northwest vial-5 (8) Seattle, Northwest via Interurban Street Segment Trip Generation Analysis (from Table 2): Percent Enter 20% 15% 10% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 35% 35% 15% 10% 15% 40% 15% Percent Exit 20% 15% 10% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 100% 100% 11. Street Segment Analysis: Percent 1 Percent Enter Exit 25% (A) Southcenter Blvd. SW, West of Robb Rezone (71+ (2) + (3 enter) (B) Southcenter Blvd. SW, West of Macadam (7) + (2) + (3 enter) (C) Southcenter Blvd. SW, West of 1 -5 (2) (D) 1 -5 North of Southcenter Blvd. SW (7) (E) 66th Avenue S. Across 1 -405 (4) + (6 exit) (F) Southcenter Blvd. SW, East of Robb Rezone (1) + (5) + (8) + (3 exit) (G) Interurban Ave. S., North of Southcenter Blvd. SW (8) + (6 enter) + (3 exit) (H) Grady Way S. (1) (I) West Valley Highway South of Southcenter Blvd. SW (5) - - :F: - - - iC: -ya . - Lf . ,i;::n5 = r''..._� o.. �'L 25% 15% 10% 25% 50% 15% 20% Average Weekday 65 48 33 49 49 33 32 16 325 9 24 Average Weekday 114 114 48 33 48 130 49 65 325 PM Peak Hour Enter Exit 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 4 1 2 20% _ 15% 15% 49 1 PM Peak Hour Enter Exit 9 5 4 2 4 4 2 2 1 6 6 4 2 6 12 3 5 4 24 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Intersection Movement & Direction Volumes 2002 PM Peak Existing Volumes 2003 PM Peak (1) Projected Volumes w/o Project, 2005 . PM Peak (2) Project Generated Volumes (3) Projected Volumes w/ Project, 2005 PM Peak (4) GROWTH RATE: 3.39% (5) intersection "A" Southcenter Blvd/ 53rd Ave. S. ' Thursday • 10/17/2002 4:45- 5 :45 PM Trafflcount Inc. sbrt 200 207 221 0 221 sbth 12 12 13 0 13 Horizon yr - Current yr: 2 sbit 1024 1059 1132 1 1133 wbrt 0 0 0 0 0 wbth 566 585 625 4 629 wbit 41 42 45 0 45 nbrt 53 55 59 0 59 nbth 0 0 0 0 0 nbrt 24 25 27 0 27 ebrt 27 •28 30 0 30 ebth 462 478 511 1 512 ebit 0 0 0 0 0 intersection "B" Southcenter Blvd/ Macadam Rd. S. • Thursday 4/17/2003 Barghausen Thursday 4/11/2002 4:15 -5:15 PM Traffic Data Gathering ' sbrt sbrt 1 32 34 0 34 sbth 0 0 0 0 sbit 94 100 0 100 wbrt 165 176 0 176 wbth 1716 1774 1896 6 1902 wbrt 0 0 0 0 nbrt 0 0 0 0 nbth 0 0 0 0 nbit 0 0 0 0 ebrt 0 0 0 0 ebth 2079 2149 2297 3 2300 ebit 150 160 • 0 160 Intersection "C" Southcenter Blvd/ 61st Ave. S. Thursday 4/11/2002 4 :15 -5 :15 PM Traffic Data Gathering 0 0 0 0 0 sbth 0 0 0 0 0 sblt 0 0 0 0 0 wbrt 0 0 0 0 0 wbth 741 766 819 6 825 wilt 200 207 221 0 221 nbrt 71 73 78 0 78 nbth 0 0 0 0 0 nbft 975 1008 1078 0 1078 ebrt 1421 1469 1570 0 1570 ebth • 658 680 727 3 730 ebit 0 0 0 0 0 Intersection "O" Southcenter Blvd/ 65th Ave. S. Monday 5/13/2002 4:45 to 5 :45 PM Traffic Data Gathering sbrt 48 50 53 0 53 sbth 0 0 0 0 0 sbtt 83 86 92 0 92 wbrt 93 96 103 0 103 wbth 740 765 818 6 824 wbrt 0 0 0 0 0 nbrt 0 0 0 0 0 nbth 0 0 0 0 0 nbit 0 0 0 0 0 ebrt • 0 0 0 0 0 ebth 404 418 447 3 450 ebk 60 62 66 0 66 Remarks: (1) From Figure 4 (2) From Figure 5 (3) From Figure 6 (4) From Figure 7 • (5) From Appendix D: WSDOT Annual Traffic Report (2001) Total Entering Volumes: Intersection A Intersection 8 Intersection C Intersection D 2491 2663 6 2669 4364 4663 9 4672 4203 4493 9 4502 1477 1579 9 1588 C C Table 6 - Existing & Projected Traffic Volumes (Intersections A to D) 10751 - Robb Rezone (June 6, 2003) Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. s�.;s2p ;`r'"a ,:�c�w:1�!�nla�+mrma_r�r•:n 6/6/2003 T6.xls Intersection Movement & Direction Volumes 2002 PM Peak Existing Volumes 2003 PM Peak (1) Projected Volumes w/o Project, 2005 PM Peak (2) Project Generated Volumes (3) Projected Volumes w/ Project, 2005 PM Peak (4) GROWTH RATE: 3.39% (5) Intersection "E" Southcenter Blvd/ 66th Ave. S. (Site Access) Thursday • 4/11/2002 4:30 -5:30 PM Traffic Data Gathering . _ sbrt 0 0 0 6 6 sbth 0 0 0 6 6 Horizon yr - Current yr: 2 sblt 0 0 0 12 12 wbrt 0 0 - 0 4 4 wbth 701 725 775 0 775 . wblt 579 599 640 0 640 nbrt 640 662 708 0 708 nbth 0 0 0 2 2 nbit 249 257 275 0 275 ebrt 91 94 100 0 100 ebth 585 605 647 0 647 eblt 0 0 0 3 3 Intersection "F" Southcenter Blvd/ interurban Ave: S. Wednesday 4/3/2002 4:30 -5:30 PM Traffic Data Gathering sbrt 130 134 143 1 144 sbth 659 681 728 0 728 sbit 244 252 269 0 269 wbrt 607 628 671 0 671 wbth 770 796 851 2 853 wbrt 305 • 315 337 0 337 nbrt 486 502 537 0 537 nbth 568 587 627 0 627 nbit 178 184 197 1 198 ebrt 161 166 177 4 181 ebth 729 754 806 5 811 eblt 154 159 170 3 173 Intersection "G" Fort Dent Way/ Interurban Ave. S. Thursday 4/18/2002 4:45 -5:45 PM Traffic Data Gathering sbrt 306 316 338 0 338 sbth 959 • • 992 1060 1 1061 sblt 47 49 52 0 52 wbrt 14 14 15 0 15 wbth 6 6 6 0 6 wbit 11 11 12 0 12 nbrt 11 11 12 0 12 nbth 972 1005 1074 1 1075 nbit 491 _ 508 543 2 545 ebrt 377 390 417 0 417 ebth 9 9 10 0 10 eblt 310 321 ' 343 0 343 Remarks: (1) From Figure 4 (2) From Figure 5 (3) From Figure 6 (4) From Figure 7 (5) From Appendix 0: WSOOT Annual Traffic Report (2001) Total Entering Volumes: Intersection E Intersection F Intersection G . 2942. 31 33 3178 5158 5513 16 5529 3632 3882 4 3886 Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 7- Existing & Projected Traffic Volumes (intersections E to G) 10751 - Robb Rezone (June 6, 2003) 6/6/2003 T7.xls 000108 TABLE 8- PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #: 10751 (June 6, 2003) • Intersection A B C D E F G Southcenter Blvd/53rd Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/Macadam Rd. S. Southcenter Blvd/61st Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/65th Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/66th Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/Interurban Ave. S. Fort Dent Way/Interurban Ave. S. Control Type S S S TWS S S S Time Period 1 Existing 2003 LOS Delay Rating (sec/veh) B C C C C E 19.2 25.1 33.5 16.5 30.0 57 46.7 Time Period 2 Projected 2005 LOS Delay Rating (sec/veh) B C C C C E D 19.9 34.6 34.2 17.9 30.2 57.6 49.8 Time Period 3 Projected 2005 with Project LOS Delay Rating (sec/veh) B D C C C E D 19.9 35.2 34.2 18.0 30.7 57.7 49.8 Remarks: Calculations are based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Edition S: Signal (Based on Overall Intersection) TWS: Two Way Stop (Based on Worst Case Movement) NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 0001.00 TABLE 9 - ACCIDENT SUMMARY Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #: 10751 (June 6, 2003) intersection A C G Southcenter Blvd /53rd Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/Macadam Rd. S. Southcenter Blvd/61 st Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/65th Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/66th Ave. S. Southcenter Blvd/Interurban Ave. S. Fort Dent Way /Interurban Ave. S. Accident Quantity 2000 2001 2002 Total 10 2 10 22 1 2 9 12 2 12 17 0 3 6 17 6 18 19 1 4 16 14 40 58 2 9 31 43 Entering Volume 2491 4390 4203 1477 2942 5158 3632 Quantity by Type FAT INJ PDO Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 22 1 1 9 15 6 30 36. 1 8 22 10 40 58 2 9 31 Rate by Type (MEV) FAT INJ PDO Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.21 0.48 0.06 0.03 0.16 0.22 0.62 0.78 0.06 0.25 0.39 0.37 0.83 1.26 0.12 0.28 0.55 28 43 0.00 0.38 0.70 1.08 Remarks: MEV: Per Million Entering Vehicles FAT: Fatality INJ: Injury PDO: Property Damage Only Entering Volume: Based on 2003 PM Peak Hour. See T 6 and 7 K- Factor (Average Weekday Volume /PM Peak Hour Volume) = 10 Accident Quantity and Quantity by Type provided by City of Tukwila NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. no no f TABLE 10 - IMPACT FEE SUMMARY Robb Rezone (Tukwila, Washington) BCE Job #: 10751 (June 6, 2003) Impact Fee Project (1) Southcenter /Strander (widen for WB Left Turns) (2) Andover Pk E/ Strander (widen for n/s Left Turns) (3) Andover Pk W /Strander (widen for n/s Left Turns) (4) S. 180th St/SR -181 (widen n/s and a /w) (5) Andover Pk E/Baker (n/s lefts, signal) (6) Andover Pk W /Minkler (n/s lefts, signal) (7) Southcenter Pkwy /168 (signal) (8) W Valley /Strander (NB dual left turn lanes) (9) Interurban Bridge (widen for dual lefts) Total Improvement Cost $ 134,000.00 $ 94,000.00 $ 296,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 1,250,000.00 Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip 140.00 135.00 317.00 475.00 $ 377.00 $ 392.00 278.00 283.00 Status Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed In- Progress Robb Rezone Impact (PM Peak Hour Trips) 5 $ 1,415.00 $ 1,122.00 In- Progress 4 $ 4,488.00 Total $ 5,903.00 Remarks: Total impact fee Is based on projects which have not been completed. Project List, Improvements Cost, Status, and Per Trip Costs were provided by City of Tukwila. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. BURIEN DES MOINES SfTE RENTON KWILA NEWCASTLE NTS PUGET SOUND KENT FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP COVINGTON TUKWL.A, WATCH JUKE 6 2003 BARC+IAUSEN CONSULTING JOB Na 10751 BELLEVUE ROBB REZONE TRAFFIC PPACT ANALYSIS Un r) z W 6 J U 00 N O CD LLI W W • O i O D- O I- WW 2 1 H LL •Z W = O ~ Z moot fi: PA10 oo. \Ian1 \.•na+\L.MN17oT1oh1¢ao aa/P..r a /It/mw 1,.00 s.d.: 1-.0 ►.....w Inic g101 31A. FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN TIACWLA, WA8FU QTCH ROBB REZONE W.9RO IMPACT ANALYSIS ARE 8, 2003 Sahli L . EL RJ[` ?S Nc.1075L_ Z W re 6 J U O 0 co a (/)W J F- U) W � U D = CI I.. W Z = H I— O Z I- W W U D O - O I— W I- --- O Z O ~ Z NTS FIGURE 3 EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS LEGEND: # OF LANES TRAFFIC DIRECTION STOP SIGN POSTED SPEED LIMIT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SOUTHCENTER MALL •8L/60 5L/35 SL /25 S 151st S ST 2L 152nd 25 ST 2L/25 �� 2L/35 S 152nd �� � Q- A 1 PL 5 B S � j S 153rd S G� 4LRP� W' � ill S s 2L/15 1 3 , 5 4L/60 N r FR C E / �' �\.1 Sy ^ VD SW � /i1�•� ►r pKwY � m WE BAKER 'BLVD. 10L/60 A: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 53rd AVE. S. B: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ MACADAM ROAD S. C: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 61st AVENUE S. D: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 65th AVENUE S. E: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 66th AVENUE S. F: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ INTERURBAN AVENUE S G: FORT DENT WAY/ INTERURBAN AVENUE S BLVD. TUKWI..A, WAStiNCITO(d ROBB F1EZOtE TRAMC IMPACT ANALYSIS XL XMPH O 5L/40 0 0 .*JPE 8, 2003 _.►t _.► rte♦: I.t =US:. = = ;: �:= ►... �Z CO 0 0 N �i:�aL �._► �e4: =... l►s ���t.'�,���: �,: ►.. .1 E7 ri PITS SOUTHCENTER MALL BAKER BLVD. -o D m STRANDER BLVD. TUKWL.A, WASI•NCYTcN D 0 m ROBB REZONE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JUNE 6, 2003 II C) D S 152nd ST S 152nd — .44 \411100 0F A 1 PL S 153rd S T fx S T r' Tom► jl°4 pKW( SITE A: SOUTHCENTER • BLVD./ 53rd AVE. S. 8a SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ MACADAM ROAD S. C: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 61st AVENUE S. • D: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 65th AVENUE S. E= SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 66th AVENUE S. F� SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ INTERURBAN AVENUE S G: FORT DENT WAY/ INTERURBAN AVENUE S FIGURE 4 2003 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4 28--� B LEGEND: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME, c � (VEHICLES PER HOUR) c" S 151st 680- 469N E ` C \ ;°_rnrn 0 0o t -725 M°'d 4-6 r 1 , 321' 390•, Rp,O� Q 75 N N 0 a 0 N 0 N O 0 O 0 FIGURE 5 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES fr SOUTHCENTER MALL - y BAKER BLVD. ' m STRANDER BLVD. Z 0 P1 Hrs D S (‘./3 qL a D S 151st S 1 527T ST B S 152nd PL S 153rd G� , RPO� �( . S OU D 411 NrERC . / , 41,16./ 9K„N sITE A: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 53rd AVE. S. B: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ MACADAM ROAD S. C� SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 61st AVENUE S. D: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 65th AVENUE S. 4 a. E: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 66th AVENUE S. F: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ INTERURBAN AVENUE S G: FORT DENT WAY/ INTERURBAN AVENUE S d l it4r42 510—* c.1 LEGEND: S. PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME c (VEHICLES PER HOUR) 000 640 ht N 647-+ 1 0 0 '', 'TUKWILA WASHNGTON G ROBB REZONE 'TRAFFIC P PACT ANALYSIS Y JUKE 6,2003 0 N 0 0 .0 0 o U tf') N O O N 0 E 1- 0 0 N 0 M O U v 1 n . / N 0 r- cn 0 0 o 0 MTS , 0 TO/ FROM % o RENTON (20 %) ® SEA -TAC BURIEN (15 O TACOMA, WAY, ® SOUTH ENTER, KENT (15 %) ® FAIRWOOD, E. KENT, SE (15 %) ® BELLEVUE, NORTHEAST (10 %) ® SEATTLE, NORTHWEST VIA 1 -5 (10 %) ® SEATTLE, NORTHWEST VIA INTERURBAN (5 %) INTERSECTION: FIGURE 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION S 151st ST S 1 52n d ST A P152nd S 153rd c� 4 o ST , R 11111 B � EN SffE cr (10 %) BLVD. • ?3 BLVD. .5)4,)V 0 )& $ t (� 3 -Do- \ 0Z oo � 0 LEGEND: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME ® (VEHICLES PER HOUR) ' C - A: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ D` E 53rd AVE. S. B: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ MACADAM ROAD S. C: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 61st AVENUE S. D: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 65th AVENUE S. E: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 66th AVENUE S. F: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ INTERURBAN AVENUE S G: FORT DENT WAY/ INTERURBAN AVENUE S TRAFFIC MAC ANALYSIS TRIP GENERATION: PM IN: 9 PM OUT: 24 PM TOTAL: 33 WEEKDAY: 325 N X 0 N 0 0 .0 0 0 U V) N a M 0 N a 0 0 0' 0 l0 N 0 0 N U 0 s a) N 0 a a a 0 0 1A WASI!-lNQTON JAE C 2003 z w C 6 C 0I 0 CD0 w J w • 0 CO Q 1 Z = W U • � o I- w w I- f • -- w z 0 - I O I z ■ U% iii A SOUTHCENTER MALL rn B S 153rd NAF- ST ,c pKWY SfTE BAKER BLVD. Z 73 o � STRANDER rn BLVD. O 4 A: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 53rd AVE. S. B: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ MACADAM ROAD S. C: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 61st AVENUE S. D: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ 65th AVENUE S. 'E: SOUTHCENTER BLVD./ FIGURE 7 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT LEGEND: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VEHICLES PER HOUR) 152nd ST ./ ES S S 152nd S 151st B ST D E F Roee ONE TRAFFIC !FACT ANALY8t8 Y TUKWLA, WAERIGTON JUKE 6, 2003 rf, f7 f NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS_ NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. cy Southcenter Boulevard T TURNING:MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM ..,•.„. - • 4:00 a 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM 788 464 60 404 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT 1,428 1,428 -COUNTED BY: JC REDUCED BY: CN •••••■■•-■ TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING . • • 48 83 I DATE OF REDUCTION: Mon. 5/13/02 • . ' 4 ' :'- 284 I 153 1 Tukwila, WA • -Southcenter Boulevard I 487 0 SB NB WB EB INTRS. HV 3% #N/A 2% 2% PI-IF 0.86 #N/A 0.89 0.94 0.93 4• •H)./ Heavy Vehicles • Peak Hour Factor Southb.iit.4..Boulevard © 65th Ave,S.'... DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/16/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Rain •C7) C CD 'N44b,z a. 44)A aca.ss&.m • , C . Cl C\1 0 LOCATION: Tukwila, WA ENIMTIMI:= FrOYYPTP rirOMM-S,"" E 1 - 6 1 TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMAPIY -FREPARED BY: TDG Tue. 4/16/2002 Tue. 4/9/2002 . . • Tue. 419/2002. TIME Southcenter Boulevard '::' 65th Avenue S Tukwila International Blvd @ S 160th Street INTERVAL 65th Avenue S Southcenter Boulevard Tuk international Blvd S 160th Street ENDING AT North Leg North Leg ,..._ East Leg West Leg North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 7:15 AM . o 0 . 0 1 0 0 1 0 7:30 AM o 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7:45 AM 3 1 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 2 o .. 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 • 8:15 AM 0 0 . 0 0 3 0 0 1 - - ‘ 8:30 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 - / 8:45 AM 0 • 0 i ' 0 2 p 0 0 0 1 9:00 AM 0 a ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total 5 . 0 4 2 3 1 5 1 0 C . Cl C\1 0 LOCATION: Tukwila, WA ENIMTIMI:= FrOYYPTP rirOMM-S,"" E 1 - 6 1 TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMAPIY -FREPARED BY: TDG . . - Ttie..4 612662 . . . .... . . • Tue. 419/2002. TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT Southcenter Boulevard @ 65th Avenue S Tukwila International Blvd @ S 160th Street 65th Avenue S Southcenter Boulevard Tuk International Blvd S 160th Street North Leg • East Leg West Leg North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4:30 PM 0 • 0 3 0 1 2 4:45 PM 1 . . .. o 0 1. i 0 2 5:00 PM o .. - 2 0 ,.. v • • 4 4 0 • 5:15 PM 0 0 0 • ' s 1 0 • . 5:30 PM 2 1 0 1 5 0 0 5:45 PM • 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 6:00 PM a 0 o 0 o 0 1 Total 3 0 4 0 5 11 11 5 C . Cl C\1 0 LOCATION: Tukwila, WA ENIMTIMI:= FrOYYPTP rirOMM-S,"" E 1 - 6 1 TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMAPIY -FREPARED BY: TDG INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 3,513 OUT • 3,513 A 1-405 NB Ramps I 803 I 696 I COUNTED BY: JH REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Mon. 5/13/02 TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM m • m >. Y 306 • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING • 1,312 2,608 959 11,34 47 .3. 491 I 2,821 • Tukwila, WA 1,2961 972 11,4741 •11- 14 8 . 11 West Valley highway @ 1 -405 NB Ramps S 156th Street 31 67 GO rn T SB NB we EB INTRS. HV 4% 2% 0% 5% 3% PHF 0.86 0.92 0.78 0.91 0.93 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor i :;DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 4/18/02 :TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Overcast 05/16/2002 19:47 286-335-5975- • • • LOCATION: Tukwila, WA TRAFFIC DATA GTI-IRING • TRAFFIC DATA GA GA771ERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY PREPARED BY: 1: 4.. �cnM" �7, �'%. �`' i7' �..•. ���x.« i��Y�': !, �Ye�•.. �`.:.: r'.'' �' •.....',.•���re�eCfic�.z+a•�fi;.n Wr;. �...-: �pan�M;,'• nr -a.u..iKk;:,?"�;!tR°?2.l�vr:.a PAGE 09 TDG w Thu, 4/18/2002 • Thu. 4/18/2002 TIME 51st Avenue.S0..S.164th Stra t .W Valley Hwy S ® 1-405 Na Ramps/ S 156th St INTERVAL. ENDING AT 51st Avenue's . ' S 164th Street W Va t Nlghwa S . S 156th SV1 -405 Ram a North Leg o SOUth I.;tie'"' 0 ; •'' Kr'ast Leg •• " • o Wont Leg o ioith Leg .',13 • '. - South Leg o East Lez 3 West Le 0 7:15 AM • 7:30 AM 0 0 0' 0 . `. 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 'o • o. 0 o '0 0 2 0 •" 6:00 AM o o • ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 AM' 0 0 o 0 0 0 1 _ 0 _ 8:30 AM 0 _ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 t.....' 8:45 AM• . 1 o 0 0 0. 0 0 0 9:00 AM • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 1 0 Total I 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 05/16/2002 19:47 286-335-5975- • • • LOCATION: Tukwila, WA TRAFFIC DATA GTI-IRING • TRAFFIC DATA GA GA771ERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY PREPARED BY: 1: 4.. �cnM" �7, �'%. �`' i7' �..•. ���x.« i��Y�': !, �Ye�•.. �`.:.: r'.'' �' •.....',.•���re�eCfic�.z+a•�fi;.n Wr;. �...-: �pan�M;,'• nr -a.u..iKk;:,?"�;!tR°?2.l�vr:.a PAGE 09 TDG w . 'T.hl�4 t102 _............... • ... • Thu. 4/18/2002 TIME 51st Avenue:$, (11;5;164th Street . • ' S 164th Street , ;•: _!bL Talley Hwy S 0 1-40S • • W Valley Highway S NB Ramps/S 156th St S 156th•St/I -40S Ram s INTERVAL • Slat Avenue S ENDING AT North Leg South Leg East Le, o West L a 0 r North Let o South Leg o East Leg 1 West Leg 0 4 :15 PM ' 0 • • 2 • 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 o 0 1 0 5 :00 PM o 0 0 0 ` 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 . 0 2 . o 0 o 0 5 :30 PM 0 1 . . 1 0 0 0 4 0 5 :45 PM 0 • O 0 I 0 0 0 o 0 A :00 PM o 0 0 0 •0 0 _ o 0 Total 0 t 4 • . 1 2 •' 0• • 0 8 o 05/16/2002 19:47 286-335-5975- • • • LOCATION: Tukwila, WA TRAFFIC DATA GTI-IRING • TRAFFIC DATA GA GA771ERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY PREPARED BY: 1: 4.. �cnM" �7, �'%. �`' i7' �..•. ���x.« i��Y�': !, �Ye�•.. �`.:.: r'.'' �' •.....',.•���re�eCfic�.z+a•�fi;.n Wr;. �...-: �pan�M;,'• nr -a.u..iKk;:,?"�;!tR°?2.l�vr:.a PAGE 09 TDG w •J • • 0) TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00. :00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4 :15 PM TO 5 :15 PM Southcenter Boulevard 2,079 658 1,421 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT 4,066 4,066 REDUCED BY: CN DATE OF REDUCTION: • [T4 RAFFIC DATA GATHERING - I• • Wed. 4/24/02 rr 975 2,667 71 [1046 'So Boulevard 741 200 Southcenter Blvd ® 61st Avenue Bridge Tukwila, WA I 941 I 1 729 N- SB NB .WB EB • INTRS. HV #N /A 3% 1% . 2% PHF #N/A 0.89 0.91 0.96 0.99 HV ' = 'HEAVY VEHICLES PNF = PEAK HOUR FACTOR `w. COUNTED BY: SW DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 4/11/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6 :00 PM WEATHER: Rain z I I I-6 � w 2 J O 0 • 0 co w J (/) LL w co LL Q. I w . z = 1 ._ I— 0 w ~ 2 O I-- L11 u1 H F tL O . Z — I O ~ • Z TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT Tukwila Parkway 62261st Avenue . .._ •.- ..... . Southcenter Boulevard @ 61st A 61st Avenue •• • Sotithcenter Boulevard @ 61st Avenue Tukwila Parkway Tukwila Parkway 61st Avenue Southcenter North Leg East Leg East Leg West Leg South Leg . • South Leg East Leg 4 :15 PM o 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 4:30 PM o 0 1 0 0 7:45 AM 0 2 4:45 PM o I 0 1 0 8:00 AM 0 0 2 5:00 PM o o 1 •.o 0 o • 0 3 5 :15 PM o 1 0 s o .• o 0 2 5:30 PM o 0 8:45 AM 1 0 4 0 2 5:45 PM o 9:00 AM o . 1 0 o • 0 1 6:00 PM o 0 -.a .•..;: a 0 . 0• •• 0 o 3 Total o • o. 13 0 0 • 0 16 LOCATION: PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING • PREPARED BY: TDG Wed. 4/10/2002 • - ...•�.:�•- z—.•.. .. ... A'L�±��r*e• Nr•, +ro�:rc;'i+�r.. q�';e,� s.;'rv�,F ..-, ...r= . -..t.. . •mom t •. . _. . Sat. 1/0/1900 anus Boulevard West Leg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wad ::4/1012002 . .._ •.- ..... . TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT Tukwlla Aarkviey 61st Avenue •• • Sotithcenter Boulevard @ 61st Avenue Gist Avenue • • Tukwila Parkway 61 Southeenter Boulevard North Leg East Leg West Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 7:15 AM 0 • 0 0 0 1 0 7:30 AM -4 0 0 0 0 1 0 7:45 AM 0 3 0 I 0 1 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 o 1 0 8:15 AM o • 0 0 0 1 0 8:30 AM o• .• o 0 .0 1 0 8:45 AM o • 0 0 0 1 0 9:00 AM o • • •• -• a o • .0 1 0 Total 0 -.a .•..;: 3 0 . 0• •• 0 s o LOCATION: PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING • PREPARED BY: TDG Wed. 4/10/2002 • - ...•�.:�•- z—.•.. .. ... A'L�±��r*e• Nr•, +ro�:rc;'i+�r.. q�';e,� s.;'rv�,F ..-, ...r= . -..t.. . •mom t •. . _. . Sat. 1/0/1900 anus Boulevard West Leg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �...Wed.44110/2002 -- - SaL 1/0/1900 TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT Tukwila Pa'rkwa (g 61st Avenue . • SOUtltcenter Boulevard @ 61st Avenue 61st Avenue Tukwila Parkway • - . 615tAvenue Southcentcr Boulevard ' North Leg East Leg West Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 11:15 AM o 5 0 0 2 o 11:30 AM o 0 o o 1 o 11:45 AM o 0 0 I 0 1 o 12 :00 PM o 2 0 0 2' o 12:15 PM o 2 _ 0 0 1 0 12 :30 PM • o .• i 0 0 I a 12:45 PM o • 1 0 0• 0 0 1:00 PM o .. 2 T a 0 0 0 Total 0 • O. .. 13 0 0 •• • o IS • 0 LOCATION: PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING • PREPARED BY: TDG Wed. 4/10/2002 • - ...•�.:�•- z—.•.. .. ... A'L�±��r*e• Nr•, +ro�:rc;'i+�r.. q�';e,� s.;'rv�,F ..-, ...r= . -..t.. . •mom t •. . _. . Sat. 1/0/1900 anus Boulevard West Leg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Southcenter Boulevard CC) C4 CD T 1.950 I 676 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT • 2,845 2,845 COUNTED BY: JU REDUCED BY: CN i I DATE: Sun. 4114102 TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PNifP,E HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 3:30 PM ip � •• ,4 TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING o 0 1 670 I 249 1 889 640 1,559 I— - -..—a• 0 701 579 Southcenter Boulevard 1 1,280 I 1,225 1 SB NB wB EB ,IN HV #N/A 3`Yo 3% 6% 3% PHF #NIA 0.78 0.68 0.72 0.72 HV = Heavy Vehicles • PHF = Peak Hour Factor Soiitlicenter Blvd @ 66t1 Avenue Bridge Tukwila, WA DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 4/11/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4 :00 - 6 :00 PM WEATHER: Rain LOCATION: Tukwila, WA IT TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY PREPARED BY: TDG r •1 s , ” 0 -0n5,314 Thu. 4/11/2002 Thu. 4/11/2002 • Wed. 4/3/2002 TIME Southcenter Boulevard et Interurban Avenue Southcenter Boulevard @ 66th Avenue Southcenter Boulevard @ Interurban Avenue INTERVAL ENDING AT r 66th Avenue •• Southeenter Boulevard Interurban Ave/W Valley SW Grady /Southcenter B North Leg South Leg •South L• eg East Leg West Leg North Leg • South Leg East Leg West Leg 7:15 AM 0 o . o- o 0 • 0 - . 0 0 0 « 7:30 AM • 0 0 -- o- -- 0 0 o • o• o 0 ti-- -- 7:45 AM 12:00 PM 5:00 PM o_ 0 0 ••• -b —�- - 0 0 0 8:00 AM 5:15 PM o o- 0 0 0– 0 0 0 8 :15 AM b o • o o . o o.• • 0 0 0 6:30 AM 2 0 o 0 0 • o 0 0 0 8 :45 AM 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 o 2 0 0 0 0 0 Total ,• 0 0 2 0 • 0 0 0 0 LOCATION: Tukwila, WA IT TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY PREPARED BY: TDG r •1 s , ” 0 -0n5,314 Thu. 4/11/2002 Wed. 4/3/2002 TIME INTERVAL ENDING Southcenter Boulevard @ 66th Avenue Southcenter Boulevard et Interurban Avenue 66th Avenue Soolhcenter Boulevard Interurban AvelW Valley SW Grady/Southeenter B SW Grady /Southcenter B South Leg East Leg West Leg North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 11:15 AM 4:15 PM o "" o o •o . 0 o . o 11 :30 AM 4:30 PM o o " `a "' - •• o • 0 0 11:45 AM 4:45 PM '.. o' ' o • o o " “"' 0 0 0 12:00 PM 5:00 PM .. o 1 0 • 0 0• 0 0 12:15 PM 5:15 PM o i 0 "'d “" '; o 0 0 12 :30 PM 5:30 PM . b o . 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 PM 5:45 PM o 2 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM r 6:00 PM o 0 0 0 0 0 o Total 0 0. 4 0 0 0 0 0 LOCATION: Tukwila, WA IT TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY PREPARED BY: TDG r •1 s , ” 0 -0n5,314 Thu. 4/11/2002 Wad. 4/32002 TIME Southoenter Boulevard ® 66th Avenue Southcenter Boulevard 421. Interurban Avenue INTERVAL ENDING AT 66th Avenue Southcenter Boulevard Interurban AveNI Valley SW Grady /Southcenter B South Leg East Leg West Leg North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 4:15 PM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 o . o • o 0 0 0 4:45 PM o 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 • 0 0 0 5:15 PM '. 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 5:30 PM . 0 0 --� 0 0. 0 0 0 5:45 PM ' o 0 0 1 0 0 0 r 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 LOCATION: Tukwila, WA IT TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING PEDESTRIANS VOLUME SUMMARY PREPARED BY: TDG r •1 s , ” 0 -0n5,314 Southcenter Boulevard x 1.078 1,044 1 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME I OUT 4,991 4,991 COUNTED BY: BW/RB REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Sun. 4/14/02 `' TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM 1 - -- - - -- -��� \ \ 154 729 181 1301 659 1 244 1 1,033( 11.125 2,362 178 1 1,3291 Tukwila, WA .- --RAN( 568 1 486 11,232 2,357 1 607 770 305 SW Grady Way 1 1,682 1 1 1,459 1 SB NB WB EB INTRS. HV 6% 5% 1% 3% 4% PHF 0.82 0.86 0.92 0.93 0.96 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor Southcenter BIvdISW Grady Way Interurban Ave/West Valley Hwy DATE OF COUNT: Wed. 413/02 TIME OF COUNT: • 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny i„ TI A 1LA, WASHINGTON UTHBOUND OFF RAMP (53RD AVE S) 4s• 64TH ST (SOUTH CENTER BLVD) LOC# 01P TUK02283M Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM • Pbak i of 1. Intersection 04:45 PM • Volume 200 12 Percent 16.2 LO 03:15 Volume 53 4 Peak Factor High Int. 05:15 PM Volume Peak rector 53 4 275 332 0.931 w CO 1024 1236 62.8 276 332 z O SSG 0.0 93.1 0 • 150 TRAFFICOUNT, INC. 4820 YELM HWY 8 -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360 -491 -8116 41 69 14 Cut 597 16 05:15 PM O 160 14 164 0.910 63 68.8 IL 04:46 PM is 1.5 58 OFF RAMP ic Teal Ate Limed . Rkjht T L • . No 10/17/02 445:00 PM 10/17102 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY -II • II iZ1MIIIMc1 In Total 9RnAVP 0 0.0 0 24 31.2 2 O 9 77 16 24 0.802 t—a — g 27 5.6 5 492 94.5 125 05:30 PM 9 137 File Name : TUK28901P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 10/17/2002 Page No :2 0 489 0.0 0 130 0 146 0.937 InLTota11 0.934 2399 642 t:L ai f,:.'Lt. ' 15 S8 OFF RAMP From North Right . TAN Lett ADD. Total S 15411 (SOUTH CENTER BLVD) From East Right Thru Uf .• Total 53RD AVE S From South RI! t ®• Left APa.Totzl $ 154Th ST (SOUTH CENTER BLVD) From WASt __RIF ® E ADp.Toal Start Time i„ TI A 1LA, WASHINGTON UTHBOUND OFF RAMP (53RD AVE S) 4s• 64TH ST (SOUTH CENTER BLVD) LOC# 01P TUK02283M Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM • Pbak i of 1. Intersection 04:45 PM • Volume 200 12 Percent 16.2 LO 03:15 Volume 53 4 Peak Factor High Int. 05:15 PM Volume Peak rector 53 4 275 332 0.931 w CO 1024 1236 62.8 276 332 z O SSG 0.0 93.1 0 • 150 TRAFFICOUNT, INC. 4820 YELM HWY 8 -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360 -491 -8116 41 69 14 Cut 597 16 05:15 PM O 160 14 164 0.910 63 68.8 IL 04:46 PM is 1.5 58 OFF RAMP ic Teal Ate Limed . Rkjht T L • . No 10/17/02 445:00 PM 10/17102 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY -II • II iZ1MIIIMc1 In Total 9RnAVP 0 0.0 0 24 31.2 2 O 9 77 16 24 0.802 t—a — g 27 5.6 5 492 94.5 125 05:30 PM 9 137 File Name : TUK28901P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 10/17/2002 Page No :2 0 489 0.0 0 130 0 146 0.937 InLTota11 0.934 2399 642 t:L ai f,:.'Lt. INTERSECTION B - TRAFFIC VOLUMES Southcenter Blvd/Macadam Road S. Robb Rezone - Traffic Impact Analysis (BCE Job #: 10751) MOVEMENTS Time Period Ending SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH IEBLT I Total 1615 7 20 32 00000000 20 79 1630 9 26 45 25 105 1645 6 25 45 31 107 ' 1700 7 0 26 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 131 1715 10 17 37 34 98 . 1730 17 31 21 ' 39 108 1745 12 18 24 22 76 1800 10 43 ' 32 37 122 Total Volumes 78 0 206 274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 826 Peak Hour Volumes 32 0 94 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 150 441 { Total PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: EBLT Macadam Road South SBRT SBTH SBLT 32 0 94 150 165 WBRT EBTH 2149 1774 WBTH Southcenter Blvd. Southcenter Blvd. EBRT 0 0 WBLT 0 0 0 NBLT NBTH NBRT Remarks: Eastbound Through and Westbound Through Traffic Volumes are based on Counts conducted at the Southcenter Blvd /61st Ave S. intersection by Traffic Data Gathering on Thursday, April 11, 2002 between 4:15 and 5:15 PM. Volumes are converted to 2003. Remaining Counts were conducted by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. on Thursday, April 17, 2003. Prepared By Barghausen Consulting Engineers r-? CD Okyr nr..,e..� sw:ra:eu y *.4 2 4ci4els:: z4:4 - siasta 00013 . NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. • APR 15 '03 02:44PM TUKWILA DCD /Pt i•y of Tukwila Location Report 04/15/2003 ort Period: 01/01/2000 to 12/31/2002 Location: 61 AVE S (S - LINE) at SOUTHCENTER BLVD Year 2000 o ision Date Mon -U 111U/ Mon - 01/31/2000 Fri-02 /11/2000 Fri- 03/10/2000 Wed - 03/22/2000 Tue- 04/11/2000 Thu- 04/13/2000 Tue- 04/25/2000 ... Thu- 04/27/2000 :Wed- 05/03/2000 Sun- 06/11/2000 Wed - 07/19/2000 Sat - 07/22/2000 -• Sat - 08/26/2000 jun- 08/27/2000 "Thu- 08/31/'2000 Sat - 09/23/2000 Wed - 11/29/2000 Tue- 12/05/2000 Thu - 12/14/2000 Wed - 12/20/2000 Thu- 12/21t2000 Number of Collisions: 22 Year 2001 collision Date • Mon-01/29/2W 1 Fri- 02/02/2001 Sun- 04 /22/2001 Fri - 06/01/2001 Sun - 06/1012001 Thu - 06/14 /2001 Sun- 06/24/2001 Sun- 06/24/2001 Wed - 08/15/2001 Sat - 08/25/2001 Sat - 08/25/2001 Sat- 09/29/2001 •ouz1- 10/07/2001 Sun - 10/21/2001 'me Collision Number Type of Collision 111 �• 11 .1 • TT 08:50 AM 0000808 Head On 12:08 PM 0001083 Right Angle 12:58 PM 001846 Rear End 03;30 PM 00206 Riht'Angle 05:16 PM 002769: Sideswipe 07:55 AM 002802 Sideswipe 05;54 PM 003142 Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle 03:40 PM 003177 Approach Mira 02:40 PM 0003336 Rear End 05;30 PM 05:30 PM 02 ;41 PM 10 :04 AM 04;22 PM 11:10 AM 01:22 PM 02:02 PM 03:33 PM 05:17 PM 12:57 PM 12:53 PM 1 tine Of Case Collision Number ase U2 :U0 PM 01 03:35 PM 01-761 03:52 PM 01 -2729 02:36 PM 01 -3731 03:16 PM 01 -03991 08:20 PM 01 -4092 03:30 PM 01 -04326 04:07 PM 01 -4328 11 :20 AM 01 -5640 02:20 PM 01 -5898 09:13 PM 01 -5912 10:50 AM 01 -6713 01 :32 PM 01 -6904 11:26 AM 01 -7251 ear n 004356 Right Angle 005365 Rear End 005443 Rear End 006322 Sideswipe 006353 Rear End 006447 Sideswipe 007004 Rear End 00 -8777 Sideswipe 00 -8941 Sideswipe 00-9166 • Rear End 00 -9328 R ar End 00 -9360 Rear gud • Type of Collision Rear rnd Rear End Rear End Sideswipe Rear End Rear End Rear End Sideswipe Rear End Rear. End iiiglit 'Angle Rai Eiid RearEnd Sideswipe • are on urn um Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj P00 Run Veh W - >S W ->E S - >N: N$ E N - >W E ->W .W->N S - >N S >w W - >E W->E N - >S W - >E E->S W - >E N - >S E - >W E ->W W: >E Totals: 0 S - >N S - >W Prk E - >W N - >E N - >W E- >W Prk W - >E W - >E W->E N - >S W->E E - >W W->E N->N E - >W Prk W - >E W - >E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 l 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 P.2 /12 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 P 2 •H 3 P 2 P 2 3 P 2 P 4 P 2 3 P 2 P 2 P 3 2 6 9 1 53 Direction Num Nunn 'fin & lot Vela 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh W -›B W E->W E->W E->W w->s w->s W->E B W - >E Prk W->E . Prk w - >S S - >W W - >E W - >E W= >E Prk W - >S N - >S W=E • B W 7E ...._ . W - >E W ->E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 • 2 0 0 0 1 2 P 3 P H 2 p 3 P . 2 P 2 2 2 2 2 2 P G� 2 p 4 C7 2 Pagel • APR 15 '03 " Sat- 11110I2U01 � ' Wed - 12/12/2001 1 .1vion- 12/31/2001 r of Collisions: 17 Year 2002 o I l ston Date � u- Sat - 02/23/2002• Sat - 03/30/2002 Mon - 04/15/2002 . Sat - 06/29/2002 Sat - 06/29/2002 Sun - 07/07/2002 Sun- 07/28/2002 Tue- 08/2012002 Sat-08/31/2002 Sun - 09/01 /2002 Mon- 09/02/2002 Mon- 09/09/2002 Sat - 09/21/2002 Sat-09/28/2002 Thu- 10/31/2002 I. Sat-11/02/2002 Sat - 11/09 /2002 Mon- 12/23 /2002 Number of Collisions: 19 fr old Totals: Number of Collisions: Number of Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries: Number of PDOs: Collision Rate: 0.00 02 :44PM TUKWILA DCD /PW 12:UK ANT 01 - I I01 K1ght Paagr 02:00 PM 01 -08528 Rear End 05 :01 PM 01 -9005 Sideswipe une ase Collision Number Type of Collision , 1 eswLpe 02 :42 PM 02-1266 Rear End 06:26 PM 02.2095 Rear End 07:08 PM 02-2455 Flight Angle 02:36 PM 024201 Rear End 02:55 PM 02-4202 Rear End 11 :40 AM 02 - 4358 .Sideswipe 02:34 PM 02-4791 ear Eno 11:25 AM 02-5338 Sideswipe 04 :06 PM 02-5589' 05:20 PM 02 -5615 Rear End 05:27 PM 02 -5632 Right Angle 03:30 PM 02 -5806 Sideswipe 11:19 PM 02 -6071 Sideswipe 11:19 AM 02 -6217 Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle N - >S 05 :05 PM 02 -7041 Rear End N - >S 01:40 AM 02 -7068 Right Angle W->E 12:47 PM 02 -7257 Rear End W - >E 07:50 PM 02 -8514 Rear End • N - >S 133 ° :; ... 0 0,00 r 22/16 (37.93 *.:.; =. . 36 (62 ;07°10)' - Paget b >W W - >E W - >E 0 W - >E W - >E 0 Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat W - >E W - >5 W - >E W->E W - >E W - >E S - >W E- >W W - >E Prk W - >E Prk Prk W ->E • W - >E W- >S . Prk S -N S - >N U 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W- * S->W 0 N - >S N - >S 0 W - >E W - >E 0 Prk 0 N - >S 0 S - >W 0 Prk 0 Prk 0 1 =recuon ' um urn P.3/12 P P 2 P 2 Totals: 0 7 11 1 38 P P P P P P P P P P P of Inj PDO Run Veh 2 3 H 2 H 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 Totals: 0 3 16 2 42 z i� w J U 00 U) o. CO IL J r— w g_ Z = 1— 0 . Z F— w n o F- w w IU LL di z in 0 z APR 15 ' 03 02: 44PM TUKWILA DCD/PbCity of Tukwila Location Report 04/15/2003 R.0* rt period: 01/01/2000 to 12/31/2002 Location: 53 AVE S at SOUTHCENTER BLVD Year 2000 0 SS10n Date Wed-07/1 9r2quo '• "115:15 I'M 005303 Sideswipe Mon - 08/14/2000 Number of Collisions: 2 Year 2001 o I Isbon Date 1hu- 04/2 Sun - 06/24/2001 Number of Collisions: 2 - ")ar 2002 o ston Date lbu -O t/24/2002 Sat - 03/09/2002 Sun - 08/18/2002 Wed-08/28/2002 Fri - 09/06/2002 Mon - 11/25/2002 Number of Collisions: 6 Grand Totals: Number of Collisions: • Number of Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries: Number of PDOs: Collision Rate: 0.00 ime • ase Collision Number Type of Collision 03:23 PM 006018 Approach Tum 11110 • ase Collision Number Type of Collision 11:23 AM 0T283 'RiglttAngle 12:08 PM 01 -4322 Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle lme . ase Collision Number - '08:40 AM Oz 03 :47 PM 02 -1588 04:15 PM 02 -5286 09:34 AM 02 -5513 08:00 AM 02 -5715 09:54 PM 02 -7700 10 is 0 (0.00 %) 4/4 (40,00 %) 6 (60.00 %) Type of Collision .. ear iid Rear End Approach Turn . Approach Turn Rear End Approach Turn • nee ion 1 um um Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj E - >S W->E 0 irec on um • um Veh 1 5 - >W W - >l: 0 1 N - >E Totals: • 0 1 1 Veh 2 Fat 0 PDO P Totals: 0 1 1 P.4 /12 � t of Run Veb 2 - 0 4 of Inj PDO Run Veh P 1 0 3 irectton ` um • um i of Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh -> E •W E-. >W 0 E -5S W >E 0 E->S W - >E 0 E - >W Prk 0 E - >S W - >E 0 1 1 P P P H 2 1 Totals: 0 2 4 1 11 r:s .i;�ait41*.i;t - k,cua; • Location: 66 AVE S at SOUTHCEIITE12 BLVD Year 2000 o $10n Date — Sat-05 7/2000 Mon - 09/1 8/2000 Number of Collisions: 2 rt Period: 01/01/2000 to 12/31/2002 Year 2001 o sion Data Wed- 0Z/T4/2001 Fri- 03/02/2001 Thu-07/12/2001 Number of Collisions: 3 Jar 2002 C;oAlston Date iu- 03/281201] Wed - 04/24/2002 Sun - 06/09/2002 Sat - 09/142002 Number of Collisions: 4 Grand Totals: Number of Collisions: Number of Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries: Number of PDOs: Collision Rate: 0.00 Tli oo rJ— O APR 15 '03 02:45PM TUKWILA DCD/P J J of Tukwila Location Report 04/15/2003 une • ase Collision Number Type of Collision 02:UU PM 003952 RearEncl 08:29 AM 006878 Sideswipe 1me • ase Collision Number Type of Collision 1 1 :b AM 01 -1072 Rear tnd 10:08 AM 01 -1484 Head On 01:50 PM 01 -4808 Rear End t ime Ot Case Collision Number Type of Collision 1 - eswipe 01:02 PM 02 -2663 Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle 07:27 PM 02 -3778 Sideswipe 09:19 AM 02 -5913 Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle 9 18 0 (0:00 %) 1/1 ' 8 (88.89 %) Pagel irec Veh l ire Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh S - >t Sat 0 S - >E S - >E 0 .b->W W->E E->W lhrection Veh 1 E- >W E - >W S - >E W - >N • ion ' um 'um Totals: 0 0 2 0 4 on ' um ' u111 Veh 2 Fat B 0• ' B 0 E - >W 0 Veh 2 E->W Prk S - >E P P Totals: 0 1 3 P.5/12 it . of 2 It _ , at Inj ?DO Run Veh P 2 P 2 Totals: 0 0 3 0 6 Num Num kilt & 1 of Fat Inj PDO Run Veh 0 I' H 2 0 P 3 0 P 2 0 1 1 1 8 'rr.i': F ..rtI:��i ' `. ^;'•o;.'',!::.n;r, _.ytry+�:f' +k. na+.�:ttibti;:. ":.'9236iiif.4? 4tikS rS'�kc''`.%i%rati'� °ni'*.' +' '':ti- APR 15 '03 02: 45PM TUKWILA DCD/PW"i4--- Ly of Tukwila Location Report 04/15/2003 Irt Period: 01/01/2000 to 12/31/2002 Location : 65 AVE S at SOUTHCENTEgg7t7 • Number of Collisions: 1 Year 2002 01 ton Date Mon-04729/1002 0 of Collisions; 1 Grand Totals: Nuinber of Collisions: 2 /I 'per of Vehicles Involved: 4 1■4%.4ber of Fatalities: 0 (0.00%) Number of Injuries; 1/1 (50.00%) Number of PDOs: 1 (50.00%) Collision Rate: 0.00 Year 2000 o mon 1me ase Date S6/25/2000 04414 0021704 W P.6/12 Collision Number Type of Collision 'me ase • ,..1 Collision Number Type :of Collision 12:10 PM 02-277icig, .0 1.11fii • 4-r .: • . ....!+:42.•••••• • "1y., • Pagel tree on um um o ' • Veh 1 Veh 2 Pat lnj PDO Run Veh E:57S 0 ....■•■•■p Totals; 0 0 1 0 2 F e urn um ot Inj PDO Run Veh Veli Veh 2 Fat 0 1 ' Totals: 0 1 0 0 2 '•=l4aiLi-.2 ‘e4 • the„,„„ • APR 15 ' 03 02: 45PM TUKWILA DCD /P Wl jy of Tukwila Location Report 04/15/2003 tirt Period: 01/01/2000 to l 2/31/2002 Location: INTERURBAN AVE S at SOUTHCENTER BLVD Year 2000 o l 1szon Date Mon -03 /13/2000 Thu- 05/04/2000 Sua- 05/142000 Wed - 06/21/2000 Mon - 07/10/2000 Tue - 081292000 '!lie- 11/07/2000 Mon - 12/11/2000 Thu- 12/14/2000 ime • ase Collision Number Type of Collision 03 :301'M 000I927 End. 03 :17 PM 0003369 Rear End 11:32 AM 003049 Sideswipe 03:05 PM 0004617 Rear End 02:25 PM 0005122 Other 08:50 AM 0006385 RearEnd 10:50 PM 00 -8219 Head On 03:54 PM 00 -9084 Rear End 12 :00 PM 00 -9186 Sideswipe • rec on ' um 1 um Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO W - >1'. 13 0" 1 N->W Prk 0 P S - >N. S - >N 0 P W - >S W >S 0 1 W - >N 0 P N - >W N - >W 0 P N - >S E->W 0 2 N->S N - >S 0 P W- >E Prk 0 P of Run Veh 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 H 2 Year 2001 { l Collision Date Collision Number Type of Collision o: -02U9 RearEn'a ' MOf -01 /0 Thu-01 /11/2001 Tue -03/27/2001 Wed - 03/28/2001 Fri-06 /01/2001 Tue - 11/20/2001 Number of Collisions: 6 Year 2002 Co union Date Thu 01/03/2002 Sat- 01/l9/2002 Tue - 02/12/2002 Mon - 02/18/2002 Thu- 03/07/2002 Thu - 03/21/2002 Tue - 04/30/2002 Mon-05/13/2002 • . Sun -06/02/2002 j Thu- 07/04/2002 (Y) Sat- 07/20/2002 •-•, Mon -08/12/2002 C( rd- 08/14/2002 © late- 08/272002 Mon - 09/16/2002 Lime Ut Case 06:10 PM 01 -259 Rear End 02:44 PM 01 -2085 Rear End 09:17 PM 01 -2133 Approach Turn 01:27 PM 01 -3728 Rear End 06:49 PM 01 -8025 Rear End Tune Ut Case Collision Number w:46 PM 08:50 PM 02 -457 08 :15 PM 02 -01037 11:50 AM 02 -01158 05:37 PM 02 -1546 03:05 PM 02 -1864 11:25 AM 02 -2793 05:53 PM 02 -3134 10:19 AM 02 -3609 05:05 PM 02 -4311 11:10 AM 02 -4646 05:27 PM 02 -5162 06:53 PM 02 -5204 1 1:15 AM 02 -05496 12:12 PM 02 -5960 Type of Collision Rear End Approach Turn Rear End Rear End Rear End Rear End Right Angle Rear End Rear End Rear :End Rear End Rear Etid Rear Enii Sideswipe Rear End Pagel Direction Num Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat N - >5 S - >w 8ck S->W N - >W N->W • Totals: 0 Nay S - >W W - >E N->S N - >W N - >W U 0 0. 0 0 0 4 6 1 17 Num Inj 2 Totals: 0 2 lhrecuon Num Num Veil 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj .. S - >w 5 - 5 7 W 0 1 N - >E S->N 0 N - >S N->S 0 2 N - >S N->S 0 1 W - >S W->S 0 S->N S - >N 0 1 W - >E N->S 0 N->W N - >W 0 N - >W N->W 0 N->S Prk 0 N - >W N->W 0 WE •'Prk 0 S-5 W ... 'S - >W 0 W - >S Was 0 N - >W N - >W 0 1 s . _ P.7/12 Ht lot PDO Run Veh 2 P 2 7 1' 2 P 2 P 2 5 0 12 1drt & [ of PDO Run Veh 2 P 2 3 P 2 I P 2 P 2 P 2 P H 2 P P H 2 1 I 2 - APR 15 '03 02 :46PM TUKWILA DCt PW• •► .. I I [ • . If Number of Collisions: 16 Collision Rate: 0.00 1 • c---.0 Totals: pt-_. {� er of Collisions: 31 Number of Vehicles Involved: 62 Number of Fatalities: 0 (0.00 %) Number of Injuries: 9/12 (29.03 %) Number of PDOs: 22 (70.97 %) ';c Totals: 0 6 11 P.8/12 2 33 6 1-1 6 00 0 W= J w 0 g J u_ co = w' z �. : 1— 0 z E- 0 O tt . 0 WW U .. Z _ O ~' . Z APR 15 '03 02: 46PM TUKWILA DCD/P l tYty of Tukwila Location Report 04/15/2003 p(( rt period: 01/01/2000 to 12/31/2002 Location: FORT DENT WAY at INTERURBAN AVE S Year 2000 0 lslon tme • ase Collision Number Type of Collision 1'n- U1 /14 /J000 — 0 . 9:35 AM U0UU338 Right Angie 1 Date Sat-01/15/2000 Mon -01/24 /2000 Wed- 03/08 /2000 Fri- 03/17/2000 Mon - 04/03 /2000 Fri - 05/26/2000 Fri- 06/16/2000 Tue- 07/18 /2000 Fri- 09/01 /2000 Fri- 12/01 /2000 Fri- 12/29 /2000 IT' 'qcr of Collisions: Year 2001 12 ( • .. Number of Collisions: 17 70 :.f) Year 2002 (Allmon Date O — 1ori:01707/21102 05:00 AM 01 :10 PM 10:05 PM 04:45 PM 06:54 PM 02:42 PM 02:20 PM 06 :45 PM 07:18 PM 04:52 PM 07:37 AM 0000365 Sideswipe 0000610 Approach 'Aim 001803 Right Angle 002057 Sideswipe 002560 Pedestrian/Cyclist Involved 003930 Rear End .004489 Backing 005338 Approach Turn 006478 Approach Turn 00 -8837 Rear End 00 -9556 Head On Uolllsxon Date Mon -01 /0g/2b01 Tue- 02/1312001 Mon - 04/02/2001 Tue - 04/10/2001 Wed- 04/11/2001 Thu- 04/26/2001 Wed - 05/16/2001 Wed - 06/06/2001 Tue - 06/1912001 Sun - 06/24/2001 Thu- 07/19 /2001 Mon -09/10 /2001 Thu- 10/11/2001 Wed - 10/17/2001 Sun - 11/04/2001 Thu - 11/15 /2001 Fri -11 /30/2001 . lime tit Case Collision Number U7:19 PM 01 - 167 06:00 AM 01 -1042 04:50 PM 01 -2222 12:30 PM 01 -2418 09:40 AM 01 -02439 02:40 PM 02 -2715 04:09 PM 01-3362 05:34 PM 01 -3889 11:37 AM 01 -4186 02:51 PM 01 -4327 04:50 PM 01 -4985 02:38 PM 01 -6274 Type of Collision Approach Turn Rear End Approach Turn Approach Turn Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle Rear End Approach Turn Rear.End Approach Turn Sideswipe Sideswipe Right Angle 08:56 PM 01 -7023 AlSpipach Turn • 02:30 PM 01 -7211 Pedestrian/Cyclist Involved 04:50 PM 01 -7616 Approach Turn 01:12 PM 01 -7899. Rear End 09:15 AM 01 -8234 Backing Lineation Num Num . Hit at Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat. Inj PDO Run Veh S - >W N - >5 U P S - >N S->N 0 1 2 S->W N - >S 0 P 2 S->W N - >S 0 P 2 Bck E->W 0 P 1 S->N S->N 0 P 2 S->W N->S 0 1 2 S - >N S- >E 0 1 2 N - >S S - >W 0 P 2 W- >S N - >W 0 P 2 W W->E 0 P 2. S - >W N - >S 0 P H 3 N-› .. `S - >W 0 2 3 • N - >S E->W 0 '1 H 2 S->W N - >S 0 P 2 S->N S - >N 0 P 3 Bck.. Prk 0 P H 2 lime 01 Case Collision Number Type of Collision 1:4::JU FM U2 - Rear lend Pagel Veh 1 S - >W S->S s - >w N - >S S - >N N - >W S - >N Bck N - >S w - >s N - >S N - >S irecnon " um Veh 2 Fat N->S 0 S - >S 0 N - >S 0 S->W 0 S - >N 0 2 S - >N 0 1 S - >N 0 E - >W 0 S - >W .0 B - >S 0 Prk 0 S - >N 0 Totals: 0 Totals: 0 urn Inj PAO P P P P P 3 6 6 12 P.9/12 of Run Veh 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 24 3 36 Direction Num Nutn lilt tt. Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh E->W E->W 0 P 2 ow^ r�ra��» z�^ �p ;�r,•:c'��'�`?�t±�"';?4fM_�i° �,+L4"fi�.�.f3S:c'� t -• • APR 15 '03 02 :46PM TUKWILA DCD/PW r1- Tue -02/19/2002 Mon - 03/25/2002 Tae- 04/16/2002 ri- 05/032002 : d -05/ 15/2002 Thu- 05/16/2002 Fri - 06/14/2002 Mon-07/15/2002 Mon -09/02/2002 Mon - 09/16/2002 Sun - 09/29/2002 Tue - 11/19/2002 Number of Collisions: 14 Grand Totals: Number of Collisions; Number of Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries; Number of PDOs: Collision Rate; 0.00 1.: •A 1 • esw:pe 12:50 PM 02 -1181 Rear End 11:40 AM 02 -1969 Approach Turn 02:11 PM 02 -2472 Right•Angie 12.20 PM 02 -2866 Real` g4ck 07:50 AM 02 -3175 e 'r'Er!.d• { `ch'Tum 02:40 PM 02 -320$ ApYoa;� 05:43 AM 02 -3890 411 Turn 10 :18 AM 02 -4524. nietOhjectiParked Vehicle 06:17 PM 02 -5634 Approach Turn 10:04 AM 02 -5955 Approach Turn 09:25 AM 02 -06237 Approach Turn 02:51 PM 02 -7514 Approach Turn 43 88 0 (0.00 %) 15/13 (34.88 %) ; . 28 (65.12 %):' • • a , • Page2 P. 10/12 > - > N - >S N - >S 0 P 2 S - >W N - >S 0 1 2 S - >W S - >N 0 P 2 N -S N - >S 0 P 2 S41'. S - >N 0 P 2 S-5:% N - >S 0 P 2 S- 3 t N - >S 0 2 2 S - >>;i. ..:'Irk 0 P 2 S-•W N->S 0 P 2 S >W N - >S 0 P 2 S >N N - >E 0 P 2 S - >W N - >S 0 1 2 t.. • • Totals: 0 4 10 0 28 • n.iE1,'.Yi: -S.a- e ✓..1 fm dt':41 44A.Z71.i.ea "y44114i1 u APR 15 '03 02: 46PM TUKWILA DCD / PWvlty' of Tukwila uJ vita • Location Report 04/15/2003 j-t Period: 01/01 /2000 to 12/31/2002 1.. Location: MACADAM RD S SOITTHCENThR BLVD Year 2000 o 15100 Ime l ase Date Collision Number Type of Collision — at- : 6 PM 006485 — P edesirtan/Uychst Involved Thu -10 /05/2000 09:00 AM 00 -07296 Rear End Fri - 10/20/2000 01:49 PM 00 -07733 Rear End' Sat 10/28/2000 Sun - 10/29/2000 Sun -11 /12/2000 Fri- 11/24/2000 Tue- 12/26/2000 Tue- 12/26/2000 Sat- 12/30/2000 Number of Collisions: 10 ar 2001 C;o1lis�on Date i'hu -03/ 1 x/2001 Sun- 05/13/2001 Sat - 0526/2001 Sat - 06/02/2001 Wed - 08/22/2001 Fri-08t24/2001 Mon - 09/03/2001 Fri- 10/05/200I Sun- 10/212001 Mon-11/12/2001 Sat-12/01/2001 Wed - 121262001 Number of Collisions: 12 Year 2002 Collision Date Mon- 07J04/2002 •' Tue- 02/05/2002 Fri - 02/15/2002 G - , Sun - 02/17/2002 p Sun - 03/10/2002 p ( ')ue- 04/232002 ' •— on -05/27/2002 Fri- 07/05/2002 12:40 PM 00 -7946 Rear End 03:30 PM 00 -7977 Rear End 10:16 AM 00 -08328 Right Angle 11:40 AM 00 -08626 Right Angle 11:35 AM 00 -9481 Rear End. 12:58 PM 00 -9433 Rear End 04 :15 PM 00 -9593 Rear End 1 ime Ut Case Collision Number 06:03 'PIM71 U1 -i814 09:12 PM 01 -3282 09 :10 AM 01 -03592 12 :30 PM 01 -3755 11 :56 AM 01 -5819 08:43 PM 01 -5881 02:44 PM 01 -6103 08:55 AM 01 -6852 01:50 PM 01 -7253 12:58 PM 01 -7830 02:10 PM 01 -8261 01:36 PM 01 -8864 1 irne Ut Case Collision Number D$:3o AM 02 42.) 05:00 PM 02 -871 10:40 PM 02 -1110 12:10 PM 02 -1131. 04:28 PM 02 -1616 12:00 PM 02 -2643 02:49 PM 02 -3450 04:09 PM 02.4326 Type of Collision Rear End Head On Fteea Object/Parked Vehicle Rear End Pixed:Object/Parked Vehicle Rear End Rear End Right Angle Rear End Rear End Rear End Right Angle Type of Collision Sideswipe Pixed'Object/Parked Vehicle • ApptoachTurn Rear End Fb d:Object/Parked Vehicle Rtift Veil Ri¢)'it Angle Pagel N - >S S->N E - >W W - >E N - >S. E->W E - >W W->E W->E W - >E Irec on Veil 1 Veh2 Fat S->N E - >W W - >E Prk N->E N - >E W- >E W- >E Prk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals: 0 Direction Veh I Veh 2 Prk S ->b .. E->W W->E N - >S Prk E - >W E - >W S- N W->1 W->N W - >E W->E N ->E E - >W.. WaE E->W E - >W W->E W- >E S->W W - >E Totals: Direction Num Veh 1 Veh 2 Pat W - >'E W>E 0 uni " urn I 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N - >S 0 E->W W->N 0 1 W- >E W->E 0 1 E - >W E - >W 0 • W->E •Prk 0 W=: E Prk 0 Pr1�= E - >W 0 P 1 P P P P P P P 2 8 P P P P P 0 5 7 1 Num Inj P. 1 t of Inj PDO Run Veh 1i 1 2 2 3 H 2 2 2 H 2 4 3 22 Num Num Hit & l ot Fat Inj PDO Run Veh 2 H lI 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 I 2 27 put & or PDO Run Veh P H 1 2 .' P 2 P 2 P 2 P 2 APR 15 '03 02 :47PM TUKWILA DCIl'PW bun - • 7 • ear n T1u - 07/11/ 08:15 PM 02 - 4449 Right Angle Sun -07/28/2002 02:25 PM 02 -4792 Rear End Wed - 08/14/2002 10:00 AM 02 -5191 Righ Angle u- 08/29/2002 04 :02 PM 02 -5548 Right Angle at- 10/05/2002 05;04 PM 02 -6382 Rear End Sun - 10/20/2002 03:30 PM 02 -6764 Rear End Wed - 10/30/2002 04 ;41 PM 02 -7010 Approach Turn Sun - 11/10/2002 02:50 PM 02 -7285 Rear End Tue- 12/10/2002 05:30 PM 02 -8090 Sideswipe Number of Collisions: 18 Grand Totals: Number of Collisions: 40 . • Number of Vehicles involved: 86 , . , Number of Fatalities: 0 (0.00%)-:;x._.•, Number of Injuries: 10/11 (25.p0 ° %y:' " Number of PDOs: 30 (75.00 %) ' Collision Rate: 0.00 • !t Paget E - >W N - >E 0 2 W->E Prk 0 N - >E W - >E 0 N - >E W - >E 0 N - >W N - >W 0 W - >E W->E 0 W - >N E - >W 0 W - >E Prk 0 E->W E - >W 0 • -> P P P P P P P P P.12/12 I 3 2 2 I 2 2 I 2 Totals; 0 4 15 1 37 :�F�7: +1Lti�: Y4��Y. it+" 3c- �wV9A�'./ 1: i�lt* NG�` u1? S: i! �lio .i'M'�M "1' «wi�t�'G i'.iiFdl'-%'JL`'��w. `.�.�r�.s.v,.r. et; 6 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 000143 • King County • Bus - Regional & area maps - Neighborhood routes - Fare Information - Retail outlets - Popular destinations - DART Information - How to ride Metro - Metro Bus Tunnel - Waterfront streetcar - Ride Free area - Adverse weather • Rideshare • Park & Ride • Blke • Accessible Services • Custom Bus • Jobs Access Transportation • Other Transportation Options Home News Services eloN Comments Search Search Metro Online we 410;0111,. r - Trip.Planner `Pass Sales. TTimetables Route #f G p You are In: Travel Options > Bus > Neighborhoods > Southcenter Travel Options Southcenter Neighborhood Bus Routes This symbol, following a route number, indicates the route serves a Sounder Commuter Rail Station. Visit the Sounder web site (external link] for train schedules and fare information. - Select a highlighted bus route for schedule information. Day(s) of the week the route runs are in parentheses. 39 (Weekdays, Saturday, Sunday) Route Map Downtown Seattle, SODO, Beacon Hill, VA Hospital, Seward Park, Rainier Beach, Southcenter Shuttle service on Sundays, connecting S Dawson, or the VA Medical Center King to routes that Wy S and S Alaska, Beacon Av S and operate to and from downtown Seattle. 1.24 (Weekdays) Route Map Tukwila P &R, Gateway Corporate Center, Allentown, Tukwila, Southcenter 128 (Weekdays, Saturday, Sunday) Route Map Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center Transfer Point, Highline Speciality Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 140 (Weekdays, Saturday, Sunday) Route Map Burien Transit Center, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center . NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RD -1of2 000 t44r 19_ (Weekdays, Saturday, Sunday) Route Map Downtown Seattle (Tunnel), SODO, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent Commuter Rail Station, Auburn P &R, Auburn Transit Center, Auburn Commuter Rail Station 155 (Weekdays, Saturday) Route Map Fairwood, Cascade Vista, Valley Medical Center, Southcenter 280 (Nightly) Route Map Night Owl Service, S Renton P &R, Tukwila, 1 -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue Transit Center, Coal Creek Pkwy Freeway Station, Kennydale, Renton © 1994-2003, Metro Transit. Metro Transit is a division of the King County Department of Transportation TA Kr; 1 1 T1 C' r'T TNT TL' 1\T ( 'AT L' 1 fT T 'nr'I C ' Home I Trayel O ptions I Online I Updates I Programs I Customer Services I About Metro I Site Mao Updated: September 27, 2002 King County I LL Ls ! Se vices Cor.[nents Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The, delete, NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. FD2of2 • 01 /1 ,/1 /1/1 ' Met 'oute 12...- timetable, Weekday Search Metro Online OW Trip :R n'ne `P aseS . - a(es' 000.45 King County •Tirnetables - Fare information - Regional & area maps - Neighborhood routes - Holiday information • Trip Planner • MyBus • BusView • Rideshare • Traffic & Roads Home 124 News W?l3!s(lay. MIME Services 6:30am 6 :42amD 7:30am 7:42amD 8:30am. 8:42amD 3:30pm 3:43pm 4:30pm 4:43pm 5:30pm 5:43pm 6:30pm 6:42pm Weekday: Feb. 1 thru June 6, 2003 • Read the Adverse Weather Info for this route. (Weekday): Andover Pk Interurban W & Av S & Baker 52nd Av S Comments Pacific Hwy E Marginal S & Way S & S 112th S 121st 6:48am 7:48am 8 :48am 3:48pm 4:48pm 5:48pm 6:47pm Search Find Route if 6:52am 7:52am 8:52am 3:52pm 4:52pm 5:52pm Interurban Andover Pk Av S & W & 52nd Av S Baker 6:58amB 7:58amB 8:58amB 3:59pmB 4:59pmB 5:59pmB Timetable Symbols B-Serves Gateway Center, Interurban Ave S & Gateway Dr, 2 minutes e D- Serves Gatew ay 7:09am 8:09am 9:09am 4:10pm 5:10pm 6:10pm NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Tip of 2 Met 'oute L fimetable, Weekday 0001.40 Select Another Route Number: '5ar Home ( Trav i Online Tools I Updates I Programs I Customer Services i About Metro i Site Map ®1994 -2003, Metro Transit. Metro Transit is a division of the King County Department of Transportation King County I News I Services I CQm_mefts I Search Unks to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. PO NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE ITIS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 'ioute 12, . imetable, Weekday METRO Search Metro Online " ✓/k r'/a . Trip Planner •Pass Sales King County 000 •Tirnetables - Fare information - Regional & area maps - Neighborhood routes - Holiday Information • Trip Planner • MyBus • BusView • Rideshare • Traffic R Roads Home 128 News Szvol Services Weekday: Feb. 1 thru June 6, 2003 • Read the Adverse Weather Info for this route... To SOUTHCENTER (Weekday): • California East on SW SW & Alaska St at SW Lander 44th Av SW Comments Search Find Route it Delridge Wy S Seattle 15th Av SW SW & Community & SW Orchard College SW Roxbury 4:55am 5:05am 5:14amB - -- 5:20am 5:50am 5:18am 5:28am 5:37am 5:41am 6:19am 5:47am• 5:57am 6:06am 6:10am 6:47am 6:28am 6:37am 6:41am 6:50am 7:21am 6:47am 6:58am 7:08am 7:12am 7:50am 7:16am 7:27am 7:37am 7:41am 8:12am 8:21am 8:08am 7:46am 7:57am 8:13am 8:24am 8:35am 8:39am 8:48am 9:15am 8:55am 9:06am 9:10am 9:19am 9:15am 9:25am 9:36am 9:40am 9:49am 9 :45am 9:55am 10:06am 10:10am 10:19am 10:15am 10:25am 10:36am 10:40am 10:49am 10:45am 10:55am 11:06am 11:10am 11:19am 11:15am 11:25am 11:36am 11:40am 11:49am 5:34am 6:04am 6:33am 7:04am 7:35am 8:04am 8:35am 9:02am 9:33am 10:03am 10:33am 11:03am 11:33am 12:03pm NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. ) 1 of 3 Military S Andover & & S 128th Bak 5:47a: 6:17a: 6:46a: 7:17a: 7:48a: 8:17a: 8:48a 9:15a: 9:46a: 10:16a: 10:46a: 11:16a: 11:46a 12:17p: a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 44 in hi id id id id id id hi id id id aaa N N N I N N C` CA Cs O\ M M O to to tD to tO tO tO N -r1 1..7 141 U1 N ri CO en N N N N en M en M M . Vr ri ctr ri VI ri Vr ri Vr r-I ll1 N U1 r-i V• ri V• ri Vr ri VI O M r 3 O i VI VI r TV r i 4 V• rI V ri Vi ri N ri ri N N rn M Vt cT Ul U1 t0 40 Cs N 00 CO CA CA O O 0 U) N N co CO O\ O1 O O ri ri N N 1-1 ri N r i r i r i r-1 r-1 ri rl r1 r-1 3 Z U) 0 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Q bLa(atbbrob (UroQ M M M rr1 M M M U1 M U1 O. O\ tD M M M M M M M 0 co N V1 M O U1 U1 U) Ui U1 U1 U1 U1 U) Ul M O 01 O M O el O M O en O rl O rn 0 M O M O M .1 ./ U1 N O r i O M O rn 0 en O M O en 0 N rl ri N N rl en VI VI U1 U) VD tO C - N CO 00 O1 O1 O O Vr U) to N 00 00 O\ 01 O O ri H N N ri rl N ri 1-4 H Vr H ri ri ri rl ri 1-i E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E' E E E to Ls 4 E E � 0 E E E E g E E E E E E Pi a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a TS C) (Um (Urora rdb O1 O\ O1 O) O1 O\ O1 ri 01 rI U1 U1 N O1 O\ O\ O\ Cn O1 O\ O - 3 14 0 N M 0 U) Ui U1 U1 U1 Ul U1 U1 Ul U1 ri cT ri Vr 14 VI ri U1 r I U1 N U1 N VI ri TV v4 Vr ri VI N 14 U) O U1 ri 411 N 411 N 441 N U1 N U1 N UI N U) CNN H ri N N M M Vr Vr Ui Ui tD tD CN C - O O O\ O\ O a) tO N N ao ao' O\ (3\ 0 0 H H N N H rl r-I r-i H Q U) H H ri H H ri a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'aa as 000 0000 N O N t0 tO en 0 0 0 00001-1 ri ri c)r . Or H Vr r dr ri VV rl Vr r•i Vr ri VV ri H N N rl rl N N M M Vr Vr U) Ul t0 to N Cs CO CO 01 ON 0 r♦ ri r1 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E S E E E E a a a a aaaa a a aaaaaa 4aa 04 04 t0 t0 to tO t0 tD to 03 to CO N N Ol tO to t0 t0 tD to tO N O M O rn O rn O M O r'n ri Vr O M O rn O M O r'rl O N N H ri N N M M Vr .dr Ul U1 VI tO N N CO CO O1 O1 O rl r•I r--1 idaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa U) U) Ul Ul Ul U7 Ul N U1 N r1 ri CO Ul Ul ['- N N N N CO U1 N UI N U1 N U1 N U1 N O M Ul N Ul N U1 N U1 N Ul H N N r♦ r♦ N N M en Vr U1 U1 U1 to tD N N CO CO O1 01 ri ri r4 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ItiPi a a a aa aaa ar aa aaa aaaaa lf1 U1 U1 U)u1 Vr tOatD00Nc V'NNNNN Vr ri V r r a H cr H 'Vr H U1 N .r r4 Vr H Vr H dr H dr r-1 N N ri H N N M M Vr Vr U1 Ul t0 t0 N N CO 00 O\ O\ ri ri r-1 T3 O a) ort N Co t F o . cp N ?r H 4) a) J0a) E E E EE EEEE al 0ri rt m b ro aaaa al N r-1 O CN N N N N N N N N N N U) Q ri 0 V• r1 U1 N Vr N U1 N U1 N U) N U) N Ill 0 U U) U t0 N is O CO 01 01 O O H ri N N H ri 4--1 r - 1 H H H H U1 4% LS 'PG 55555(5 (U 5aaaa 0 O\ tO M N ON Vr VI VI Vr •r Vr Vr ,L'; 12.' M O dr H M rl Vr .-i cCI ri Vr r- I Vr H Vr in '$ tO N C O O\Ol OOri HN N rl ri U) rl r4 ri r-4 ri U) . .Oi g E E g E g E g E g Id E g E E E E rd N rd It N r d a a a a 11 ri tO M O CM t0 ri ri r4 r-i ri H ri ri H -ri N U) rn Ul N O M O en 0 M O M O rn r--1 U) .. .. .. .. .. •• .. .. .. .. .. .. •• .. •• ri tO t0 N N W O1 CM O O H r-1 N N ri r-i r-I ri ri H ri H • �x 555555555555aaa a) ca ri 03 U1 Vr ri t0 tD tD Ul U1 U) Ul .dr %V Vr O GO r-1 M r-I Vr ri Vr ri Vr rl Vr ri Vr r Vr r-I 'Ci lD t0 N N CO CO 01 01 O O H rl N N r-I ri ri ri r-I H H Metr ' oute limetable, Weekday 000149 Timetable Symbols B -Does not serve South Seattle Community College. or 16th Ave SW between the college and SW Dumar Way. Select Another Route Number: Home I Travel O _ptions I Qnline Tools I Updates I Programs I Cusiornte[Serylpes I About Metro I Site Map ®1994 -2003, Metro Transit. Metro Transit is a division of the King Counts Qeparline,ht of Transportation King County N.e.w.s I ae..rylog I CgmIgDts. I a .C.h. Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. i _ I -1 no n 22 2:14pm 2:p 1:44pm 2:01pm m 2:25pm 2:35pm 2:43 3:05pm 3:13p: 2:44pm 2:52pm 2:55pm 2:14pm 2:31pm 3:35pm 3:43p: 3:14pm 3:22pm 3:25pm 2:44pm 3:01pm m 4:13p: 05 '4: p 3:14pm 3:31pm 3:44pm 3:52pm 3:55pm 4:13p: 4:14pm 4:22pm 4:25pm 4:35pm 3:44pm 4:01pm 5:05pm 5:13p: 4:44pm 4:52pm 4:55pm 4:14pm 4:31pm 5:35pm 5:43p: 5:14pm 5:22pm 5:25pm 4:44pm 5:01pm 6:05pm 6:12p: 5:44pm 5:52pm 5:55pm 5:14pm 5:31pm 6:35pm 6:42p: 6:14pm 6:22pm 6:25pm 5:44pm 6:01pm 7:08pm 7:15p: 6:47pm 6:55pm 6:58pm 6:17pm 6:34pm 7:39pm 7:46p: 7:18pm 7:26pm 7:29pm 6:48pm 7:05pm 8:09pm 8:16p: 7:48pm 7:56pm 7:59pm 7:19pm 7:35pm 7:49pm 8:05pm 8:18pm 8:29pm 8:39pm 8:46p: 8:26 m p 8:58pm 9:05p: 8:24pm 8:37pm 8:45pm 8:48pm 8:40pm 9:20pm 9:28pm 9:35p: 9:09pm 9:17pm 8:40pm 8:56pm 9:57pm 10:04p: 9:38pm 9:46pm 9:49pm 9:40pm 9:55pm 9:40pm 9:55pm 10:08pm 10:16pm 10:19pm 10:27pm 10:34p: NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 103 of Met `"'oute 14_ -: timetable, Weekday ter 013015,0 King County Searrli Pliclro Online j orP4 r r IN •Timetables - Fare Information - Regional & area maps - Neighborhood routes - Holiday information • Trip Planner • MyBus • BusView • Rideshare • Traffic & Roads Home 140 I News Scrviccs Comments Weekday: Feb. 1 thru June 6, 2003 • Read the Adverse Weather Info for this route. �: ,;yam ,fit �.` ;��*�� ;-.� ' t' � W44 iji f.- MiTitE. fr:' ?Jli'.':�.5;� E � '�L�° '' ' Wit:: Search Find Route # To BURIEN (Weekday): S 2nd S Grady Way Tukwila Andover Pk W Sea -Tac 4th Av SW & & Rail & (Bag Claim) & Burnett Av S Shattuck Av Station Baker Bay -1 SW 150th S 5:33am 5:40am - -. 5:51am 6:05am 6:17am 5:53am: 6.00am 6:llam 6:26am 6:38am 6:05am 6:12am 6:23am 6:38am 6:50am 6:20am 6:27am 6:32am 6:39am 6:54am 7:06am 6:36am 6:43am 6:48am 6:55am 7 :10am 7:23am 6:50amH 6:57amH 7:02amH 7:09amH 7:25amH 7:38amH 7 :05am 7:13am 7:18am 7:25am 7:41am 7:54am 7:20amH 7:28amH 7:33amH 7:40amH 7:56amH• 8:09amH 7:35am 7:43am 7:48am 7:55am 8:11am 8:24am 7.51am 7 :59am - -- 8:llam 8:27am 8:40am 8:06am 8:14am 8:26am 8:42am 8:55am 8 :25am 8:33am 8:45am 9:Olam 9:13am 8:53am 9:01am 9:13am 9:29am 9:41am NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 000151 Met ""route i . - . Timetable, Weekday 9:23am 9:30am 9:54am 10:01am 10:24am 10:31am 10:54am 11:Olam 11:24am 11:31am 11:54am 12:01pm 12:24pm 12:31pm 12:54pm 1:01pm 1:21pm 1:28pm 1:50pm 1:57pm 2:20pm 2:27pm 2:50pm 2:58pm 3:05pm 3:13pm 3:20pm 3:28pm 3:35pm 3:43pm 3:50pm 3:58pm 4:05pm 4:13pm 4:20pm 4:29pm 4:35pm 4:44pm 4:50pmH 4:59pmH 5:05pm 5:14pm 5:20pm 5:29pm 5:33pmH 5:42pmH 5:53pm 6:02pm 6:23pm 6:30pm 6:53pm 7:OOpm 7:23pm 7:30pm 7:52pm 7:59pm 8:52pm 8:59pm 9:52pm 9:59pm 5:26am 5:50am 6:13am 6:28amH 6:43am 5:38am 6:02am 6:25am 6:40amH 6:55am •'4:49pm 5:04pmH 5:19pm . 5:34pm 5:47pmH 6:07pm 5:52am 6:16am 6:39am 6:54amH 7:09am• 9:42am 9:58am 10,:10am 10:13am 10:29am 10:41am 10:43am 11:OOam 11:15am 11:13am 11:30am ' 11:45am 11:43am 12:OOpm 12:12pm 12:13pm 12:30pm 12:42pm 12:43pm 1:OOpm 1:12pm 1:13pm 1:30pm 1:42pm 1:40pm 1:57pm 2:09pm 2:09pm 2:26pm 2:38pm 2:39pm 2:56pm 3:09pm 3:10pm 3:28pm 3:41pm 3:25pm 3:44pm 3:57pm 3:40pm 3:59pm 4:12pm 3:55pm 4:14pm 4:28pm 4:1Opm 4:30pm 4:44pm 4:25pm 4:45pm 4:59pm 4:41pm 5:02pm 5:16pm 4:56pm 5:18pm 5:32pm 5:11pmH 5:33pmH 5:46pmH 5:26pm 5:47pm 6:OOpm 5:41pm 6:02pm 6:15pm 5:54pmH 6:14pmH 6:27pmH 6:14pm 6:32pm 6:44pm 6:42pm 6:59pm 7:11pm 7:llpm 7:28pm 7:40pm 7:41pm 7.58pm 8:10pm 8:10pm 8:27pm 8:39pm 9:10pm 9:27pm 9:39pm 10:10pm 10:27pm 10:39pm To RENTON (Weekday): 4th Av SW Sea -Tac Andover Pk W Tukwila S Grady Way S 2n Av & (Bag Claim) & Rail SW 150th Bay -2 Baker Station Shattuck Av Burnett Av S S 6:44am 6:59amH 7:14am 6:03am 6:27am 6:52am 7:07amH 7:22am 6:09am 6:33am 6:58am 7:13amH 7:28am NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. TID 2of Vl CT in 01 dl Ln ri N NrC Vl N c>• co O tf1 O H o' 01 en al dt O l0 M U7 O N Vl Ul N N- CO CO 03 CO m O M rn E U) Vl rn -I tf1 ri 0 r•I N N tO N N en O1 d• Ol 01 Ol (r) I'•'l M Ln O N in Ul O N fel 0 In O 'fr) N N H H N N en en M en Vl r I r•1 EE aEE.EEEE aaaPlaaa P. Vl VI CO O N N ri Ul CO O (r) O en O M O ri N •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• N N CO O O CO 01 01 01 O O H rI N N H r'1 N N C+l en in • i 4-1 ri ri r l ri a a a a a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a P+ A a P a a a a O O tO l0 CO CO C O N to N V N Vl H O CO N CO N N H H C N I N N N ri d' O M O el O N M to O N M IPI r-I N d' to ri N cM H d' e-I r-I ri N NCOa ON I U) U) U1 lf1 to to to E E E E 1 P. I I I I I I I N N t o i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U) ri N Ul I I 1 1 1 I I 1 •• •• •• •• I a U1 U Ul Ul r l aaaaaaIER aaaaaaa Ul N Vl tO f+) N 0 U) ri U) 0 Ul Ul l0 l0 tp t0 Vl U1 '-I N d' 0 N C l tf1 0 N in 0 C r) O O O en in Vl cll dl to Ul to U1 to tO tO N CO ON 0 al CO awaaaaaaP Q P Q aa r♦ to to to O O H ri N N 01 CO N H 3t ri Cr) 0 N 01 CO tO ri N H CO in V If) Ul Ul Ul H N UT N U) N In N dt H r-I Vl O ri (r) •Cl O r I N •M O N (yl Ul O N Ul N Ul In U) •• •• .• •• •• •• •• •• •• .• •• •• •• .• .. •• •• •• •• •• •. •• •• •• • . .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 C>7 01 O O •-i rl N N r♦ rl N N frl fry (rl f7 Vl Vl .0 dt tel Ul U) Ul t0 tO tp N N CO al ri r♦ ri ri r-I 1-1 b co ro al al eu ru b a a a a a a a a PI a a PI a a a w PI a a a a a a a 01 Vi O •l 01 U) ri tO N N N t0 VI t(l U) r-1 ri M N ri U) CO U) N dl t0 in N O to rl U) N N O • - I ri ri r l 0 N in Ul O N dl Ul H d' H mono en O t+1.O Cr) .0 to H N Vl U) H in tf) 0 N trl in 0 dl r dt dl dl ( � N N N CO CO CO CO at 0 ) O O r1 e-I N N H r1 N N N N In M in in Vl d• dl Ul U1 If) in tO tO N N CO 01 ri ri rt ri r♦ ri 1ggggggbggg55g5REAaawaaaREARREaaaaaaaaa NNtO NN N0) 4'000 V IN Cr) (+ 10) 0) rIO01fhtONdlriMONU)0 t000ldlt - 01 010 1 01 lf] ri N d1 in ri N Vl O M O N Ul N U) r 1 d' N lf1 ri th Vl O ri Ir) dt O ri in U) O N f7 Ul N U) N N N •• •• •• •• •• •• .•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • lO NNCOCOCOa0 100 0i-IHNNHHNNN Cr) V' VldiUlU)U IS)tOtoN COOT ri ri ri ri r♦ ri ri i)t 4i• ∎- t440 Cf3b F�'u't'+r.�d.'. 'i:+Yt[t+t:iwiHy7.C�:•:7. limos' l,F�$}tiY'swLY:lLdilAYtinKi/i6B1: n(aG`: dwrosuk,a C. C Metro-Route it '.Timetable, Weekday 000153 Flom Iiraygl_Qptions I IrsarLitlagia I updates I aggrama gusigmeratutsg 6b0.L.M.O.Q logiMo 01994-2003, Metro Transit. Metro Transit Is a division of the i1 • sui • • j : • jngoufli RUL§. I at rac-e.-§ gl-ginaAnt.S. aggrAti Unks to external sites do not constitute endorsements by by County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The..delalia. H-Operates Presidents' Day, Feb. 17. . An n 0"1 Select Another Route Number: 17-1 h _ • I : • NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 13.°4='• 4 of ) Mel .out ;0 Timetable, Weekday 000154 King County •Timetables - Fare Information. - Regional & area maps - Neighborhood routes - Holiday information • Trip Planner • MyBus • BusView • Rideshare • Traffic & Roads S. Home !News To KENT, AUBURN (Weekday): 7th Av Stewart q.. 1 1 . .1 1 . I 1 rA n I. 1 3rd Av Union Search Metro Online (�— tt! r - Tr aln'ne ?Pas: Safes< Services Comments Weekday: Feb. 1 thru June 6, 2003 • Be sure to read the Special Service Info for this route. Weck" �', `? s A r':=!E ;:.'•or"o :ML•aMEN ',1 Convention, Place Station 5:17am 5:31am 5:43am 5:59am 6:13am 6:29am 6:43am 6 :59am 7:15am 7:32am 7:46am 8:02am 8:32am 9:03am 9:33am Search University Station Bay -C 5:21am 5:35am 5:47am 6:03am 6:17am 6:33am 6:47am 7:03am 7:19am 7:36am 7:50am 8:06am 8:36am •9:07am 9:37am Busway S Spokane 5:30am 5:44am 5:56am 6:13am 6:27am 6:43am 6:57am 7:13am 7:29am 7:46am 8:00am 8:16am 8:46am 9:17am 9:47am 52nd Av S Andover & w Interurban S Bak 5:41am 5:55am 6:07am 6:24am 6:38am 6:54am 7:08am 7:24am 7:40am 7:57am 8:11am 8:27am 8:57am 9:29am 9:59am NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 5:49a 6:03a 6:16a: 6:33a 6:47a: 7:03a: 7:17a 7:33a 7:50a 8:07a 8:21a: 8:37a 9:07a 9:39a 10:09a: Met Zouf ; Timetable, Weekday OOP 1.55 6:43pm 6:54pm 7:25pm 7:55pm. 8:26pm 8:55pm 9:26pm 9 :56pm 10:26pm 10:56pm 11:29pm 12:29am 1 :17am 6:48pm 6:59pm 7:30pm 8:00pm 8:31pm 9:OOpm 9:31pm 10:01pm . 10:31pm 11:01pm 11:34pm 12:34am 1:22am To SEATTLE (Weekday): 10:03am 10:07am 10:17am 10:29am 10:39a: 10:35am 10:39am 10:49am 11:01am 11:11a: 11:05am 11:09am 11:19am 11:31am 11:41a: 11:33am 11:37am 11:47am 11:59am 12:09p: 12:01pm 12:05pm 12:15pm 12:27pm 12:40p: 12:31pm 12:35pm 12:45pm 12:57pm 1:10p: 1:01pm 1:05pm 1:15pm 1:27pm 1:40p: 1:32pm 1:36pm 1:46pm 1:58pm 2:11p: 2:00pm 2:04pm 2:14pm 2:26pm 2:39p: 2:17pm 2:21pm 2:31pm 2:43pm 2:56p: 2:31pm 2:35pm 2:45pm 2:57pm 3:lOp: 2:47pm 2:51pm 3:01pm 3:13pm 3_26p: 3:03pmH 3:07pmH 3 17pmH 3:29pmH 3:42p: 3:18pm 3:22pm 3:32pm 3:44pm 3:57p: 3:34pm 3 :38pm 3:48pm 4:00pm 4:13p: 3:52pm 3:56pm 4:06pm 4:18pm 4:31p: 4:06pm 4 :10pm 4:20pm 4 :32pm 4:45p: •4:19pm 4:23pm 4:33pm 4:45pm 4:58p: 4:32pm 4 :36pm 4:46pm 4:58pm 5:llp: 4:56pm 5:00pm 5:10pm 5:22pm 5:35p: 5:05pm 5:09pm 5:19pm 5:31pm 5:44p: 5:19pm 5 :23pm 5:33pm 5:45pm 5:58p: 5:33pm 5:37pm 5:47pm 5:59pm 6 :12p: 5:50pm 5:54pm 6:04pm 6:15pm 6:27p: 6:04pm 6 :08pm 6:18pm 6:29pm 6:41p: 6:20pm 6 :24pm 6:34pm 6:45pm 6:56p: 6:32pm 6:36pm 6:46pm 6:57pm 7 :08p: 7:01pm 7:12pm 7:22p: 7:12pm 7:23pm 7:33p: 7:43pm 7:54pm 8:03p: 8:13pm 8:24pm 8:33p: 8:44pm 8:55pm 9:04p: ___ • 9:13pm 9:24pm 9:33p: 9:44pm 9:55pm 10 :03p: 10:14pm 10:25pm 10:33p: 10:44pm 10:55pm 11:03p: 11:14pm 11:25pm 11 :33p: 11:47pm 11:58pm 12:06a 12:46am 12:57am 1 :05a 1:34am 1:44am 1:52a NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. . Met dot 150 Timetable, Weekday 00015'0 2nd St SW & Transit Roadway 5:52amH 6:00amH 6:20amH 6:31amH 6:47amH 6:59amH 1.44.,• CA n / /......... :s ......��r.l..... . /..... ../L.....l....I....1..7....l..1 t.._.t 15th St NE Central Av & & A St NE E Meeker 4:54am 5:02am 5:16am 5:24am 5:32am 5:46am 6:14amH 6:48amH 7:16amH 7 17amH 7:29amH 7:46amH 7:51am 8:03am .•8:19am 8:21am 8:33am 8:49am 8:52am 9':03am 9:19am 9:25am 9:35am 9:51am 9:55am 10:05am 10:21am 10:24am 10:34am 10:50am 10:56am 11:06am 11:23am 11:26am 11:36am 11 :53am 11:55am 12:05pm 12:22pm 12:26pm 12:37pm 12:54pm 12:57pm 1:08pm 1:25pm 1:26pm 1:38pm 1:55pm 1:57pm 2:09pm 2:26pm 2:27pm 2:39pm 2:56pm 2:59pm 3:11pm 3:28pm 3:29pm 3:41pm 3:59pm 4:00pm 4:12pm 4:30pm 4:31pm 4:43pm 5:02pm Lincoln Av Andover Park N -& W & W James Strander 5:05am 5:21am 5:35amH 5:51am 6:05amH 6:19amH 6:36amH 6:53amH 7:06amBH 7:21amH 7:24amDH 7:36amBH 7:51amH 8:06am 8:24am 8:54am 9:24am 9:56am 10:26am 10:55am 11:29am 11:59am 12:28pm 1:00pm 1:31pm 2:Olpm 2:15pm 2:32pm 2:46pm 3:02pm 3:16pm 3:34pm 3:47pm 4:05pm 4:19pm 4:36pm 4:50pm 5:08pm 5:20pm 5:21am 5:37am 5:51amH 6:07am 6:23amH 6:37amH 6:55amH 7:12amH 7:25amH 7:40amH 7:55amH 8:10amH 8:25am 8:43am 9:13am 9:43am 10:16am 10:46am 11:15am 11:50am 12:20pm 12:49pm 1:21pm 1:52pm 2:22pm 2:36pm 2:53pm 3:07pm 3:24pm 3:38pm 3:56pm 4:08pm 4:26pm 4:40pm 4:57pm 5:11pm 5:29pm 5:41pm NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. • 52nd Av S Busw & & Interurban S S Spo 5:29am 5:39a 5:45am 5:55a 5:59amH 6:09a 6:15am 6 :25a 6:31amH 6:43a 6:45amH 6:57a 7 : 03amH 7:17a 7:21amH 7:35a 7:34amH 7:48a 7:49amH 8:03a 8.:04amH 8:18a 8:19amH 8:33a 8:34am ' 8:47a 8:52am 9:05a 9:22am 9:34a 9:52am 10:04a 10:26am 10:37a 10:56am 11:07a 11:25am 11:36a 12:00pm 12:11p: 12:30pm 12:43p: 12:59pm 1:12p: 1:32pm 1:45p: 2:03pm 2:16p: 2:33pm 2:46p: 2:47pm 3:OOp: 3:04pm 3:17p: 3:18pm 3:31p: 3:35pm 3:49p: 3:49pm 4:03p: 4:07pm 4:21p: 4:19pm 4:33p: 4:37pm 4 :51p: 4:51pm 5:05p: 5:08pm 5:21p: 5:22pm 5:35p: 5:40pm 5:53p: 5:52pm 6:05p: Met — '.oii.. 50 Timetable, Weekday 0001.57. 4:56pm 5:08pm 5:26pm 5:32pm 5:51pm 6:02pm 6:15p: - -- 5:47pm 6:06pm 6:17pm 6:29p: 5:30pm 5:40pm 5:58pm 6:04pm 6:22pm . 6:33pm 6:43p: 5:56pm 6:06pm 6:23pm 6:28pm 6:46pm 6:57pm 7:07p: 6:26pm 6:36pm 6:51pm 6:56pm 7:14pm 7:23pm 7:33p: 6:56pm 7:05pm 7:18pm 7:23pm 7:39pm 7:47pm 7:57p: 7:23pm 7:31pm 7:43pm 7:48pm 8:04pm 8:12pm 8:22p: 7:54pm 8:01pm 8:13pm 8:18pm 8:34pm 8:42pm 8:52p: 8:24pm 8:31pm 8:43pm 8:48pm 9:04pm 9:12pm 9:22p: 8:54pm 9:01pm 9:13pm 9:17pm 9:32pm 9:40pm 9:50p: 9:22pm 9 :29pm 9:41pm 9:45pm 10:00pm 10:08pm 10:18p: 9:52pm 9:59pm 10:11pm 10:15pm 10:30pm 10:38pm 10:48p: 10:52pm 10:59pm 11:11pm 11:15pm 11:30pm 11 :38pm 11:48p: 11:54pm 12:01am 12:13am 12:17am 12:32am 12:40am 12:50a Timetable Symbols §- Estimated time. B- Serves Kent Commuter Rail Station on W Smith St at Railroad Ave 3 minutes earlier. D -To SKCAC Industries (Russell Rd & 58th PI S), arriving there 10 minutes later. Bus travels via West Valley Rd. G -Bus leaves SKCAC Industries at this time. Travels via 58th PI S, S 194th St, 62nd Ave S, S 196th St and West Valley Rd to Kent Transit Center, arriving 11 minutes later. - H- Operates Presidents' Day, Feb. 17. In downtown Seattle, service operates (to Kent, Auburn) west on Stewart St and south on 3rd Ave, or (to downtown) north on 3rd Ave and east on Olive Way. Special Service Info • Route 150 provides daily service to Auburn, Kent, Southcenter and downtown Seattle. • Route 151 provides daily service to Auburn and SE Auburn. • Route 152 provides weekday peak hour service between Enumclaw, Auburn, Star Lake (1-5 & S 272nd St) and downtown Seattle. • Route 153 provides weekday service between Kent and Renton. • For local service between Green River Community College, Auburn and Federal Way, or service between Enumclaw, Auburn, Algona and Pacific City, refer to the 181, 915 and 917 timetables. • For local service between Kent and Green River Community College, or Kent and NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Met• X50 Timetable, Weekday_ 000158 Renton, refer to the 164/169 timetable. I'� ShQVv;ScfiulQ`sI Select Another Route Number. En ;::.Y• Homes I Travel Options I Online Tooig J Updates ( Programs 1 Customer Services 1 About Metro I SIte Map © 1994 -2003, Metro Transit. Metro Transit is a division of the King County Department of Transportation King County I Mews I Se1=viQes I Comments 1 Search Links to extemal sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages. you expressly agree ol. be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The. t NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. r: Mer" lout._ ::55 Timetable, Weekday METR online 7 ,, - _._. - - - -- - NMI Search Metro Online A 44 '-- Trip Planner. 'Pass•.Sales King County 0nlia0Jools . •Timetables - Fare Information - Regional & area maps - Neighborhood routes - Holiday Information • Trip Planner • MyBus • BusVIew • Rideshare • Traffic & Roads 0001.59 n . Home 155 News *ga Weekday: Feb. 1 thru June 6, 2003 • Read the Adverse Weather Info for this route. , To SOUTHCENTER (Weekday): 140th Av SE SE 177th 5:10am 5:15am 6:10am 6:15am 7:10am: 7:16am 8:10am 8:16am 9:10am 9:16am 10:10am 10:16am 11:10am 11:16am 12:10pm 12:16pm 12:57pm 1:59pm 2:59pm 3:59pm 4:59pm 5:59pm Services Comments 156th Av SE 140th Av SE & SE & Fairwood SE 177th 1:22pmD 2:22pmD 3:22pmD 4:22pmD 5:22pmD 6:22pmD . Search Find Route if 1 7-77 tti 116th Av SE SE 168th 5:28am 6:28am 7:30am 8:30am 9:30am 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 1:29pm 2:29pm 3:29pm 4:29pm 5:29pm 6:29pm Talbot S S Carr 5:35am 6:35am 7:37am 8:37am 9:37am 10:37am 11:37am 12:37pm 1:36pm 2:36pm 3:36pm 4:36pm 5:36pm 6:36pm Andover Pk W Tukwila Pkwy 5:55am 6:55am 7:59am 8:59am 10:00am 11:00am 12:OOpm 1:00pm 1:59pm 2:59pm 3:59pm 4:59pm 5:59pm 6:58pm NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Men.ou, . 155 Timetable, Weekday 000160 To FAIRWOOD (Weekday): Andover Pk W Baker 6:12am 7:12am 8:12am 9:12am 10:12am 11:12am 12:12pm 1:12pm 2:12pm 3:12pm 4:12pm 5:12pm 6:12pm Talbot S S Carr 6:35am 7:35am 8:35am 9:36am 10:36am 11:36am 12:36pm 1:37pm 2:37pm 3:37pm 4:37pm 5:37pm 6:37pm mctrntr■ R(1 \� /f /C`/`tle14111A(' /[`1 CC A htmi 116th Av SE SE 168th 6:41am 7:41am 8:41am 9:42am 10:42am 11:42am 12:42pm 1 :44pm 2:44pm 3:44pm 4:44pm 5:44pm ' 6:49amB 7:49amB 8:49amB 9:50amB 10:50amB 11:50amB 12:57pm 1:59pm 2:59pm 3:59pm 4:59pm 5:59pm 6:59pm Timetable Symbols B- Arrives at this time. Leaves about 20 minutes later to continue through Fairwood loop. D- Leaves at this time. Arrives about 8 minutes earlier. ' is ;,l } Select Another Route Number: r t ;-_ tiowP;chdu �` - I 'j uSii:i 1 4LA ._i 4J: . Nf h'M ' tt l«:1 Home i Travel Options I Online Tools I Updates I Programs I Customer Services I About Metro I Site Mao ®1994 -2003, Metro Transit. Metro Transit is a division of the Kng County Department of Transportation King County I devils. I aeru1Q.es 1 CAMInent.4 $. ,Lci. Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages. you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The,deleils. 140th Av SE 156th Av SE -140th Av SE & & SE & SE 177th Fairwood SE 177th st 1:02pm 2:04pm 3:04pm 4:04pm 5:04pm 6:04pm 7:04pm NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Mel ` - 280 Timetable, Weekday 000161 •Timetables - Fare Information - Regional & area maps - Neighborhood routes - Holiday Information • Trip Planner • MyBus • BusVIeW • Rideshare • Traffic & Roads Hanle 280 2:53am 4:08am News To BELLEVUE, 4th Av S S Jackson 2:05am 3:17am Services 3:02am 4:17am 1 7 I nn^ n f. 7 4th Av Union 2:15amW 3:30amW Comments Weekday: Feb. 1 thru June 6, 2003 • Be sure to read the pj LSgrvice Info for this route. 3:12am 4:27am RENTON Night Owl service (Daily): On SR -520 At Montlake 2:23am 3:38am Search . Find Route 1121 To TUKWILA, DOWNTOWN SEATTLE Night Owl service (Daily): SW Grady Way Interurban 4th Av S 4th Av S & Av S & & & Shattuck Av 52nd Av S S Spokane S Jackson 3:17am 4:32am 2:35am 3:50am 4th Av Union 3:22am 4:37amG 108th Av NE SW .Grady Way & & NE 6th Shattuck Av S 2:53am 4:08am NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Me/'' 280 Timetable, Weekday 006162 Timetable Symbols G -To Metro Base, Airport Way S & S Atlantic St. W -Bus leaves at this time. It arrives 5 -8 minutes earlier. Special Service Info The below listed stops are provided on southbound 1 -405 (see map for locations). At all other locations, regular pick -up and drop -off service is provided. At 1 -405 "drop -off only" stops, you must notify the driver if you wish to deboard; no automatic pick -up service is otherwise provided at these stops. • NE 4th St (pick -up and drop -off) • SE 8th St (drop -off only) • Coal Creek Pkwy (pick -up and drop -off) • - Newport Hills/ 112th Ave SE (drop -off only) • N 30th St (pick -up and drop -off) Select Another Route Number: ®1994 -2003, Metro Transit. Metro Transit Is a division of the King County Department of Transportation King County 1 News 1 Services 1 Comments 1 Segrcb Home I Travel Options I Online Tools 1 Updates 1 Programs 1 Customer Services 1 About Metro' Site Map Unks to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. 31)e414t44e. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 000163 0 *ci ot o Pas z y gv 0.1 p ?D` NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT 000,164 182 31 - = 3.31 7 r STATE OF WASHINGTON - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T R I P S S Y S T E M ANNUAL TRAFFIC REPORT PAGE 92 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME STATE FUNCT ROUTE TRUCK PERCENTAGES 1998 1999 2000 2001 STATE ROUTE MILEPOST LOCATION COUPLET CLASS SNGL DBL TRIPLE TOTAL UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS 173 010.62 AFTER JCT CO RD 3 3700 4100* 4100 4100 173 011.96 BEFORE JCT SR 97 WYE CONN 3 4600 3000* 3000 3000 STATE ROUTE NO 174 MAINLINE SR 17 /LEAHY TO SR 21 174 000.00 AFTER JCT SR 17 *BEG ROUTE 2 500 500 500 550* 174 000.14 AFTER JCT P NE 2 500* 500 500 570* 174 019.55 BEFORE JCT SR 174 SPCRWNPT (SPUR) 2 930 780* 770 780 1000 880* 880 880 174 019.55 AFTER JCT SR 174 SPCRWNPT (SPUR) 2 1500* 1500 1500 174 020.81 AFTER JCT E ST 2 1900* 1900 174 021.43 BEFORE JCT SR 155 WYE CONN .2 174 021.51 AFTER JCT SR 155 WYE CONN 3 3500 3500 3100' 3100 1700* 1700 1700 1600* 174 024.32 AFTER JCT PARK SERVICE RD 3 1700* 174 040.66 BEFORE JCT SR 21 3 STATE ROUTE NO 174 SPUR CRWNPT SR 174 TO CROWN PT VISTA 190 150* 150 150 174SPCRWNPT 019.55 AFTER JCT SR 174 *BEG ROUTE 3 STATE ROUTE NO 181 MAINLINE SR 516 /KENT TO SR 405 25000* 26000 181 005.56 BEFORE JCT MEEKER ST 1 25000* 26000 181 005.56 AFTER JCT MEEKER ST 1 181 006.70 BEFORE JCT S 228TH ST 1 30000* 31000 32000 26000* 1 32000* 34000 34000 29000* 181 006.70 AFTER JCT S 228TH ST 1 29000 30000 31000 31000' 181 007.71 AFTER JCT S 212TH ST 1 34000* 35000 36000 32000* 181 009.75 BEFORE JCT S 180TH ST WYE CONN 181 009.76 AFTER JCT S 180TH ST 1 29000* 30000 31000 26000* STATE ROUTE NO 182 MAINLINE SR 82 TO SR 395 /PASCO 000.00 AT SR 82 *BEG ROUTE 5 6800 7000 6100* 7800* • BASED ON ACTUAL COUNT + SOURCE OF TRUCK PERCENTAGES NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS_DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. I • 000 tfib nnn kini Li lasai I 0 al NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. i 000 1_67 nri inot LiLiLi ::• . • . • • . ", 7 : 4. 4t `‘• • . ; YP- i; .t • ti • ., ;hi • : • I! • • • . • ; '4 ?" , e 14' • r, .s . , "1■ tt 1. 1 • 0 r• ••0".:•%•• • 4 ; • . ' * . 1 •-• t. - • . . • .• • • • • P; - • -•-• 7 ... ..t .• • • Il • • l• 1 • 7 e • 1. .,4 , . . , • ! • . r NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 11— z ce 2 00 (/) U) W F- U) w 0 eG < w Z I-0 z w u j 2 • (f O — O I— • w W • 0 11. — 0 u) O 1- z 0001. nnn n r LI LI LI I LI 0 punoq)flO ssaopy axis 6U!TS!X2 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM Date: August 1, 2003 TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2003 Background Three proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments were submitted for consideration in the 2002 -2003 annual amendment process. The City Council held a public meeting on the amendments on March 17, 2003 and forwarded them to the Planning Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on June 26, 2003. One amendment was carried over to July 24, 2003. Following are the three requested amendments and the Planning Commission recommendations: I. L02 -062 Comprehensive Plan amendment— Office in MIC /H L02 -063 Zoning Code Amendment — Office in MIC/H Request: The Council asked staff to study the changing shape of industry, the viability of industrial retention and the market for office uses in the MIC/H area to decide whether office should be allowed as a stand -alone use in the MIC/H zone. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission recommended the following: 1. Allow new office developments in the MIC/H zone as Conditional Uses and subject to the following restrictions: a) The maximum size of new office developments shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established prior to mm/dd/yy (the effective date of the adoption of the ordinance). b) No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand -alone office uses are shown on the map attached to the ordinance. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 2. An existing office development established prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan) may be allowed to exceed the maximum size limitations and/or convert to a stand -alone office use subject to obtaining Conditional Use approval. z Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff has prepared the . attached draft ordinance for the Committee's review. ce 2 II. L02 -064 Comprehensive Plan amendment — Revise Sensitive Areas policies o o L 02 -064 Zoning Code amendment— Revise Sensitive Areas policies CO i J H Request: u_ o Approve "placeholder" amendment for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to 2 include "best available science," other issues per State of Washington Growth g Management Act requirements. u � w Planning Commission recommendation: z = Defer consideration until 2003 -2004 Growth Management Act update z o 111 ul III. L02 -067 Rezone LDR to 0 (Barghausen /Robb) 2 o L02 -068 Comprehensive Plan amendment LDR to 0 (Barghausen /Robb) oo O F- . Request: z v al Approve rezone /Comprehensive Plan change at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter u_ Boulevard from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) u. z U = Planning Commission recommendation: p F - Deny request. Applicant may reapply for consideration if access and z encroachment issues are resolved before 12/31/03. Next steps: The Committee of the Whole will be briefed on the proposed amendments on August 25, 2003. The proposed amendments will return before the City Council for a final public hearing and a decision. At that point, the City Council may: • Adopt an amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; • Adopt a modified version of an amendment; or • Reject the amendment. Consideration of these amendments is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial. Request: Staff requests to schedule a public hearing on the amendments for September 2, 2003. y Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 2003 TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code changes regarding allowing office uses in Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy (MIC /H) zone. At the last Planning Commission meeting, staff discussed the different policy options regarding allowing office in the MIC/H zone. After holding the public hearing and discussing the different policy options, the Planning Commission asked for some additional information and recommended the following: 1. Allow office up to 100,000 square feet in MIC/H zone as a conditional use except on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin; and 2. Allow all existing office development that is currently accessory to other permitted uses to be used as stand -alone offices. Existing office buildings associated with manufacturing uses and exceeding 100,000 sq. ft. could be allowed to convert to stand -alone office uses subject to a Conditional Use permit. Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff has prepared the attached draft ordinance and following is a response to the questions asked at the last meeting: 1. What are the current land values of industrial versus commercial land? Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Based on reports prepared by the King County Assessors Office, the commercial zoned land that is comparable to the MIC/H area is valued from $8 -$18 per square foot. Industrial zoned land around Boeing properties all the way south to the South Boeing Access Road is valued at $10 per square foot. Lease rates for commercial properties range from $19 -$23 per square foot of net rentable area. Lease rates for industrial buildings range from $4.20 -$7.80 per square foot. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 1 2. Do we need to incorporate a map in the code to show the current lots of record since the proposal is to allow 100,000 square feet of office use per lot that exist on the date of adoption of the ordinance? The language in the proposed ordinance states that 100,000 square feet of office use is allowed per lot that is a legal lot of record on the date of the adoption of the ordinance. Due to the difficulty of obtaining a map of legal lots of record (legal lots of record are different than the Assessor's tax lots) staff is recommending not incorporating a map at this time. Instead at the time of the conditional use permit application for an office use it shall be determined if the proposal meets the code requirement of 100,000 per lot and whether the underlying lot was in existence at the time of the adoption of the ordinance or was it created subsequent to that date. Lot is currently defined in the zoning code as "a physically separate and distinct parcel of property which has been created by plat, short plat or binding site plan, or which by reason of its ownership history, was used as a separate legal building site prior to the requirement that lots be created by plat, short plat or binding site plan ". Making this determination sometimes requires considerable title research and therefore can be done accurately on a case -by -case basis. 3. What are the eligible areas for office use if office use is not allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are on the north side of the turning basin? Attached is a map that shows the area where office would be allowed as a conditional use and also the areas that would be preserved for industrial uses. The table below shows that by preserving parcels north of the turning basin that abut the river, approximately 50% of the total area (not including the airport and railroad parcels) would still be eligible for office uses. 2 All Parcels Parcels suitable for water related uses Parcels where office uses would be allowed Airport Railroad Sum (acres) 1018 257 502 131 129 Percent of land area 100% 25% 49% 13% 13% Count 512 12 449 5 46 Percent of number of lots 100% 2% 88% 1% 9% 2. Do we need to incorporate a map in the code to show the current lots of record since the proposal is to allow 100,000 square feet of office use per lot that exist on the date of adoption of the ordinance? The language in the proposed ordinance states that 100,000 square feet of office use is allowed per lot that is a legal lot of record on the date of the adoption of the ordinance. Due to the difficulty of obtaining a map of legal lots of record (legal lots of record are different than the Assessor's tax lots) staff is recommending not incorporating a map at this time. Instead at the time of the conditional use permit application for an office use it shall be determined if the proposal meets the code requirement of 100,000 per lot and whether the underlying lot was in existence at the time of the adoption of the ordinance or was it created subsequent to that date. Lot is currently defined in the zoning code as "a physically separate and distinct parcel of property which has been created by plat, short plat or binding site plan, or which by reason of its ownership history, was used as a separate legal building site prior to the requirement that lots be created by plat, short plat or binding site plan ". Making this determination sometimes requires considerable title research and therefore can be done accurately on a case -by -case basis. 3. What are the eligible areas for office use if office use is not allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are on the north side of the turning basin? Attached is a map that shows the area where office would be allowed as a conditional use and also the areas that would be preserved for industrial uses. The table below shows that by preserving parcels north of the turning basin that abut the river, approximately 50% of the total area (not including the airport and railroad parcels) would still be eligible for office uses. 2 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director June 12, 2003 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Tukwila Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to give residents and businesses an opportunity to express their opinions and give testimony about the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center- Heavy (MIC /H) zone. Date: Thursday, June 26, 2003 Time: 7 p.m. Place: Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila WA 98188 The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendment. Please contact Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner of the Tukwila Depaitinent of Community Development at 206 431 - 3685. Written comments are welcome. Please address comments to Minnie Dhaliwal, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 or via e -mail to mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us. If desired, written comments may also be presented in person at the City Council meeting on June 26, 2003. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z = I. 6 cc 2 6 O - 0 U) o. cn W J H W • 0 a . -c = W F _. z � � zt-• • ❑. U 0 o !-- W W --- tL 0 . . U w . z MEETING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL March 17, 2003 Notice published in "Hazelnut ", March 5, 2003 Notice published in the Seattle Times, March 7, 2003 L02 -062 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) L02 -063 (Zoning Code Amendment) City of Tukwila Allow office uses in Manufacturing /Industrial Center/Heavy (MIC/H) MIC/H Zones citywide MIC /H MIC/H Attachment 1 A. Application B. Memo to Community and Parks Committee (2/03) C. Map showing existing land uses in the MIC/H area. D. Aerial photo of the MIC/H area. E. List of allowed uses in the MIC/H area. F. Eco Northwest market analysis report .'- ;I:+ '7�its!x ,.i.:tlass, r .{.;ifk i%ki:xzN'iJs:i.�ka+a 4.tw# - - ':�:'�.�'+.2i':..l v........n:.0 u...��,...+,:ar�.so-:r!e;•: • 1:2::Aut rcie DISCUSSION A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; The proposal is to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses throughout the MIC/H zone. The Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2001 to allow offices as a permitted use in the MIC/L zone. The City Council has asked staff to study the changing shape of industry, the viability of industrial retention and expansion and the market for office uses in the heavy manufacturing areas closer to the Duwamish area. The Council has asked an evaluation of this issue to decide whether office should be allowed as stand alone use in the MIC/H zone. BACKGROUND FINDINGS On February 11, 2003, Community Affairs and Parks Committee was briefed on the issues with allowing office uses in the MIC/H zone. The Committee agreed with the staff's recommendation to allow office uses of limited size and also allow existing office development that is currently accessory to other permitted uses to be used for stand alone offices. REVIEW CRITERIA 1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? The Comprehensive Plan envisions the MIC as the focus of significant industrial activity. This is stated in Goal 11.1 and its associated policies: Goal 11.1 (Manufacturing /Industrial Center); Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing /Industrial Center and development of industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the regional, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan states the MIC zones are intended primarily for industrial uses or activities that support these uses: 2 Policy 11.1.5: Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while prohibiting unrelated uses. Current Comprehensive Plan regulations could be reconsidered to evaluate the declining role of manufacturing in society and the expanding role of office in the Manufacturing Industrial Center. If the Council decides to allow some office in the MIC/H zone, the policy will need to be amended to state while limiting unrelated uses instead of while prohibiting unrelated uses. 2) Impacts The proposal could be expected to result in more office development and a decrease in land available for and affordable to industrial uses in the MIC/H zone. More office development could result in more employment with greater traffic impacts. Other impacts to consider would include: 1) will having additional industrially -zoned land available for office development negatively impact industrial growth and retention in the MIC/H zone; and 2) will allowing office in the MIC/H threaten the Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation. 3) Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? The proposed change addresses the public need (as expressed in developer interest and request for consideration by the City Council) for more office uses by considering allowing office in the MIC/H zone. The "identified public need" for office in MIC/H could be met through various means which range from allowing office outright in the MIC/H zone to limiting the size of the offices and the locations in which they are allowed. 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what result can be expected and why? The proposed change could benefit the community by providing additional office space and employment. Alternately, additional office space in MIC/H could reduce the amount of regionally scarce industrial land and raise the price beyond the reach of manufacturing uses. Additional office uses in MIC/H might jeopardize the County's Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation for the area. CONCLUSIONS Additional jobs which might come from increased office development should be weighed against the possible loss of the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MI /C) designation, impacts on redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center and along Tukwila International Boulevard, as well as increased costs of industrial land. Alternatives for Action The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following: • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review; • Modify the proposal and refer the Planning Commission for further review; 3 i • Defer consideration until 2004 Comprehensive Plan update; • Reject the proposal. If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could: • Recommend approval; • Modify the proposal; • Recommend denial. After the Planning Commission review, the proposal will return to the City Council for a public hearing and decision. 4 March 17, 2003 The Honorable Steve Mullet, Mayor City of Tukwila 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mayor Mullet: The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. As you know, Boeing had intended in the early 1990's to redevelop its properties in the Duwamish Corridor with mix of engineering, laboratory, developmental manufacturing and office uses in a campus style setting. An Environmental Impact Statement, Memorandums of Agreement and an implemented Mitigation Package accompany that plan. For a variety of reasons, primarily due to world and aerospace economy, that vision has never come to pass. While we maintain a large and vibrant presence in the corridor, and will continue to do so in future, we no longer anticipate the density or intensity of development envisioned in 1992. This situation has caused us to view our holdings in Duwamish Corridor a little differently. The fact that several corridor properties having been vacant for years indicate that the timing seems right to reevaluate the purpose of the area and realistic opportunities for future land use and growth. Allowing stand- alone office use would seem to us to give the Manufacturing Industrial Centers an economic boost, but at the same time, it would not open the area up to a broader variety of commercial use, intensity and traffic. We support the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments and agree with the staff recommendation that a combination of Alternatives B and D represent a good balance for the future. We look forward to participating in the Tukwila Planning Commission process and working with you in the future. CC: Tukwila City Council John McFarland, City Administrator Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development ',C.1 }off• iy "i:Yvti ?�:UNi1'h;' '+v tiz MEMORANDUM February 23, 2003 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director z _l W . n:2 J 0 0 u) u) w W =; J �-, w 0 U • o Enclosed with this memo are proposed annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan o cn for 2002 -2003. There will be a briefing on March 3, 2002 to review the proposals and a !– decision process. A public meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2003 to receive input on • c . the proposed amendments. o w z. Introduction c) U, Three proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments were submitted for o ' consideration by the December 31, 2002 deadline. A member of the public filed one z application; two applications came from Tukwila staff. The applications are as follows: TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2003 • L02 -062 Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Office in MIC /H L02 -063 Zoning Code Amendment— Office in MIC /H Amend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses in the Manufacturing Industrial Center -Heavy (MIC/H) zone. Requested by City Council in 2002. • L02 -064 Comprehensive Plan Amendment— Revise Sensitive Areas policies L02 -065 Zoning Code Amendment— Revise Sensitive Areas regulations Amend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to include Best Available Science, and other issues per GMA requirements. Required by State of Washington. • L02 -067 Rezone (Barghausen /Robb LDR to 0) L02 -068 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Barghausen/Robb LDR to 0) Amend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Last year, the City Council recommended further review of amendments to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to address changes to the Growth Management Act. These are being prepared and will come before the Planning Commission and Council later in 2003. Council Consideration The procedure for City Council review is illustrated by Exhibit 1. The first step in Council's consideration is to evaluate the proposed amendment according to the following review criteria: • Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? • If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? • Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? • Will the proposed change result in a new benefit to the community? Following its initial consideration of a proposed amendment, the Council shall take one of the following actions: • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review; • Modify the proposal and refer the Planning Commission for further review; • Defer consideration until a later time; • Reject the proposal. These "threshold" decisions are to be made following the public meeting scheduled for March 17, 2003. Any proposed amendments that are referred by the Council to the Planning Commission will return before the Council for a final public hearing and a decision at a later date. At that point, the Council may: • Adopt a proposed amendment; • Adopt a modified version of a proposed amendment; or • Reject the amendment. Consideration of these proposed amendments is a legislative action, not quasi - judicial. Next Steps There will be a briefing before the City Council on March 3, 2003 to review the proposals and decision process. A public meeting will take place on March 17, 2003 to receive input on the potential amendments. After the public meeting, the City Council will decide which proposed amendments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further consideration. In addition to its annual amendment process, Tukwila is required to update its Comprehensive Plan to incorporate any changes which have been made to the Growth 2 ia >;: 4h.r Management Act. The deadline for adopting these changes was extended from late 2002 to December 1, 2004. Tukwila staff is working on this review. Exhibits: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Chart 2. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Summary Attachments: 1. L02 - 062 and L02 - 063 Office in MIC/H 2. L02 - 064 and L02 - 065 Sensitive Areas Update 3. L02 - 067 and L02 - 063 Request Office (0) Designation at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard 3 L.0 ••ii• •• ::J.! 'a "!.:':.,., l: Ss. -:; W` „1.U+5r }.1.J1'�',o- wn:m�r.s.... t + •• . il. 11+ tS+:. K. YknwL+ itsa: tktsl3L` a ,.r:'iwu:'+�:.Yi+::a:irY.i':u •.:iu;:: Exhibit I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Reject Proposal Options for Council Review Threshold Review Process V Refer to Planning Commission Environmental Review Planning Commission - Hearing / Recommendation City Council Review / Decision Defer Proposal ••_•,: ,, ; , �'•t;: '. .•;•••.: t! .wJ:sJ2u..5 ;..»w �i. 4'.:>>;. 6:: A' �:: S:A_'�4`.•�i.Jax".w:�':;•iYStd: r:S'k T+u?aucaS'si,::�:F.�.0 �• w' t.. iall iJhsuw4L` .a- +.rr+2Riiur.&Y.�.o+cica't�p' r+ r• SaaiL..YA..a?S'+::1uC.iiSi''' - " -- u�i..�� Exhibit 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION r ) NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR1HAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Proposal (as submitted) Submitted by Background Recommendation .1. Amend Comp Plan /Zoning Code to allow office uses in MIC /H ( #L02 -062, L02 -063) City of Tukwila Community Development The City Council requested this review. 2. Update Sensitive Areas Ordinance to Include "Best Available Science" per GMA requirements ( #L02- 064, L02 -065) City of Tukwila Community Development Review of the Growth Management Act's latest requirements has shown that "Best Available Science" must be incorporated into sensitive /critical areas review process. 3. Rezone property at 6550 and 6542 Southcenter Boulevard from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) ( #L02 -067, L02 -068) Eric Robb/ Barghausen Engineering Exhibit 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION r ) NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR1HAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Community and Parks Committee February 11, 2003 Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Joe Duffie, Pam Carter (for Jim Haggerton), Bruce Fletcher, Rick Still, Steve Lancaster, Minnie Dhaliwal, John McFarland, Lucy Lauterbach; Dennis Robertson 1. Foster Clubhouse Demolition Bids for demolition of the clubhouse were opened today, and the low bidder of seven bidders was Wm Dickson Co. Their price was a little higher than anticipated, but it includes additional grading and clearing that would have been done in the construction phase, so the additional money is coming from the construction phase for that. Rick said Dickson has been around for 25 years, and he had worked with them at a previous job where they had done good work. Some trees from the golf course can be used at Codiga Farm. A private party is buying the kitchen equipment at the clubhouse for $3,000, so new equipment will be purchased for the new clubhouse kitchen. The city will own the equipment, and the concessionaire will lease it to pay it down, at which time the city will buy it back at its depreciated cost. Recommend bid award to Regular Meeting. 2. Manufacturing and Industrial Center Study The Council had asked for information about allowing offices in the industrial area of Tukwila, so additional studies were done. King County Planning Policies have recommended that cities discourage land uses not compatible with manufacturing and industrial uses, and that they limit the size of offices and retail unless they are an accessory use to an industry. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan also does not allow uses that are unrelated to manufacturing and industry. There is a limited amount of industrial land in King County, and the reports envision the need for such land remaining and perhaps increasing into the future, though how and how much it will grow is unknown. The work done in industrial areas brings in more new money to the region rather than offices, which shift money within the region. Another issue is that because offices are valued higher than manufacturing uses, offices on industrial lands can drive up the price for industrial land, making it unavailable for manufacturing and industry, while remaining not extremely attractive to other offices. An issue raised by offices is the city's process of programmatic EIS work to allow companies to do remodels without full EIS work (because they fill out general information before the Programmatic EIS). These do not include detailed transportation analyses. Offices would have impacts on traffic that manufacturing and industry do not have. Staff had outlined five policy options for Council regarding offices in the industrial areas. One option would recognize existing offices; others would allow office use as a permitted use with or without size restrictions. Steve L asked if this was an issue the committee thought the Council would like to consider in 2003, or refer to the 2004 update. Pam said it should be done in '03 if it fits in the work plan of DCD. Joan wanted it to be taken to Council to at least get them familiar with the issue even if it's not formally decided upon until next year. Joan asked if offices would be conditional uses in industrial areas, and Steve said they could be in the future if wanted, but are not now. TO: Community Affairs and Parks Corr�mittee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Directo RE: MIC /H study DATE: February 6, 2003 I. BACKGROUND City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM The Council asked staff to find out answers to some questions regarding the changing shape of industry; the viability of industrial retention and expansion; and the importance of Tukwila's industrial land base to the city and regional economy. The Council wanted to study this issue to decide whether office and similar non- industrialuses be allowed as stand alone uses in the Heavy Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC/H) zone. Currently, offices in the MIC/H zone must be associated with another permitted use rather than being permitted outright. Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center is an important regional center of industrial activity. It is one of the four regional centers of industrial activity designated in the King County's County Wide Planning Policies. This designation reflects the corridor's long history of industrial uses and its current importance in the regional economy. It is well served by the regional transportation system and existing utility infrastructure. Since 1995, over 370 building permits have been completed in the MIC area. The total valuation of these permits exceeds $100,000,000. In 1998 the city of Tukwila did a comprehensive environmental review and adopted the "planned action" option for SEPA review in an effort to streamline the environmental review of any future development proposals. Since the adoption of the Planned Action ordinance there have been 32 SEPA reviews that were determined to be planned action. Some of the major projects that were reviewed as planned action include Wind Tunnel for Boeing and Museum of Flight addition. In 2000, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code was amended to allow office use less than 20,000 square feet as a permitted use in the MIC /L (Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light) district. Office use over 20,000 square feet was allowed as a conditional use in order to address traffic impacts and access any mitigation due to the proximity to the residential neighborhoods. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard..''1:ito 4'100 • Tukwila, 66•:ishi:l; "un 98/88 • Phone: 206.131.36:0 • Fa 200-431-360' ATTACHMENT A Steven M. Mullet, iLtayor f t.. . n1 17.c pN,.++, r ���r[vv.1�w,. +h'!; ,R4.'f�,a?Ria1 Seattle Redmond Kent Seattle has four industrial classifications - There are Business Park Kent has three main General Industrial- 1(IG1), General (BP), Manufacturing Park industrial districts - Industrial-2 (IG2), Industrial buffer (IB) and (MP), Industry zone (I) and Industrial Park District tht Industrial Commercial (IC). Majority of the Duwamish M/I center consists of IG -1 and Overlake Business and Advanced Technology allows broad range of ' industrial, office and IG-2. Office uses are permitted in all four (OV) zone: M/I center business park activities; zoning categories. Within the Duwamish center office uses are limited to 50,000 sq. consists of the OV zone, which provides for Limited Industrial District that allows broad range of ft. in IG1 and 100,000 in IG2. Retail sales and services are limited to 25,000 and advanced technology uses, research and development industrial and warehouse /distribution 50,000 in IGI and IG2. Restaurants are limited to 5,000 sq. ft. Then there are uses, corporate offices, compatible high tech activities but office and retail uses are restricted to exceptions to restrictions on maximum size manufacturing, distribution 25% of the gross floor of use in the MIC area if uses were legally uses and uses that serve area; General Industrial established as of Sept 1999. Then there are these uses and nearby District allows broadest provisions for expansion of office uses neighborhoods. Corporate range of industrial within the structure or the stricture may be headquarters and regional activities but non - industrial expanded and the size limitations exceeded offices are allowed as stand uses are discouraged from provided they meet the FAR of 1 in IG1 and alone use only in the OV locating in the district and 2.5 in IG2 zones. The criteria for such zone. If the corporate are allowed only as expansion includes the presence of site headquarters and regional accessory uses to other features that separate office uses from offices are associated with permitted uses, in industrial activity, the likelihood that the other permitted uses then accordance with the proposed use will support industrial activity they are allowed in BP manufacturing /industrial in the area, it will operate without conflict zone. center designation in the with industrial function of' the area etc. comprehensive plan. II. COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES AND COMPARISON WITH OTHER THREE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTERS IN THE REGION. The King County's County Wide Planning Policies confirmed the following manufacturing industrial centers: North Tukwila, Duwamish and Ballard/Interbay in Seattle, the Kent Industrial Area and Redmond Overlake. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) require local jurisdictions to adopt in their Comprehensive Plans a definition of the Manufacturing /Industrial Center, which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the Center. Also the jurisdictions are required to have zoning and detailed plans in place that achieve the following goals: a) Preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non - manufacturing/industrial land parcels sized for manufacturing/industrial uses; b) Discourage land uses which are not compatible with manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses; c) Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs; and d) Limit the size of offices and retail unless as an accessory use. (CPP # LU -52) The following table is an overview of how other designated industrial centers address different uses: ;, g5j;w iz341tS TJ:iod A riF a. J . • III. PUGET SOUNG REGIONAL COUNCIL'S NEW DESIGNATION CRITERIA FOR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTERS. Growth Management Policy Board (GMPB) has released new draft criteria for public comment that will be applicable to Manufacturing /Industrial Centers. GMPB will make a final z recommendation to Regional Council's Executive Board who will then take final action on the 1 z new criteria in winter or spring 2003. It was decided that GMPB and Executive Boards should cc w review and approve Manufacturing /Industrial Center designations. Although VISION 2020 6 0 describes the characteristics and roles of regional Manufacturing /Industrial centers, it does not o o contain thresholds or standards for activity levels within them. The new proposed criteria has the u) w activity and employment thresholds. Following are some highlights of the proposed new criteria: a) Required activity levels- employment thresholds: minimum existing employment level of u) "- 0 10,000 jobs and minimum employment target of at least 20,000 jobs. (In 2000 Tukwila MIC 2 had 11,881 jobs). g b) Commitment to preservation of an urban industrial land base that shall include the following u) 0 requirements: ± W i) • 80% of property within MIC must have planned future land use and current zoning z i_ designation for industrial and manufacturing uses. z o i i) Protection from incompatible land uses. w w iii) Regulations and plans to preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non- n o manufacturing or industrial land parcels for manufacturing/industrial uses. o D oF- IV. CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE POLICIES = o LL F- The City's current Comprehensive Plan Policies clearly state that uses that are commonly ui Z associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity o such as offices and laboratories shall be allowed, while uses unrelated to manufacturing and o 1 ' industry shall be prohibited. z V. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The staff asked EcoNorthwest, Market Analyses firm to look at demand and supply factors related to industrial land and give an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the industrial zoning. A complete report prepared by EcoNorthwest is attached to this memo and following are some key findings of the report • Industrial uses are similar to export companies that bring new revenues into the region as opposed to shifting resources within the region more typified by office uses. This introduces non -local spending into the economy as goods are sold outside the region. Such spending has higher multiplier effect on local employment and income than spending created by diverting spending from one area to another internally to the region. Tukwila already has a substantial commercial base in the Tukwila Urban Center area. • If the price of land is perceived as low then demand for industrial land will be high. If price rises substantially primarily because of assessment of developers and businesses that alternative uses (e.g. 3 . 6.7....,.. .v mm Iew!t reO + 5 1?1irlA kv. ^M xr+r w- .•xerFa. rrnza nvr�m ^+ ? rr »r {9rr x ,n commercial) will yield a greater return than industrial uses then demand for industrial land decreases. • There will be some growth in employment in industrial sector but how much is a question. Some form of manufacturing will remain an important aspect of the economic base of the region. Demand in Tukwila will remain strong, even . with decreases in the forecasted share of industrial employment region wide. Given scarcity of suitable industrial sites in King County and characteristics of Tukwila's industrial areas strong demand should exist for development of Tukwila's available industrial parcels. z a ~ w J U 00 U) CO W J w F- 0 2 a I CI Fw Z t- 0 z►- • To some degree sites can be maintained in a flexible configurable manner so that sites can be LIJ • w converted, as the market requires, among service and manufacturing functions. There is a limit to the • o extent that this can be done without creating setting with incompatible uses. When this happens sites o become less attractive to both manufacturing and non - manufacturing uses. w w • MIC/H would continue to serve a valuable role for future needs of industrial users. Allowing office only as an accessory use will reduce conversion of higher value office space from squeezing out o traditional industrial uses. P 0 • PSRC forecasts employment growth in the industrial sector. EcoNW believes there will be growth in industrial employment provided among other things, land with suitable attributes (location and price) is available. But again availability is ultimately a matter of price. In the absence of zoning restrictions service sectors will cause a shift of industrial land toward non - industrial uses. • The general conclusion about how much industrial land does the city need is that the industrial land must accommodate most job growth in industrial sectors and some in non - industrial sectors. • City should protect industrial land while allowing flexibility to go with the changes in industries. Changes in manufacturing activity include increasing percentage of workers at desks than at assembly lines. Zoning should be more performance based, rather than defined by intensity of land use. The zoning should continue to accommodate those basic industries that generate effects such as noise, smell etc. that are not accepted elsewhere in the City. VI. OTHER FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS • If office is allowed as a stand -alone use we will need to reevaluate the environmental work - EIS and Planned Action. The impacts of future office construction were not considered and mitigated at that time. If other non - industrial uses were permitted, there would be potential traffic issues with industrial traffic mixing with office traffic. Also, transportation mitigation would need to be reevaluated. • With the current vacancy rates for office development due to slow down in the economy, it is unlikely there will be an immediate demand for office development in the industrial area. As stated in the market analysis report allowing office in the MIC /H may artificially inflate the price of industrial land. This may deter industrial development due to higher land prices. As a result city may get neither office nor industrial development. 1WUfi3+4,L HY 416.9 rr 4 z • • If office use is allowed as a stand alone use in the MIC /H zone, the type of office development that the city may get in the MIC /H zone will be different than the type of office development in TUC and Tukwila International Boulevard area. It is likely that if the City allowed stand alone office use in the MIC /H area it will get larger scale office than the typical office building with suites that are used by small office companies. • Higher clean up standards apply to non - industrial uses under the Model Toxic Cleanup Act. Also, in the past the Duwamish Coalition as part of the Brownfield Cleanup has made long standing attempt with Department of Ecology to lower the standards of cleanup for industrial uses in the area. The Department of Ecology has not agreed to lower any standards so far. If non - industrial uses are allowed the chances of getting lower standards is further diminished. VII. POLICY OPTIONS AND NEXT STEP There are three policy options for the Council: A. Do not allow office as a 'stand -alone use in the MIC/H zone but only as an accessory use to other allowed uses. • B. Allow all existing office development to be continued to be used for office use. This would allow offices that are currently accessory to other permitted uses to be used as stand alone offices. C. Allow some office use but limit the size and list it as a conditional use to address traffic mitigation. No change is required to the County Wide Planning Policies. It will require Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. D. Allow office use as outright permitted but limit the size to 100,000 square feet. E. Allow office use as outright permitted use with no size or other restrictions. This would entail withdrawing Manufacturing Industrial Center designation from the Countywide Planning Policies. It will require Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. In the light of the market analysis by EcoNorthwest and other findings and implications discussed above staff recommends a combination of option B and D. If the Council chooses to make changes to the existing policies and allow other non - industrial uses in the MIC/H zone, it will require updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopting new zoning code amendments. It may also result in a loss of status as a manufacturing /industrial center under the County Wide Planning Policies and under Vision 2020. If the decision is made to further pursue the path to make amendments then it needs to be decided whether to consider them during the 2004 GMA update to the Comprehensive Plan or as part of 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Attachments: A: Map showing existing land uses in the MIC /H area. B: Aerial Photo of the MIC /H area. C: Market Analysis by EcoNW MEMORANDUM February 4, 2003 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2003 Introduction Three proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments were submitted for consideration by the December 31, 2002 deadline. A member of the public filed one application; two applications came from Tukwila staff. The applications are as follows: • L02 -062 Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Office in MIC /H L02 -063 Zoning Code Amendment —Office in MIC /H Amend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses in the Manufacturing Industrial Center -Heavy (MIC/H) zone • L02 -064 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Revise Sensitive Areas policies L02 -065 Zoning Code Amendment — Revise Sensitive Areas regulations Amend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to include Best Available Science, and other issues per GMA requirements • L02 -067 Rezone (Barghausen /Robb LDR to O) L02 -068 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Barghausen /Robb LDR to O) Amend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation at 6550 and 6542 S. 154 St. From Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office (0) Last year, the City Council recommended further review of amendments to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to address changes to the Growth Management Act. These are being prepared and will come before the Planning Commission and Council later in 2003. Next Steps There will be a briefing before the City Council on March 3, 2003 to review the proposals and decision process. A public meeting will take place on March 17, 2003 to receive input on the potential amendments. Afterwards, the City Council will decide which proposed amendments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431.3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee From: Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner �n Date: January 22, 2003 Subject: Six -month renewal of Ordinance No. 1996, Establishing a temporary moratorium on certain land divisions and land use decisions in the Longacres TOD planning area, and proposed modifications. Background Update on TOD Plan In the fall of 2002, the City received a $1.5 million federal grant to prepare a redevelopment plan for the Longacres area, including identifying land use, urban design and transportation/circulation objectives. These grant funds will also be used to complete the Tukwila urban center (TUC) plan and incorporate the TOD plan in the overall plans for the TUC. Since passage of the moratorium: • Contracts /scope of work are being prepared by Freedman Tung & Bottomley (FTB) for land use /design services on the TOD project, and with EcoNorthwest (ECO) for financial feasibility and analysis services. These contracts will go before Council for approval in February/March 2003. These will be funded by the $1.5 M federal grant for TOD planning. • A series of workshops and stakeholder meetings will soon follow, including Boeing, Metro, Sound Transit, WSDOT, and local property owners and businesses. The consultant team, based on workshop results, will prepare a range of alternative land use and capital improvement scenarios for the TOD area. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor On September 2002, Council adopted Ordinance No. 1996, establishing a six -month moratorium on the acceptance of certain land divisions and land use decisions within the transit - oriented development (TOD) planning area surrounding the Longacres Sounder /Amtrak rail station (see Figure 1). The moratorium was intended to preserve land available for development or redevelopment and restrict land uses that do not implement the vision for the area until land use and transportation plans and regulations supporting the TOD at Longacres are in place. Council is required to hold a public hearing, and subsequently renew, revise or repeal the ordinance by March 16, 2003. Staff is proposing modifications to the ordinance. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite : ll)0 • Tukw'ila, li ashington 08188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431.3(05 Current Ordinance Proposed Modification • Moratorium on applications and approvals related to high- intensity uses (e.g. manufacturing, industrial & auto- oriented businesses) which are not of appropriate type, density or character to support the intent of a TOD. • Allow applications and approvals related to interim uses that are easily redevelopable, with minimal impacts and investment in infrastructure. Limit these uses to: - Automobile, recreational vehicle or travel trailer sales lots. - Contractor or storage yards. - Commercial parking. • Allow for the expansion of existing businesses on existing lots. This focuses on preserving vacant parcels and ensuring the viability of existing businesses. • These alternatives will be folded into the overall Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) plan. The TUC plan and TOD subarea plan are anticipated to be completed and ready for the adoption process early 2004. Staff Proposed Modifications to the Ordinance The timing, type and extent of a TOD project is highly dependent upon the construction of local and regional transportation improvements in the area. Six months ago, funding for the I -405 expansion and the Strander Blvd extension project (and associated relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad line) seemed attainable, with construction anticipated to be completed within a 5 to 10 year timeframe. Thus, Staff recommended a conservative approach towards restricting land uses and retaining land available for a TOD project. Given the current funding scenario, it is now estimated at 10 to 15 years before the transportation improvements necessary to implement a successful TOD project will be constructed. Given this longer time frame, Staff is recommending modifying the moratorium to achieve the following during the planning period: • allow more flexible use of properties • ensure the viability and health of existing businesses • preserve the larger tracts of vacant land Table 1. Proposed Modifications r�liarlrti'.:'�r1:i:;.G:,;.- y�. 1':: "3.e!'is`sJ?: B pi• , ' „ ��' 41 4yi ,7::$'�+"`� * ruiS:S'C:K�.� ..��G:: Options 1. Council renews the Ordinance as is. It remains in effect for six months, at the end of which Council must hold another public hearing and renew, modify, or repeal the moratorium. 2. Council modifies the Ordinance. It remains in effect for six months, at the end of which Council must hold another public hearing and either renew, modify, or repeal the moratorium. 3. Council repeals the Ordinance. Land divisions, development activities and land uses will occur in the area as allowed under the City's zoning. Planning and implementation of a TOD and other transportation improvements may be more difficult. Proposed Next Steps Planning for the TOD area will begin in March, and there is still a need for keeping the moratorium in place until a land use /transportation framework is adopted. Staff recommends renewing the ordinance, with modifications, as described in Table 1. Staff also recommends maintaining the current restriction on further land divisions, as well as the other provisions of Ordinance No. 1996. Attached is a copy of the Ordinance with the recommended modifications. 1. Forward the Ordinance as written or amended to the Council for a public hearing at their COW meeting on February 24, 2003. 2. At their regular meeting on March 3, 2003, the Council will determine whether to renew, modify or repeal the moratorium. Transit - Oriented Development (TOD Planning Area ... «.- - l^q!or ;^^mr .� °P.y ? + `��M�'". � ' � '.. �, �.+... �: 1 � 4 ` z cc W JU 0 U° CO W J = f— U) LL w LL co d H w z = F- O w w U0 O 52 o '- w I H H tL O .• w U= O ~ z CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Ordinance No. 4-9.96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, € E T-WG- RENEWING A SLY - MONTH MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN LAND DIVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND LAND USES WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE TEMPORARY COMMUTER RAIL/AMTRAK STATION AT LONGACRES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila issued an Unclassified Use Permit in 1999 allowing Sound Transit to construct a temporary station for Sounder commuter rail and Amtrak service at Longacres, adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad; and WHEREAS, Sounder's Unclassified Use Permit for the temporary station expires in February, 2004, and either the station must be built or permit renewed prior to this date; and WHEREAS, the City recognized the unique opportunity to promote a more compact, mixed use, pedestrian supportive pattern of development that makes effective use of its proximity and accessibility to the rail station, and includes a mix of retail, service, office and residential uses; and WHEREAS, a more intensive pattern of transit - oriented development (TOD) would assist the City with the redevelopment of the Tukwila Urban Center, one of thirteen designated urban centers within King County, and provide workers with commercial, public and recreational services close to where they live or work; and WHEREAS, a more intensive pattern of TOD would benefit the region by assisting in achieving Growth Management Act requirements and increasing local and regional transit ridership; and WHEREAS, in August, 2001, the City held a workshop, inviting other key stakeholders to explore the possibilities for a TOD in the Longacres area; and WHEREAS, the workshop resulted in strong support for the project and a "vision" for land use and transportation in the Longacres TOD area; and WHEREAS, to implement this vision, the City applied for and was awarded a S1.5 million grant by the Federal Highways Administration to prepare a master plan for the Longacres area, identifying land use, urban design and transportation/circulation objectives, as well as to prepare implementing ordinances and design guidelines, complete environmental review of the plan and designate it as a planned action, and integrate the design of the permanent commuter rail/Amtrak station; and WHEREAS, while the City anticipates the TOD master plan project to be completed by the end of 2003, some issues need to be addressed immediately in order for the TOD project to be successful; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) zoning district allows for a variety of high- intensity regional uses in the TOD planning area, including light industry and warehousing, some of which may not be of appropriate type, density or character to support the intent of a TOD; and WHEREAS, the City has already received a proposal for development within the TOD planning area that would have been inconsistent with the stated vision for the TOD and threaten the successful implementation of the TOD master plan; and WHEREAS, the Longacres site is considered one of the region's key opportunities for TOD, primarily due to the large amount of vacant and redevelopable land surrounding the station; and WHEREAS, any significant amount of new development occurring prior to the establishment of a desired pattern of uses in the TOD master plan could jeopardize the City's ability to implement the TOD plan; and WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code allows for the division of land and adjustment of boundary lines that, if allowed to occur in the TOD planning area, would make future land assemblage for a TOD project difficult and costly, and threaten the successful implementation of the TOD master plan; and WHEREAS, within the TOD planning area, the City desires to take immediate steps to preserve the land available for development or redevelopment and restrict land uses that do not implement the vision for the area until the TOD at Longacres master plan and environmental review are completed, certain implementing zoning regulations are adopted by the City, and other related regional transportation infrastructure issues are decided; and WHEREAS, the City also desires to ensure public input on these issues; and WHEREAS, the City desires to preserve the status quo for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of City residents, as it relates to development in Tukwila, until these matters are more fully considered and, therefore, has determined that an emergency exists -; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1996 on September 16, 2002, establishing a six -month moratorium on acceptance of applications for certain land divisions, and development activities and land uses within the area designated for transit - oriented development (TOD) around the temporary commuter rail /Amtrak station at Longacres; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance will expire on March 16, 2003, and the TOD planning process is not yet completed; and WHEREAS, City desires to renew the Ordinance, with modifications, for a subsequent six -month period. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings of Fact and Emergency Declared. The "Whereas" clauses, above, are hereby adopted by reference as the City Council's findings of fact as if fully set forth herein. Furthermore, the City Council hereby declares an emergency necessary for the protection of the public health and safety. Section 2. Moratorium Area Established. For the purposes of this ordinance, "the TOD planning area" is identified in Figure 1. This area is bounded by I -405 on the north, Tukwila city limits on the east, the southern boundary of parcel number 2523049006 on the south, and West Valley Highway on the west. z H w 0 to W H W O gQ N � = (21 f. W Z = f- I— O Z H W • W U C) O D— D i- W • W I— H U.. " w Z • = O ~ z Section 3. Moratorium on Activities. A moratorium is hereby established upon the filing of permits and approvals within the TOD planning area relating to: (a.) Land divisions: This includes all permits and approvals related to subdivisions, short subdivisions, boundary line adjustments, and lot consolidations. (b.) Development Activities and Land Uses: Except for sign permits building permits for tenant improvements, and expansion of existing businesses on existing lots, this includes all applications and approvals for any and all (i) rezones, (ii) conditional use permits, (iii) unclassified use permits, (iv) variances, (v) binding site plans, (vi) required environmental review, (vii) building permits, and (viii) and altering permits relating to the following activities and uses: • Automobiles• recreational ••vehidles•or trnvel••trniler•• sales ••rooms••and•t - trailer or•• used •car•••sales•lots.•Automobile, recreational vehicles or travel trailer sales rooms. No dismantling of cars or travel trailers nor sale of used parts allowed. Automotive services • Commercial laundries • Genmereial-parkingreleept-for--earnmer-eial-parking-loeated-within-a-strueture having-substantial-ground •floor•• retail• or• commereint .aetivities•such••that••the pedestrian•• and•• commercial •environments•are•not• negativelyimpacted•bythe parking-use • Contractor storage••yards • Heavy equipment repair and salvage • Internet data/telecommunication centers • Manufacturing, processing and /or packaging of foods, including but not limited to, baked goods, beverages (except fermenting and distilling), candy, canned or preserved foods, dairy products and byproducts, frozen foods, instant foods and meats (no slaughtering) • Manufacturing, processing and /or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products, such as cosmetics and drugs • Manufacturing, processing, and/or packaging previously prepared materials including, but not limited to, bags, brooms, brushes, canvas, clay, clothing, fur, furniture, glass, ink, paint, paper, plastics, rubber, tile, and wood • Manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging and /or repairing electronic, mechanical or precision instruments such as medical and dental equipment, photographic goods, measurement and control devices, and recording equipment. • Motels • Recreation facilities (commercial - indoor), including bowling alleys, skating rinks, shooting ranges • Drive- through restaurants • Warehouse storage and /or wholesale distribution facilities • Amusement parks • Cemeteries and crematories • Drive -in theaters • Electrical substations - distribution • Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling previously prepared metals including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand - forging. Section 4. Effective Period of Moratorium. The moratorium established by this ordinance shall become effective as set forth in Section 8 below, and shall continue in effect for six months thereafter unless repealed, renewed or modified by the City Council after a subsequent public hearing and entry of findings of fact. Section .S:••Publie•Hearing•to•be Held - A• public•• hearing•• on ••the•issue••of•the• shall •be•held••no•later•thansixty (60) •days .afier• the •date•of adoption•herein: LI; - 'r'd: .. w....: .� !. . r.._._.l a% J^ �egi �i.'' N': 1^ i cn.' d. Y'�'Siat.Ci: <1C'd.7:'!xG "..:>;: .41W w.e i3`+4�sa: Section 65. Work Program. The Mayor is authorized to allocate the necessary resources to prepare a work program to address the land use and transportation planning issues identified in this ordinance and the City shall implement such a work program. Section 76. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre - empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or preemption shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 87. Effective Date. This ordinance, as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of the public health and safety, shall take effect and be in full force immediately upon its adoption. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this _day of , 2003. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ' Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor rn Transit - Oriented Development (TOD Planning Area Figure 1. Y�I Z w W 6 JU U U D CD W J H LL WO � Q • D Z O W Z 1- Z F- W U • 0 O - 0 H- W I - O .. Z W U O ~ Z Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Joe Duffie, Jim Haggerton Steve Lancaster, Nick Olivas, Rhonda Berry, Bruce Fletcher, Minnie Dhaliwal, Lucy Lauterbach; Shaunta Hyde - Boeing Company 1. Comp Plan Amendments The Council held a public hearing on three proposed comp plan amendments last March. The issues then went to the Planning Commission, which held a public hearing on them. The first issue regards possible office zoning for the Heavy Manufacturing and Industrial zone (MIC /H) in the north of the City. The ECO Northwest report had looked at this issue of saving industrial land or using it for more readily available commercial uses such as office. They concluded it is uncertain what future industrial uses will need the land, but that it is increasingly rare, and Tukwila's position close to Seattle and the ports makes it valuable as industrial land. Shaunta said Boeing owns land north of the turning basin, which is at about 103` Street. The Planning Commission recommended that land on the river north of the turning basin not allow stand -alone offices, as industrial uses there could ship industrial products out on the river. Shaunta expressed concern that Boeing's offices could become non - conforming, as they are on the river north of S. 103 She asked that the entire MIC /H area be allowed to have conditional use offices. Though they only own 2% of the lots, Boeing owns 25% of the land area in that north area. They would lose flexibility if their offices attached to manufacturing buildings on the river could not be stand -alone offices. In talking about what kinds of future uses could need MIC /H land, Steve said computer companies which have big generators make a lot of noise, and could be sited in industrially zoned land. The second amendment was a placeholder in case the City had time to do an update to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, but the update won't be done this year, so the issue can be deferred to 2004. The third amendment was a request for a rezone of the area just east of City Hall at the T -line bridge. The owners have requested rezoning from low density residential to office zoning. The committee talked about access to the properties, and agreed with staff that it was too difficult to allow more than residential use until better access can be obtained. Recommend amendments to COW. 2. Second Quarter Reports The Committee asked about Cascade Park's schedule. Bruce said it should be seeded this month. Public Works will put sidewalks in on the half - street on 37 this month also. Also, the house at the northwest corner has been purchased and will be demolished. On Codiga Farm, the Army Corps is going through some changes in their Chief Administrator, which could be why park development is going slowly with them. They claim the bank is too steep for a boat ramp. The barn has been taken down. The issue of using people convicted of non - violent crimes, to work out their fines by picking up trash and other community service work is being pursued by Judge Walden through using King County to supervise. On Community Development, the committee asked about code enforcement. Steve said there are some culture clashes in Tukwila between those who've lived a certain more rural way for a long time who are willing to put up with some junk cars or other code enforcement issues, and others who like yards and houses neat, clean, and trim. The City walks a fine line, trying to address the more flagrant violations, but not all the smaller minor violations. Joe heard reports from the community that one car that has been repeatedly tagged for too -long parking violations merely erases the police messages on his window each time he gets them. Joan asked about development below Fosterview, and was told it is an 8 -9 home short plat. Finally, Steve reported that Sound Transit may be locating its track through some of the property east of S. 51 at 1 -5. Information. Committee chair approval '.•.s"?s'na'ue+r7rs«�r; .wp.,,,,,,x., ∎±V n: r.�; Community and Parks Committee August 12, 2002 .,,, T+..., �a'* nt+,°''/.' �i`. t! �r..—....+.......'..._..,.—....— h*' sf?%,. o.. xg.,!± ne.*>°," c "' },�'!!eftur..:w:-v:•r.Me -tnu. wHU��- i-,*,kSa g; e` tk3•`.¢ et. t '.Y.'�t'a::a'err,.- r,::.:,,.... TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: --BACKGROUND Steve Lancaster March 20, 2002 CITY OF TUKWILA INTER - OFFICE MEMO Community Affairs and Parks Committee Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review of uses allowed in the MIC/H area. On March 18 the City Council included in its Planning Commission referral of potential Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendments, a proposal to review and perhaps revise the types of land uses allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center / Heavy ( MIC/H) area. Since this was not included in the original staff briefing materials, we would like to provide some information for City Council background as this potential amendment moves through the review process. ISSUES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Countywide Planning Policies for King County (CPPs) Tukwila's MIC is designated as a Manufacturing /Industrial Center under the Countywide Planning Policies for King County (CPPs Policy LU -51, p.25). This designation was requested and supported by Tukwila. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers play a unique role in the adopted regional strategy for managing growth (in a manner similar to Urban Centers). Under the Countywide Planning Policies for King County, MICs are considered "key components of the regional economy" (CPPs p. 20). Once designated, local governments are expected to "discourage land uses which are not compatible with manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses" (CPPs Policy LU -52, p. 25). The purpose of discouraging non - manufacturing and industrial uses is two -fold. First, it is considered important to preserve sufficient land to accommodate higher wage manufacturing jobs through the 20 -year planning period. The assumption underlying this objective is that it becomes increasingly difficult to site heavier industrial uses as the region urbanizes, so we need to preserve those areas historically committed to these uses. Second, experience shows that as uses less tolerant of industrial -type impacts (noise, heavy truck traffic, visual impacts, etc) move into an industrial area, pressure mounts on traditional industrial uses to \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME \STEVE \STEVE \GMA \AMNDMNTS\MICH CAP 020326.doc Page become "better neighbors" or move elsewhere. As this occurs, the difficulty of finding "new" areas suitable for heavy industrial use increases. Attached for your information are excerpts from the Countywide Planning Policies for King County, highlighting passages dealing with this specific issue. Our initial read is that we have several options under these policies: 1. Make no changes to the uses allowed in the MIC/H. 2. Make some relatively minor changes that maintain our consistency with the CPPs. 3. Maintain the current lists of allowed uses for a MIC/H that is reduced in size, and expand or change the types of uses allowed in the "remaining" area. This might require amendment or clarification of the Countywide Planning Policies concerning Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. 4. Seek a change in the CPPs, removing Tukwila's MIC/H from the list of designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. A potential down -side to reducing the size or eliminating the CPP Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation would be the future loss of infrastructure funding. The Countywide Planning Policies state that: Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the Growth Management Planning Council or its successor which: a. Identify regional funding sources; and b. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and services including social and human services in regional !vlanufacturing /Industrial Centers, and subarea planning efforts in Manufacturing /Industrial Centers. To date, no such financial strategy favoring MICs has been developed, although the Puget Sound Regional Council has begun discussing the value of priority funding for Centers. "Planned Action" for Tukwila's MIC Several years ago Tukwila prepared a "programatic EIS" for the MIC, which resulted in City Council adoption of a "Planned Action" regulatory framework for MIC development. This has significantly reduced the level of environmental review required for individual development projects within the MIC and streamlined permitting. The programatic EIS, which forms the foundation for this regulatory approach, was based upon our current land use regulations. Any significant change to these regulations would likely require either a supplemental programatic EIS, or abandonment of this streamlining tool. General Market Issues A final set of issues for consideration has to do with the potential "dilution" of the overall market for certain types of land uses. For example, if the MIC is made available for stand -alone office development or general retail uses, it may compete with the Urban Center and Tukwila International Boulevard for attracting these uses. On the positive side, opening the MIC to these \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME \STEVE \STEVE \GMA\AMNDMNTS \MICH CAP 020326.doc T.L"� 7P tt:Q+" ' rt,.st w,w mow t ) Page 1.• other uses might increase Tukwila's competitiveness in relation to other communities. We believe a better understanding of these market issues should be pursued before a decision is made. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that these issues be discussed by the CAP and by COW so that staff can pass on to the Planning Commission any additional guidance the Council may have. \ \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME \STEVE \STEVE \GMA\AMNDMNTS\MICH CAP 020326.doc , x•4',1:4 :1; i.:41)42,,,k. Page : z Z . . ix J U ' U O: N J 1 W �. g Q _ d, 111 Z F = — O Z :U :O U O I-- = U_ p O s Z. O . z Mar 12 01 02:42p MICHAEL R. KENYON MARGITA A. DORNAY LISA M. MARSHALL ROBERT F. NOF BRUCE L. DISEND TO: FROM: DATE: RE: KDM Law Firm 425 392 7071 KENYON DORNAY MARSHALL, PLLC Jack Pace, Planning Manager Robert F. Noe, City Attorncy March 12, 2001 Boeing Plant 2 Options THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET Scum ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3820 (425) 392 -7090 (206) 628 -9059 FAX (425) 392 -7071 SANDRA S. MEADOWCROFr SIMON STOCKER ELIZABETH A. ABBOTT AARON J. WOLFF STEVE C. KARIMI GARTH A. AIIEARN STEPHEN R. KING In addition to the options set forth in Laura Whitaker's memorandum to Elizabeth Warman, the following additional options come to my mind in reviewing the issue: Unclassified Use - It is possible to make general office use available under the Unclassified Use process. The downside to this suggestion is that it will be difficult to create criteria for approval. Consistency or lack of conflict with the Comprehensive Plan is usually required in such criteria. Nonconforming use - It is possible to simply treat any future use of the office space as a nonconforming use. This approach is problematic because our zoning code does not speak to the continuation of a use that was originally permitted as an associated or accessory use which later becomes disassociated with, or not an accessory use to, a permitted use. It is questionable whether an accessory use can obtain a "life of its own" for purposes of attaining nonconforming status under the code as currently written. An additional provision could be added to the nonconforming use provisions at TMC 18.70 which basically provides that an "associated" office use as defined in TMC 18.38.020 may continue in operation even if the underlying permitted use ceases to exist subject to the provision of TMC 18.70. The downsides to rendering such a use as nonconforming are found in TMC 18.70, i.e., inability to expand and inability to discontinue the use for a period of time. "As sociated'use;vs accessory" ,use - The zoning in the MIC/H does not permit offi .e as an "accessory" use. Iris the use is found within TMC 18.38.020(27) as a "permitted" use. Such use is "permitted" if it is "associated" with an otherwise permitted use. It is possible to amend Subsection 27 to include language which provides that an office use, which is originally established and permitted as an "associated" use, is deemed to be a permitted use for all purposes F:\APPS\MUNI\RFN\ME07677.r4Urfi /031201 / /d1 • Page I SERVING WASHINGTON CITIES SINCE 1993 p. 2 z w L IY JU U 0 co w co u _ w 0 i O E D - 0 t•- W W II- w z U= 0 z pmoitt i?IYt,SI:1'f^w Mar 12 01 02:42p KDM Law Firm I thereafter, even where the underlying permitted use giving rise to the office use ceases to exist. This may be the simplest way to address this problem. The proposed amendment simply clarifies to what extent an associated use is considered a permitted use in the future if the underlying use ceases. As such, I do not believe that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary to make this change. F: LAPPS\ MUNI \RPN\ME07677.rfnhfn/031201 / /dl - Page 2 425 392 7071 p. 3 w Ja:;'::.r.;.W.'S:i„X:uia: 4 Iv 665 11. ;: i- TO: Elizabeth Warman c .J FROM: Laura Whitaker U o cn � w RE: Plant 2 Zoning Alternatives w 2 J LL Q There are at least four alternatives that would permit the development of offices on the Plant 2 site: w Z = ° z W ui U u) 0 U The advantage of this alternative is that the Plant 2 site would continue to be o zoned MIC /H and thus remain consistent with the other land within the MIC. . Z However, permitting general office uses would appear to violate Comprehensive Plan P I I Policy 11.1.5, which allows only uses associated with manufacturing and industry. 2. Rezone of the Plant 2 site to another zone that permits general offices. The candidate zones would be Heavy Industrial (HI), Light Industrial (LI), and Commercial /Light Industrial (C /LI). The most likely candidate zone is HI, for which the stated purpose is to provide areas characterized by heavy or bulk manufacturing uses and distributive and light manufacturing uses, with supportive commercial and office uses. TMC 18.34.010. "Supportive commercial and office uses" is similar to the language and intent of the MIC /H zone, but in the HI zone, unlike the MIC /H zone, a wide range of offices is permitted outright. TMC 18.34.020(37). 3. Retain a Boeing association with the office development at Plant 2. According to the intent and terms of the MIC and the MIC /H zone, office uses that are "associated" with a company "present" within the MIC are permitted outright. TMC 18.38.020(27). Rather than amending the Tukwila zoning code, if Boeing retained ownership, participation, or space within the office development on the Plant 2 site, then the office uses are arguably associated with a company that is present within the 1. Amend the MIC /H zone permitted uses to include nonassociated offices. The permitted uses added by this text amendment would be those permitted in the existing HI zone the same wide range of office uses. The argument for this would again be the similarity of the language and intent of the HI zone with respect to office uses, which if applicable to the HI zone should also be applicable to the MIC /H zone. [00000- 000003010670.084] 3/8/01 PERKINS COIE LLP March 8, 2001 MIC, since Boeing will still be a major presence within the Tukwila MIC. The disadvantage of this alternative would be the requirement that Boeing retain some association with the office space once development, thereby reducing Boeing's flexibility. Z 4. Develop offices with only "high tech" uses. Rather than amending the Wi w Tukwila zoning code, Boeing could focus the office development on the Plant 2 site to offices associated with research and development and biotechnology, which are 0 permitted outright within the MIC /H zone. TMC 18.38.020(13). The City's c W LLI Comprehensive Plan contemplates such a development at the Plant 2 site in a "prototype" site development plan for that site. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial u o Center Strategic Implementation Plan, November, 1998, at 17. The disadvantage of this alternative would be narrowed focus for marketing and a likely requirement by g the City to include some laboratory space. cn a = w' z � 0 Z1- Summary: The alternatives most likely to succeed are those that work within the parameters of the existing zoning- either retaining a Boeing association with the office development or developing offices with a high -tech focus. Permitting for these 0 alternatives could probably be accomplished with good economic arguments. On the w w other hand, because of the MIC district and the policies supporting the retention of 0— manufacturing and industrial land within it, a rezone of a single parcel out of the MIC `—` z zoning when all other land in the MIC carries MIC zoning is an uphill battle, Cu particularly with a potential spot zoning issue. However, a text amendment to permit o general offices might be more probable, because or the similarity of the intent language between the MIC /H zone and the HI zone and based on the argument that what is good for the HI zone must be good for the MIC /H zone as well. LNW:bsf [00000- 0000/SB010670.084] -2- 3/8/01 glri2'."�u i:A POL, .•=43 ;041114 .%i. %/tl" .^i1+41 ",Ara �'L�iktS52 flL .I,uT}"J'!u King County Countywide Planning Policies Updated August 2000 NOTE This document includes all amendments approved and ratified up through August 2000. If you have questions about the Countywide Planning Policies document, please contact Paul Reitenbach in the Office of Regional Policy and Planning at (206) 205 -0701. -,. euv- i:cwA. "v�..fs='2::i:::+�:cUk a7Ylur 2 H. w 6 U CD 0' W = , J F- WO Nd = Z F- O Z 111 w U � O — CI W W H U . U- F" O LLI Z. - 0 F-: z The Growth Management Act requires that city and County comprehensive plans be coordinated and consistent with one another. Consistency is required "where there are common borders or related regional issues" (RCW 36.70A.100). Joint planning is fundamental to all the framework policies. LU -37 All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the Countywide Planning Policies. Z 4. Cities in the Rural Area :1— w cc 2 The cities and unincorporated towns in the Rural Areas are a significant part of King County's diversity and -J 0 heritage. Cities in this category include: Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Sno- to p qualmie and Skykomish. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities w w and towns are the appropriate providers of local rural services for the community. They also contribute to -J F- the variety of development patterns and housing choices within the County. As municipalities, the cities cn u., are to provide urban services and be located within designated Urban Growth Areas. The urban services, W O residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large, generally western Urban 2 Growth Area. g Q LU -38 In recognition that cities in the Rural Area are generally not contiguous to the Countywide a Urban Growth Area, and to protect and enhance the options cities in Rural Areas provide, H W these cities shall be located within Urban Growth Areas. These Urban Growth Areas generally Z T— will be islands separate from the larger Urban Growth Area located in the western portion of Z O the County. Each city in the Rural Area and King County and the Growth Management W Planning Council shall work cooperatively to establish an Urban Growth Area for that city. The 2 D D Urban Growth Area for cities in the Rural Area shall: a. Include all lands within existing cities in the Rural Area; b. Be sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support rural city growth without major environmental impacts; c. Be contiguous to city limits; d. Have boundaries based on natural boundaries, such as watersheds, topographical fea- tures, and the edge of areas already characterized by urban development; e. Be maintained in large lots at densities of one home per five acres or less with mandatory clustering provisions until such time as the city annexes the area; f. Be implemented through interlocal agreements among King County, the cities and special purpose districts, as appropriate, to ensure that annexation is phased, nearby open space is protected and development within the Urban Growth Area is compatible with surround- ing Rural and Resource Areas; and g. Not include designated Forest or Agricultural Production District lands unless the conser- vation of those lands and continued resource -based use, or other compatible use, is assured. D. Urban and Manufacturing /Industrial Centers Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high - capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses such as retail. recreational, public facilities, parks and open space. Urban Centers are designed to 1) strengthen existing communities. 2) promote housing opportunities close to employment. 3) support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles. 4) consume less land with urban development, .i) maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, 6) reduce costs of and time required for permitting, and 7) evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. Manufacturing /Industrial Employment Centers are key components of the regional economy. These areas are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing, industrial, and advanced technology employment. They differ from other employment areas, such as business /office parks (see FJV - -16 and LU- 70 -74), in that a land base and the sezretT ation of major non- manu /acturinz uses are essential elements of their operation. 20 Z FW -14 Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be locally designated. Urban Centers shall be characterized by all of the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. 9. h. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective rapid transit; Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; Limitations on single- occupancy vehicle usage during peak hours or commute purposes; A broad array of land uses and choices within those uses for employees and residents; Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. FW -15 Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies shall assure the creation of a number of locally determined Manufacturing /Industrial Centers which meet specific criteria. The Manufacturing /Industrial Centers shall be characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses; c. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and /or waterway system for the move- ment of goods; d. Provisions to discourage large office and retail development; and e. Fast -track project permitting. FW -16 Urban and Manufacturing /Industrial Centers shall be complemented by the land use pattern outside the Centers but within the Urban Area. This area shall include: urban residential neighborhoods, Activity Areas, business /office parks, and an urban open space network. Within these areas, future development shall be limited in scale and intensity to support the Countywide land use and regional transportation plan. 1. Urban Centers Designation Process LU -39 The location and number of Urban Centers in King County were determined through the joint local and Countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: a. The Countywide Planning Policies include specific criteria for Urban Centers; b. Jurisdictions electing to contain an Urban Center provided the Growth Management Planning Council with a statement of commitment describing the city's intent and commitment to meet the Centers' criteria defined in these Policies and a timetable for the required Centers Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or identification of existing environmental documentation to be used; and c. The Growth Management Planning Council reviewed the Centers nominated by local jurisdictions consistent with policy FW -1, and the following criteria: 21 �lnwuilc : 3...Y.Ei.E'H'wie io- k4i4w • z • IZ w ' � 2 O 0 co CD ILI J = Ir- • LL W 0 co = W Z � t- 0 Z w • w U � O ( ; � W I— � LL O W z U= 0 1 ' z 1. The Center's location in the region and its potential for promoting a Countywide sys- tem of Urban Centers; 2. The total number of Centers in the County that can be realized over the next 20 years, based on 20 years projected growth; 3. The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving flag" Center goals; and Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Centers is assured. 4. Manufacturing /Industrial Center Designation Process LU -51 The location and number of regional Manufacturing /Industrial Centers in King County were determined through the joint local and Countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: a. Countywide Planning Polices include specific criteria for Manufacturing /Industrial Centers; b. Jurisdictions electing to contain a Manufacturing /Industrial Center provided the Growth Management Planning Council with a statement specifying how the Center will meet the intent of the Countywide Policies, including plans to adopt criteria, incentives, and other commitments to implement Manufacturing /Industrial Centers; c. The Growth Management Planning Council reviewed the Manufacturing /Industrial Centers elected by local jurisdictions consistent with policy FW -1, and the following criteria: 1. The Center's location in the region, especially relative to existing and proposed trans- portation facilities and its potential for promoting a Countywide system of Manufactur- ing /Industrial Centers; 2. The total number of Centers that are needed in the County over the next 20 -years based on 20 years projected need for manufacturing land to satisfy regional pro- jections of demand for manufacturing land that assume a ten percent increase in manufacturing jobs over this period; 3. The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving Manufacturing /Industrial Center goals; 4. Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Manufactur- ing /Industrial Centers is assured; and 5. The accessibility of the Center to existing or planned transportation facilities. d. The Growth Management Planning Council confirmed the following Manufacturing /Industrial Centers: North Tukwila, Duwamish and Ballard /Interbay in Seattle, the Kent Industrial Area, and Redmond Overlake. 5. Manufacturing /Industrial Center Criteria LU -52 Each jurisdiction which contains a regional Manufacturing /Industrial Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the Center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the Center. Jurisdictions with Manufacturing /Industrial Centers shall have zoning and detailed plans in place to achieve the following goals by the year 2010. a. Preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non - manufacturing /industrial land parcels sized for manufacturing /industrial uses; b. Discourage land uses which are not compatible with manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses; c. Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs; and d. Limit the size of offices and retail unless as an accessory use. LU -53 All jurisdictions support the development of a regional industrial siting policy to promote indus- trial activity. LU -54 Jurisdictions shall design access to the regional Manufacturing /Industrial Centers to facilitate the mobility of employees by transit, and the mobility of goods by truck, rail or waterway as appropriate. Regional comprehensive plans shall include strategies to provide capital improvement projects which support access for movement of goods. LU -55 Jurisdictions which contain regional Manufacturing /Industrial Centers in conjunction with transit agencies, shall identify transit station areas and rights -of -way in each jurisdiction's compre- hensive plan. Where transit stations exist or are planned, jurisdictions in conjunction with transit agencies shall identify various options such as feeder systems, bicycle routes and pedestrian systems to link the Center with its transit stations. 25 a• ":=Nr .lMnfm rawrr, MT.I 7MITIrroPN•a...,arvn'w.Km __ae>m VC,"!xgrr, high value added manufacturing facilities and port facilities among others. The County and local jurisdictions shall encourage these institutions, businesses and facilities to thrive while maintaining the environmental and other goals of the local comprehensive plans. 2. Environment ED - Jurisdictions shall adopt economic development and other policies which will recognize and Z help protect the environment as a key economic value in the region. Local policies shall seek to achieve an appropriate balance between the needs for economic growth and the need for H Z w � protecting the environment. Local governments are encouraged to look for ways to work g cooperatively with businesses to help them comply with environmental regulations and to 6 develop policies that result in environmental protection through regulatory processes that are U O understandable and efficient. u) 0 ED - In cooperation with water and electricity providers, local jurisdictions, including sewer and -J H water districts, shall encourage programs for water and power conservation in public facilities 0 and in the private sector. w u_Q 3. Human Resources: Economically Disadvantaged Citizens and Neighborhoods, co Job Training and Education = a 1— w ED -12 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans shall address the historic disparity in income and employ- Z H ment opportunities for minorities, women and economically disadvantaged individuals. Z O Jurisdictions shall develop strategies and support community -based actions to involve w minorities, women and economically disadvantaged individuals in improving their economic 2 D future. The plans shall recognize their special needs and each jurisdiction should commit, U based on their plans, resources in human services, community development, housing, eco- 0 H. nomic development and the public infrastructure, to address the inequalities referred to above. = W ED -13 Job training, retraining, and educational opportunities are critical to develop and maintain a H highly skilled workforce. Jurisdictions shall cooperate in efforts to meet these training and L Z 0 educational needs on a Countywide basis by facilitating the implementation of programs to W Z meet the educational and training needs and to identify partnerships and funding opportunities rJ where appropriate. 0 I- 4. Direct Governmental Actions: Land Supply, Infrastructure and Permitting ED -14 Jurisdictions shall cooperate on a Countywide basis to inventory, plan for, and monitor the land supply for commercial, industrial, institutional, resource and residential uses. Local jurisdic- tions shall, in coordination with evaluation and reporting requirements of state law, identify the amount, character and uses of land needed to achieve the jurisdictions' job growth goals. ED -15 Local comprehensive plans should include policies which foster a climate supportive of the siting needs of industrial users and that recognize the important role they play in creating high - wage jobs. Local plans are encouraged to include policies designed to ensure that industrial use of industrial -zone land is not unduly encroached upon or limited by non - supporting or incompatible uses. Local policies and plans are encouraged to support the continued availability of land for those industrial and supporting or compatible activities dependent on critical infrastructure as iden- tified in local comprehensive plans. Jurisdictions should consider zoning or other means to provide opportunities for those uses in areas where infrastructure facilities can be utilized to exploit the economic benefit of that infrastructure. ED -16 Jurisdictions are encouraged to promote the siting of resource -based and agricultural -based industrial activities close to the location of the natural resource whether outside or inside the Urban Growth Boundary. Jurisdictions are encouraged to recognize forest land as a sustain- able economic resource. 46 Drawing #1 -2 ,,- -.• , ' 5 "0 = , , .,... .— , .:-::',...... : 2:,.. --.,.-....:•+.: ,,.... • • ..., -, • , • ,• ,::,:;..:,.,......u.i..,..:,,,,..:::,,•:,...,, 1!55, • I • ''',• • ° ; •••:'• ",,.;`,14. , ',...,. .: ::. ',- >.': . ''' 1 ...-''':::' . •'• "Q: ',_,:,,,•.,:..,...;,..:- ,,,, Tr) = ta -- ' "0 = • = ' I - .,. ,,- ,- .- ,.; cu, , io ,, tv , ,, ,.,:in:9-,:','''.,1...,,,i''"-..,,,:•' • .1.1•111 .., •-`,. V) • • ' ' ' . . ' ' ' ' .S1' • . ... O I.•4 • a ':. ' • I , : . 47 i '..: . ,,_. i,,, 8 , .... , ..c ea 2.1 I: 13.;:•••• . ,. CO • . O .. .... ,t , .4: ct., 4.: • o.. .„....,... '5; . • '•' . „ 3 IN3WH3V.LLY '• • Cl) ' 0 :t t. 0) a) - - > 1:),..;‘, - •„, O , ' '•i• . .. r. C 1. , ' a \.„ __...... .....1..........t, I E ., .. 4 - ,.... ............1 -.. CO . II IIIIIII 61011011 tiiiIiiiiiiiiIiiiijiiiiiii .1.111 !HI IIII,JI IIIIIPIiI i I •• • • / r 440 / • ••••••■•••• .\ - / y -'-. ,........-.: „..3,--_,___ . ,....., ..., ..„.. , , ( . , t ./ ; ( - • ..-.,. \. . '..,;5/ . ....2._.--...!•. .'\ — • ..• 4.,..... ..,,,. , X • 1 ‘.. 0 v . ; ../4,0 ,,,,,,___ / / .... /*// ... r..1 ------......._......----12.Aass..1........... / ,.....— .-:::-;-- -7- . ---,...... .... ......., ...0_____ I 1 \ I I ....,....•-_,:....,;.---,;.............. A .... ......■ • ••■••■•••••••• • I / " • .0 • ttItter:M■■Y■0■••••••••••■••,1t .......... / / • I • 'r? \ r -- St..... N \ ./ / 1 ... '• , .1 ,.-I / •-•,-- ....., ., ..,...„. Ne..' . --'...j* .....Y \;,....: *"...............::::::.—...--..... ..•... • ../..:":" -. 7*•--..........._.....___. :: .. .„. , .__............ r/ • / •• ,' ' / "":" -... -- -., .A., .. / ...,, r ...7..../.. • • s \ : \ - a .i t i . „..,:... , ./ • • ••• •......', j 1 • ,•°/ 1. i i i mini llii Olin) IIII III I���iii.liin� iii [1,11411i 1..1l1 11II Ii . lip.11 ;s 1. • llla IIIII1 1 .111THIIII.I1....11I .111.1).111 mum