HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L97-0084 - PORT OF SEATTLE - TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE STRATEGIESL97 -0084
PORT OF SEATTLE REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Troy Brown
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
April 27, 1998
RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - -L97 -0084
Dear Mr. Brown:
At its meeting on April 20, 1997, the Tukwila City Council rejected the Port
of Seattle's application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to promote
transportation and land use strategies that support the goal of meeting
regional transportation needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport.
If you wish to have your proposal reconsidered next year, you may reapply
by submitting an application by December 31, 1998.
Please call me at (206)431 -3683 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
.&(?2,c_
Rebecca Fox
Associate Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
.
h
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Troy Brown
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport
P.O. Box 68727
Seattlle, WA 98168
April 21, 1998
RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - -L97 -0084
Dear Mr. Brown:
At its meeting on April 20, 1997, the Tukwila City Council rejected the Port
of Seattle's application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to promote
transportation and land use strategies that support the goal of meeting
regional transportation needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport.
If you wish to have your proposal reconsidered next year, you may reapply
by submitting an application by December 31, 1998.
Please call me at (206)431 -3683 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Fox
Associate Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 41313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
z
Z'
w
u- t
J.0
U
w
Co w;
wO
:¢ J:
u_
CO s!
—o
w;
z�.,
• 1- O
Z
,w w:
Do
10 141
,w w;
uiz ;;
U N;
•
City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Troy Brown
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168
April 6, 1998
Dear Mr. Brown:
Enclosed is a copy of the staff report for the Port of Seattle's requested Comprehensive
Plan amendment. The City Council will hold a public meeting on Monday, April 20 to
discuss this and other proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City Council
meeting begins at 7 p.m.; the Public Meeting will be the third item on the agenda, after a
Public Hearing on improvements along Pacific Highway South.
Please telephone me at (206)431 -3683 if you have questions about the staff report or the
Council's deliberation process.
Sincerely,
CCU.- fox
Rebecca Fox
Associate Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
?
z
w'
6
U,.
U°
w
J:
CD w;
=d;
•
Z F.,:
.z17
ww
•
.Do
•
• :0
:w wr
w z+
UN.
•
• Z
"
. . PROCESS •
" " •
" ••:•••••••••%:::•" • w • '• •
%.%
OW0
:4,:••••••••:•:
... .. • • ...... .... ..
•
••••••••......00..w. • • • • 1, •
• , ............... . .
' • '' ••• '
...................... . : .. • ••:.-
w"wmmiMimMgMigggNgOggggWg
.. •:•""""•' ''''''''''''''''''' " ''''''''''''''''' " '''''''''''''''''''''''
.................... ••••• % . .
•
1................
OR
(Draft--1/5/98)
-
•
FEB 10 '98 14:07 FR PUGET SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9- 4313665 P.02/09
• Appendix F- PSRC Air Transportation Capacity Resolutions
RESOLUTION A -96 -02
A Resolution of the General Assembly of the Puget Sound Regional Council Amending the
1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Related Planning Documents to
Provide for the Long -Term Commercial Air Transportation Capacity Needs of the Central
Puget Sound Region.
WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Regional Council, designated under federal and state laws as the
Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Organization for the
central Puget Sound region, is responsible for adopting and maintaining regional growth
management and transportation strategies and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the
region; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan includes an aviation component; and
WHEREAS, the region's air transportation needs have been studied and planned for years as
chronicled in a Summary of the Regional Council's Decision Process Related to Amending the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan to Include a Third Runway with Additional Noise Reduction
Measures; and
WHEREAS, the region is again confronted with a need to plan for the expansion of air
transportation capacity; and
WHEREAS, in determining whether to amend the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan to
include plans for a third runway at Seattle - Tacoma International Airport with additional noise
reduction measures, the Regional Council considered a number of factors including:
1) the need for additional airport capacity or other actions to address the region's growing
demand for commercial air transportation services;
2) the impact of poor weather on Sea -Tac Airport's current operating capabilities;
3) the alternatives for meeting air travel demand including the feasibility of a major
supplemental airport and demand/system management actions;
4) the environmental impacts of the various alternatives as documented in the Flight Plan
and Master Plan Update Environmental Impact Statements;
5) new information and analyses documented in an addendum to these EISs;
6) the conclusions of the Expert Arbitration Panel on Demand/System Management and
Noise regarding demand/system management actions and noise reduction measures; and
•
•
•
FEB 10 '98 14:08 FR PUGET SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9- 4313665
P.03/09
7) the extensive public comment received throughout the process as a result of the EIS
processes, workshops, decision meetings, open houses, a telephone hotline, and public
hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Council through its regional planning decision process has sought to
address these factors and finds that commercial air transportation is important to the mobility
needs of the region's populace and its economy, and that the solution to the increasing demand
for commercial air transportation services needs to strike a balance between environmental
impacts, quality of life factors, and the air transportation needs of the region; and
WHEREAS, the Regional 'Council has determined, on balance, that the adoption of an
amendment to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan to plan for a third runway at Sea -Tac Airport
with additional noise reduction measures is a reasonable and necessary decision for addressing the
long -term commercial air transportation capacity needs of the central Puget Sound region; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Council's regional planning decision expressed in this resolution is
distinct from the project -level decisions yet to be made by other agencies including the Port of
Seattle and the Federal Aviation Administration;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Assembly hereby amends the 1995
Metropolitan. Transportation Plan to include plans for a third runway at Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport, with additional noise reduction measures and implementation and
monitoring steps that are to be included as Appendix G of the MTP. The amendments are
detailed in Attachment A, adopted as part of this resolution. This amendment is effective upon
the Regional Council's receipt of the Port of Seattle resolution, described in Attachment A,
Appendix G, Part I.
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan document also serves as the area's Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) as part of VISION 2020, the growth management, economic and transportation
strategy for the central Puget Sound region, which includes King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish
counties. All references herein to amending the MTP necessarily also include amending the RTP
and the 1988 Interim Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) which was amended by Resolution
A- 93 -03.
ADOPTED by the General Assembly this 1 lth day of July, 1996.
Executive Doug Sutherland
Pierce County
President, Puget Sound Regional Council
Attest;
Mary McCumber, Executive Director
�
z
~ w'
-j(.),
,
moo;
w ='
CO w.
w O'
w a,
D. a
=w
1-
M.
F- O.
w~
2
U 0`
o —
w w.
U.
z;.
w
z
FEB 10 '98 14:08 FR PUGET SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9- 4313665
Resolution A -93 -03 As Amended
Page 177. New Paragraph 6
P.04/09
WHEREAS, additional procedures employed in the process of amending this
resolution in 1996 are reflected in a Regional Council document entitled Summary of the
Regional Council's Decision Process Related to Amending the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan to Include a Third Runway With Additional Noise Reduction Measures;
Page 177_ Beginning t Paragraph 7 (old paragraph 6)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Regional Council
recommendsthatthe General Assembly adopts the following elements of a Regional Airport
System Plan amendment:
That the region should pursue vigorously, ,
a third runway at Sea -Tac with additional noise reduction measures.
V. • I • •
. • .11 • •
•• • • •
r . r. •
•
1 .8 GI
1 • •• r.I1 • . • ■ •
Oa
• •
•
•• 1
11 1 • • t• .81
• • • 1 r. • Iw
• • •I r.1
.8 • 8.1 —. w, • II • • •I r. • - • • •
• - • •1 • .1 • . • • - . • _ I • • : . • w .1 • • • • • • .1 • . i •• •
• Ir .0 • • • I *.1.1 • • .w' • • I • • •
• .. •.. • • _ •1 •
• _• • • • .I •
• • .•
•• • • _ • • • • .I • • 1 • •
• . .0 ■ •
•
• • • _1 • ,1 • • •1 • • .w • • •••/1
• •.•.• • •.1
• .1
• _ • •I1 r • • 111 - •
• w •
• .1 • • 1 • . • •
.1 • • •
• 1 • •
. • •
I • • •
1 • • ■ • • •
. • • . •
• • • I •
1 ••• • •
•■ • • • 1
• • • •
• •
• * •■
■ •
• •I• .1
• • • 1 .•
67 Eliminate small supplemental airports, including Paine Field, as a preferred
alternative.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED... (retain remainder of old language)
•
FEB 10.'98 14 08 FR PUGET SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9- 4313665 P.05/09
Appendix GAir Transportation Noise Reduction Measures and
Implementing and Monitoring Steps
The responsible parties as indicated will agree to pursue additional aircraft noise mitigation for
communities surrounding Sea -Tac Airport by implementing the following package of noise
reduction measures:
z
H z
w
n: I
I. The Port of Seattle o
o
Ill
z'
A. Evaluate and upgrade w
pgrade its existing noise monitoring system to include the use of w
approximately 25 noise monitors, develop a schedule for completion by the end of 1998, �.
and thereafter disseminate regular reports to the public using data from the new noise
monitoring system to include DNL, SEL and Time Above metrics. = d
w
z'-
Work with the FAA and/or airlines to: z o;
1. Analyze the potential for reducing the use of thrust reversers. . o,
U
2, Voluntarily minimize the number of flights in the middle of the night o 1-.
w w:
I U,
3. Continue to enforce Airport Rules and Regulations to minimize the number of - z.
variances for the Nighttime Limitations Program. (
4. Work with foreign air carriers to gain cooperation in ensuring that Stage 3 aircraft z
continue to be used for nighttime international flights.
The Port of Seattle will pass a Port Commission resolution affirming that it agrees to:
(1 :30 -5:30 a.m.).
5. Work with the owners/operators of Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds to
voluntarily limit or eliminate their use.
6. Continue to work to enforce Airport Rules and Regulations to minimize nighttime
engine run -ups.
Modify its existing contract with noise experts to specifically include the need to review
methods of mitigating the impacts of low frequency noise and vibration, and to supply
such information to the Port.
Design and implement a noise compatible land use plan for Port properties within its
current acquisition zone.
E. Complete the "sensitive use" public buildings insulation pilot studies.
F. Seek a public commitment from FAA to evaluate actions needed to prevent apparent
violations of the North Flow Nighttime Departure Noise Abatement Procedures to the
extent that safety and efficiency allow.
FEB 10 '98 14:09 FR PUGET SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9- 4313665
P.06/09
G. In carrying out the Part 150 Study:
1. The Port of Seattle will invite the Regional Council, the FAA, and affected parties
to participate, and ensure that they are able to participate actively and
constructively, in the Port's upcoming Part 150 study, which will commence in the
fall of 1996 and is expected to take two to three years.
2. Part 150 Study participants will be invited to take part in developing the scope of
the study, consultant selection, and in all other milestones and products of the
project, such as development of noise exposure maps; development of noise
reduction and land use compatibility measures; and Port consideration and
approval of the program.
3. Items to be considered in developing the scope of the Part 150 Study will include
but not necessarily be limited to:
a. Relocation of run -up areas where daytime engine run -ups occur, to reduce
ground - related noise.
b. Evaluating the potential net benefits of preferential runway use during low
activity periods.
c. Evaluating benefits and impacts of changes to departure climb profiles.
d. Analysis of need to adjust Noise Remedy Program boundaries to include
those in 65 DNL by the year 2000, provided that the Port will not reduce
its established Noise Remedy Program boundaries for currently eligible
properties.
e. Evaluating scope, boundaries and funding for public use and multi - family
buildings.
4. If, as a result of the Part 150 Study, a proposed noise reduction strategy results in
a net improvement but causes a transfer of noise impacts to other communities, the
Port of Seattle, Regional Council, FAA and communities affected by airport noise
will seek agreement on guidelines or other equitable procedures for dealing fairly
with conflicting views and needs of different communities.
The Port of Seattle will ask the FAA to include within its Record of Decision on
the Master Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Statement the requirement to
conduct a Part 150 Study with the goal of assessing needed additional noise
abatement and mitigation.
H. School Insulation
1. The Port of Seattle will commit up to $50 million for school insulation.
2. The Port of Seattle will meet with the Highline School District to try to reach
agreement on a plan for insulating the District's schools. If direct talks between
the District and Port fail to produce agreement on a noise insulation program for
the District's schools, the Port may request that the PSRC assist the parties in
selecting an independent mediator.
z
�z
w
Vo
W z.
J H
• o
w
LL Q:
• d.
z �.
E- o
z�
U0
0 H,
W
�-
o
El co
=
P.
o ~
z
FEB 10 '98 14:09 FR PUGET SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9-4313665 P.07/09
3. The Port will initiate the Highline School District school insulation program
consistent with an agreement reached by the District and Port.
4. Once the Port of Seattle completes the sound insulation program for schools
affected by aircraft noise exposure of 65 DNL from Sea -Tac International Airport,
it will investigate feasibility and funding for insulating schools affected by then
current 60 -65 DNL aircraft noise exposure from Sea -Tac. Sound insulation must
comply with FAA eligibility criteria to achieve measurable noise benefit.
Deliver to the Regional Council on or before September 5, 1996, a detailed timetable for
carrying out the steps specified in subsections A through H of this section, including (a)
defined milestones against which the Port's progress toward completion of those steps
may be measured, and (b) a schedule for progress on planning, design, and construction of
a third runway at Sea -Tac Airport.
II. Hig • e School District
The Highline School District will:
A. Meet with the Port of Seattle to try to reach agreement on a plan for insulating the
District's schools. If direct talks between the District and the Port fail to produce
agreement on a noise insulation program for the District's schools, the District may
request that the PSRC assist the parties in selecting an independent mediator.
B. Initiate its school insulation program, consistent with an agreement reached with the Port
of Seattle.
III. Puget Sound Regional Council
The Puget Sound Regional Council will:
A. Seek funding to (a) actively participate in the Port's upcoming Part 150 Study; (b)
undertake a study to evaluate a financing mechanism for the acquisition of incompatible
uses as noted in III -G, below; and (c) conduct surveys as noted in III -H, below.
B. As part of its Policy and Plan Review process, the PSRC will:
1. Conduct an initial review of land use plans for areas that are within the 65 Ldn
contour, and provide annual review of future changes;
2. Offer assistance to jurisdictions in finding ways to minimize the introduction of
incompatible land uses;
Provide facilitation services, if requested by the Port of Seattle and jurisdictions in
the vicinity of Sea -Tac Airport, to reach agreement on ways to redevelop currently
incompatible land uses.
z
re LI
.J U
oo
Wo
co
W =w :
NLL
w o.
J
LL
=w
Z�:
F-- o
Z�:
o C2.
CI
w • w.
Vp
LL
Z
U ='.
0
z
FEB 10 '98 14:10 FR PUGET SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9- 4313665
P.08/09
C. Upon receipt of a Resolution approved by the Port of Seattle that contains all the items
noted under Port of Seattle Resolution, above, the Executive Director of the PSRC will
notify the Executive Board that the Metropolitan Transportation Plan amendment
including a third runway at Sea -Tac Airport has taken effect.
D. Encourage King County to continue its efforts to eliminate the two nighttime Alaska
Airlines Stage 2 flights from Boeing Field.
E. Seek support for state legislation for state policies regarding land use compatibility around
commercial airports, and will seek support for federal legislation to allow use of federally
approved funding for insulation and acquisition programs beyond the current federal
constraints.
Annually convene representatives of the Port of Seattle, FAA, communities affected by
airport noise, and other interested parties, to coordinate efforts by all parties to alleviate
issues that are undercutting the effectiveness of current noise reduction efforts and
eliminate roadblocks to resolving issues, then report on progress to the Executive Board.
Undertake a study which evaluates use of a state- financed revolving fund, or other
financing mechanism (such as a public/private partnership) for the acquisition of
incompatible uses within the 65 DNL to the 75 DNL contour, for conversion to noise
compatible non - residential uses. Any such funding mechanism must demonstrate a
balance between long -term costs and revenues. The results of the study should be
presented to the Executive Board by June 30, 1997.
H. Conduct statistically valid surveys, during and after construction of the third runway, to
assess Sea -Tac Airport's effects on such items as noise, transportation/circulation, and
land uses in the surrounding communities.
Recommend that the State, in cooperation with appropriate local jurisdictions and regional
transportation planning organizations, implement a comprehensive process for evaluating
all options to meet the State of Washington's long -term air travel and inter- regional
ground transportation needs, including high speed rail.
IV- Washington State Department of Transportation and Transportation
Commission
The Washington State Department of Transportation and Transportation Commission will:
A. Seek funding for acceleration of efforts to provide improved higher speed rail service in
the I -5 Corridor.
B. Seek legislation similar to what was approved for general aviation airports during the 1996
session, to provide state policies for land use compatibility around commercial airports.
• � .. :� .,.:..,:.. � ;.,.�,�..�..,.•.. - �..:� <:.�� ..
z
z
0 0:
• 0
L1.1 =:
w• 0
LL Q..
D.
�w
z
1- 0
z�
w • w
U to
O —
w Lu
▪ 0
uiZ.
0
z
•
FEB 10 '98 14:10 FR PUGEL SOUND REG CNCL 206 587 4825 TO 9- 4313665 P.09/09
V. IVY Bring Compliance
To ensure that measures contained in this Appendix G to the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan are implemented as described, several mechanisms for tracking success and assuring
accountability will be implemented. They include:
A. The Port of Seattle will report to the Regional Council twice yearly on progress toward all .
the efforts encompassed in this action, and
King County will report to the Regional Council Executive Board every six months on
progress toward eliminating nighttime Stage 2 flights at King County International
Airport, and
Regional Council staff will report annually to the Executive Board on its participation in
the Part 150 Study and, based on its Policy and Plan Review Process, on progress toward
minimizing the introduction of incompatible land uses within the 65 Ldn contour,
Caiehhappencbcg.71
** TOTAL PAGE.09 **
To: Bob Noe
From: Rebecca Fox, DCD
Subj: Port of Seattle's Comp Plan Amendment Request
Date: 1/20/98
Request for Attorney review:
I need your guidance on setting a direction for addressing this Comp Plan amendment
discussed below supporting the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and third
runway at SeaTac Airport. What is the status of the ACC litigation and how would it
affect the course we take in dealing with the Comp Plan amendment? How likely are we
to encounter additional challenges from the Port or PSRC if we were to recommend
denial of the Comp Plan amendment.
Background.
The Port of Seattle has submitted a Comp Plan amendment for inclusion as follows:
z
w
6�
UO
03 w
w ='
, I-
No
w
2
?.
a
mw
13.6.5 Promote transportation and land use strategies that are consistent with the Z
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting regional air transportation 1.0`
z !-
needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. including the third runway. w w'
D0
The Port asserts that by adopting this amendment Tukwila would fulfill what the Port 0
contends is Tukwila's responsibility to make its Comprehensive Plan consistent with the w F=
MTP. The Port bases its proposed amendment on a final Decision and Order by the = 0
Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (8/87) which ruled that Des u. 0
Moines' failure to amend its Comprehensive Plan in recognition of the third runway . z'
planned for STIA, and its retention of certain Plan policies precluded the siting of an v CP-
essential public facility (EPF). z
The main conclusion of the Final Decision and Order (97 -3 -0014) of 8/13/97 is that Des
Moines' Comp Plan does not comply with RCW 36.70A.200 since it precludes the
expansion of Seattle Tacoma International Airport (STIA), an essential public facility. In
a letter of 10/1/97 to Mayor Rants, the PSRC states that it wants all cities to make their
Comprehensive Plans consistent with the aviation component of the 1995 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP), which was amended in 1996 to include "planning for a third
runway" at Sea -Tac Airport. For this reason, the Port of Seattle (and PSRC) want
Tukwila to change its Comp Plan.
Issues:
1) The Port wants Tukwila to amend its Comp Plan to provide policy level support of the
third runway. Obviously, this is counter to Tukwila's practice of support for the ACC.
Can we get some help here from our colleagues with ACC? What are the other cities
doing to address these issues in their Comp Plan amendment process? How might the
ACC cities can join together on this one in adopting a coordinated policy approach to the
third runway in light of the Des Moines decision? What is the nature of our current
litigation? Are we appealing the SEPA determination? Could we defer action on the
amendment pending the outcome of this litigation? (I spoke with Federal Way and the
Port has not filed an amendment with them.)
2) PSRC wants us to support the 3rd runway since they prepare the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) and they want to be sure that all the cities are on board. I'm
checking with other cities to see if they received information from PSRC asking them to
amend their Comp Plans to support the MTP. If other cities have not received similar
requests , would that be a legitimate reason to not support the Port's amendment?
3) In the Final Decision and Order (8/31/97, page 7, lines 17 -20), the Port maintains that
it does not "challenge a specific (Des Moines) City action; instead the Port charges that
the City's failure to act violates the GMA. Specifically, the Port asserts that the City
failed to amend its Plan in response to the PSRC's decision to expand STIA by adding a
third runway."
In the past, where a petitioner has proposed a Comp Plan amendment to a local
government and that local government declines to adopt the proposed amendment, the
Board has found in favor of the local government. In this case, however, the Final
Decision and Order asserts (page 8, lines 1 -4) that in the case of Des Moines there is a
GMA duty not to preclude EPF's. The adoption of the MTP, which took place after the
adoption of Des Moines' Comp Plan, requires the City to re- evaluate its Plan to
determine if it still complies with the Comp Plan.
Tukwila's situation is different from Des Moines. Whereas Des Moines' policies
generally put impediments in the way of 3rd runway development (the GMPC says that
Des Moines goes against Growth Management Policies by preventing an Essential Public
Facility from being sited), nothing in Tukwila's Comp Plan precludes the siting of the
3rd runway or goes against it policy -wise. In practice, of course, we clearly show that we
do not wish the third runway to be built by our support of the ACC. The Port and PSRC
want Tukwila to amend the Comp Plan to assert our support of the MTP and the third
runway.
Attachment A shows Des Moines' Comp Plan policies pertaining to STIA expansion.
Attachment B lists Tukwila policies which pertain to essential public facilities, Boeing
Field or STIA.
4) The PSRC appears to want Tukwila to amend its Comp Plan to affirm the primacy of
the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, a plan developed by the PSRC, over the individual
city plans. Tukwila last year ignored the PSRC's directive to make certain changes to the
Transportation policies. By not amending our Plan this year to affirm the MTP and the
3rd runway, Tukwila continues, in effect, to disregard the PSRC's authority. In so
doing, Tukwila increases the risk of the PSRC's not certifying Tukwila's Plan this year.
"
Recommendation:
I'm of the general feeling that our Comp Plan policies are different enough from Des
Moines' that we do not necessarily need to adopt as given the amendment which the Port
has requested. I feel, however, that it would be unwise to reject the Port's amendment
outright and continue to ignore the PSRC's requests.
As a strategy, we could propose our own amendment which focused on SEPA and on
mitigating the impacts of any possible third runway. For example:
promote transportation and land use strategies to assure that actions pursuant to the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting the regional air transportation
needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport are properly conditioned to adequately
mitigate the adverse impacts of such actions on the City of Tukwila.
We might want to have this reviewed by Bob Johns.
'� :� ?�
:z ...
Ui
U O'..
Po .
w Lc:, 1
'
.u) LL!.
wO
J.
W;.
z
1- O
z �
Do
,o Y-'�
of
w-
z':
.ujo 52;i
r
O
z
,�: �.
Des MoiNJE5 �aucl�s
The present case is unitfre Cole. Here, there is a GMA duty -- the duty not to preclude
EPFs. RCW. 36.70A.200(2)_ ; Although the City's Plan may not have conflicted with
.200(2) when the Plan was originally adopted, the subsequent regional decision to expand
an EPF, STIA, requires the City to re- evaluate its Plan to determine if it complies with
200(2).
When Des Moines adopted its Plan in December 1995, there was no regional decision to
expand STIR,,, However, the PSRC passed Resolution A-96-02, amending the MTP to
include a third runway at STIR, on July 11, 1996. The City's duty to comply with the
GMA in the context of the decision to expand an essential public facility y (S1IA) was
triggered when the PSRC passed Resolution A-96.02. RCW 36.70A200 imposes a duty
xequiriag the City's Plan not to. preclude essential public facilities, even when the decision
regarding the essential public facility was made subsequent to the initial adoption of the
Plan
In Children's Alliance, the ' Board defined "preclude" as "render impossible or
12 impracticable." Children's Alliance, at 19. "Impracticable" is defined as `not practicable:
• incapable of being performed or accomplished by the metes employed or at command."
Merriam Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary .584 (10`x' ed..1996). In other words, the City's
Plan need not make it impossible to build the third runway in order to violate the GMA. If
u the City's Plan has the effect of making the expansion incapable of being accomplished by
the means at the Port's command, then the Plan is in violation of the GMA-
The Board holds that a local government plan may not through policies or strategy
17 directives, effectively preclude the siting or expansion of an EPF, including its
necessary support activities.. '
The City of Des Moines Comprehensive Plan contain' a number of policies that the Port
19 ' alleges are not in cornpliance with RCW 36.70A.200. These include policies 1- 04-05, 5-
02-08, 5 -03 -02, 5- 04-04, 8-03- 01(2), 8-04- 01(1), 8- 04- 01(1)(c), 8-03- 04(4), 4- 04-01, 6-
03 23, 6-04- 09(4), 6- 04- 09(5), 8 -03- 01(3), 8- 03- 02(3), 8- 04- 01(1)(b) and 8-04-02(1).
rl See Port's Prebearing Memorandum, at p. 4 and 37 - 40.
The City's Plan contains flour categories of policies: Goals, Findings, gs, Policies, and
Strategies. The policies relevant here are:
Finding 5- 02-08: The siting, construction, and operation of public facilities and
utilities has sometimes resulted in adverse impacts upon ruearby properties and the
natural environment. The City currently accepts more than its fair share of
adverse impacts associated with air transportation: to allow any increase in those
impacts would require that Des Moines accept an even greater disproportionate
share of those impacts (Emphasis added.)
Finding 7- 02-08: Much of Des Moines is impacted by aircraft noise relaxed to
Sea -Tam International Airport (STIA). Yrrtually all of the Des Moines Planning
(73141dodor: V13/97)
97.3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 8
lt
Cenral Perna Salad
Gftwiti Manaetatat Honiara Board
2129 u.:oa square • 600 v.ivtaitp soaat
Area is within the 65 Le, noise contour, and large portions of the planning Area
are within the 70 or 75 Ld. noise contour (STTA Existing Noise Exposure Map,
1991).... (Emphasis added.)
Polley 5- 03 -02: When not against the City's interests, Des Moines should
promote cooperative working relationships between Des Moines and the other
mtmicipalities, agencies and districts idecaified in. this Comprehensive Plan.
(Emphasis added.) • •
Policy 8-03 -01: Residential NeigN12.9d Preserves; ... (2) Develop plans,
land use regulations acid review procedures to preserve and protect designated
residential communities from inconsistent and iueompatIble land uses winch
threaten to wn.dermine their stability and their resideut�I character. (chapter 1 8.02
DMMC, chapter 18.38 DMMC)
Strategy 1- 04-05: Xateraovennnentai Cooperation/AYmcxation: (1) ... When
decisions are made by state, counzy,. regional agencies, ttz"bes, or special purpose'
districts, and those .decisions are dearly in the best interests of the setae, county
or region, take appropriate measures to implement those decisions within Des
Mora es and the PJaztaiog Area, unless the decisions unfairly or negatively affect
the residents or businesses in the Des Moines area (Emphasis added.)
Strategy 5- 04-04: .. _ Adopt development regulations as needed that provide a
process for the identification and possible siting of essential public des.
Cooperatively work with surrouvding nranicipalities and King County during the
siting and development of facilities of regional sisnificanae. Oppose new facilities
associated with Sea -Tac International Airport that increase adverse impacts to
the City of Des Moines.: (Emphasis added.) .
Strategy 6- 04-09: In order to protect and preserve park and recreation areas Des
Moines should: ... (4) Oppose proposed land use and transportation facilities
that would subject park and recreation areas of local signifrcance (except golf
courses, ball fields, outdoor spectator sports areas, aaxu rn t areas, ricliag
stables, nature trails and wildlife refuges) to exterior noise exposure levels which
exceed 55 LL„ or the Le, level existing as of the effective date of this Element,
whichever is greater. A reduction in the exterior noise revel (greater than 55
OA) that existed as of April 20, 1995 shall become the new maximum exterior
noise level. (chapter 18.38 DMMC). (Emphasis added.)
Strategy 6- 04-09: In order to protect and preserve park and recreation areas Des
Moines should: ... (5) Oppose proposed laved use and transportation facilities
that would .subject locally signifrccmt golf courses ball fields, outdoor spectator
sports areas, amusement areas, riding stables, nature trails, and wildlife refuges
to exterior noise exposure levels which exceed an La, of 60 dill, or the La, level
existing as of the effective date of this EIement, whichever is greater. A reduction
(1114. da.doa; 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 9
`' •
Central Paget Seer
Growth Maangelann Marino Board
9•Yl0 n__ �� t._ 44 _ fain
$
10
11
12
13
I
17
l
in the exterior noise level (greater than 60 dBA) that existed as of April 20, 1995
shall become the new inaximmn exterior noise level. (chapter 1838 DMMC).
(Emphasis added.) -
Strategy S- 04-01: Reesidential Neil ,ixorhood rotecti4A: (1) Protect and preserve
residential neighborhoods by . . . (b) Opposing land use changes and
infrastructure improvements that would subject residential neighborhoods to
environmental noise exposure levels which exceed an .1.4. of 55 dBA, or existing
levels as of April 20, 1995, whichever is greater. (chapter 1838 DMMC).
(Es -)
Strategy 8- 04-01: Resklennt±al Neighborhood Protection: (I) Protect and preserve
retitiential neighborhoods by:... - (c) Adopting weight limits and maxi nwn noise
levels for commercial trucks s on =face streets in residential neighborhoods to
ensure that non - routine commercial traffic does not
damage residential roads, or
subject the neigirborhodd to unusual congestion and noisy street bad*. (chapter
7.16 DMMC, chapter 10.28 DMMC, chapter 12.04 DMMC) (Fropbasis added.)
Strategy 8- 0402:., Historic Preservation: (1) Protect and preserve historic
preps and archeological sites by - . . (d) Opposing land use and
• trarnsporta:ion proposatls that would subject historic and archeological sites of
local significance to environmental noise exposure levels of id, of 65 OA, or
existing levels as of April 20, 1995, whichever is higher: A reduction in the
environmental noise level (greater than 65 Ldn) that existed as of April 20, 1995
should become the new maximum environmental level. (Emphasis added.)
is ; According to Plan Finding 5- 02 -08, the City has "accepted more than. its fir share of
adverse impacts" associated with STIA,. Arrsz increase in these adverse impacts would
require the City to "accept an even greater disproportionate share." This Finding or "fad'
assists the Board in interpreting Plan Strategies 1 -04- 05(1), 5 -04-04, and 8- 04- 01(1)(c).
Strategy 1-04-05(1) directs the City to implement regional decisions "clearly in the best
interests of the state, county, or region ... unless the decisions unfairly or negatively
amt" the City. There is no question that the expansion of STIA could have some
adverse impacts on the City. Nonetheless, these impacts could be ra nicmized or mitigated.
Since Finding • 5 -02 -08 makes it clear that expansion of STIA will unfairly or negatively
affect the City, Strategy 1 -04 -05(1) can only be read to meal that the City will not take
measures to implement the regional decision to expand STIA.
Further, Strategy 5 -04-04 states the Cry's intent to oonose new facilities at STIA. "that
ioerea a adverse impacts on the; City." Reading this Strategy together with Finding 5-02-
08 leads to the conclusion that action causing adverse impact on the City, however
slight, will result in the City's opposition, It is significant that notbiug in the challenged
policies cited above talks about mitigation; the language used is "oppose." In its brie the
City stated " Cf]bc City's opposition to the third 'runway is conditioned on unmitigated
}19
21
(7H4f fa.doc: 8/13197)
97- 3-0614 Final Decision and Order
Pager 10
C11*aeee flaw
Growth Mangan& Eeariors Piet
2329 0w Udall 3qua=e • 600 Uaivmiq Sten
seedia. WA 01101 -11i.
• r.
O ides
',redact,
12,
aci-rohi
,,...:. ... ,,�. • -,. ,.. .:.., .,�.
' �.... _..
1
LA/ 1031 n.'l
.(C) KW 1 LA f l (Z - 1'De -7" - �-c. LA Ti 7) c/1 c5 A t-htc(,i vm &oL
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
Goal 7.2 Noise Abatement
Residential neighborhoods protected from undue noise
impacts, in order to ensure for all residents the continued use,
enjoyment and value of their homes, public facilities and
recreation, and the outdoors.
Policies
7.2.1
Prevent community and environmental degradation by
limiting noise levels.
7.2.2 Discourage noise levels which are incompatible with
current or planned land uses, and discourage the
introduction of new land uses into areas where existing
noise levels are incompatible with such land uses.
7.2.3 Require building contractors to limit their construction
activities to those hours of the day when nearby residents
will not be unreasonably disturbed.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Noise regulations
7.2.4 Discourage noise levels incompatible with residential
neighborhoods.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Coordinate with the Washington Department of
Transportation
+ Noise reduction and buffering regulations
+ Berming, landscaping, setbacks, tree planting
+ Building construction and siting methods
+ Home occupations standards
Encourage the reduction of noise from Seattle - Tacoma
International Airport and King County Airport, by
promoting the development of new or the retrofit and
modification of existing aircraft engines which are quieter,
and operational procedures that help reduce aircraft noise
emission levels.
Work with the Port of Seattle, King County Airport and the
Federal Aviation Administration to promote the
development and implementation of airport operational
December 4 1995 75
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
procedures that will decrease the adverse noise effects of
airport operations on Tukwila and its residents.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Lobbying the Federal Aviation Administration to develop
and implement airport operational procedures to reduce
noise impacts.
+ Coordinate with other jurisdictions surrounding airports to
ensure common purpose and implementation strategies.
+ Work with King County International Airport/Boeing
Field to establish an appropriate noise monitoring system,
including better identification of noisy flight events,
counseling/education of pilots about quieter flying tech-
niques, flight patterns that avoid noise - sensitive areas and
other strategies.
7.2.7 Ensure that urbanization and development do not
negatively impact current neighborhood noise levels or
E.P.A. standards.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ WSDOT coordination in advance of roadway
improvements
+ City -wide study on current noise levels
+ Establish City program and standards
Goal 7.3 Overall Land Use Pattern
A land use pattern that encourages a strong sense of
community by grouping compatible and mutually supportive
uses and separating incompatible uses.
Policies
7.3.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the
preservation and enhancement of single-family and stable
multifamily neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible land
uses; and clearly establishes applicable development
requirements through recognizable boundaries.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Clear definition of Land Use Map zoning codes
76 December 4, 1995
z
.~ z.
re
J.U.
oo
wz.
Lt.!
cn a.
1w
z
o.
z
w°_
o•
o E-
w w.
• 2
uiz •
0
z.
1
i
1
i
1
1
•
•
•
i
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in
updating their airport master plan, to ensure that airport
operations and development:
— Enhances Tukwila goals and policies
— Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations
— Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents.
Goal 13.7
Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment
System
Funding through grants, mitigations, and general funds for
safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS
standards.
Policies
13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants.
13.7.2 Use an environmental mitigation system that identifies:
— Safety and capacity improvements based on 2010
LOS deficiencies
— Costs of improvements needed to mitigate increased
traffic reflected in the annual Capital Improvement
Plan update
Fair -share costs, determined from the capacity
improvement cost and the 20 year increase in traffic
— Fair -share costs, with the 20 year projection being
updated biennially for newly added projects and
mitigation fair -share costs
— Mitigation assessments, determined by the number of
development trips and the capacity or safety
improvement fair -share cost
— Mitigation assessments that may be used for
identified capacity or safety improvements
— Additional mitigation when development affects
locations operating in expanded LOS range.
13.7.3 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding
new projects and deleting completed projects.
December 4, 1995
•z
i 1-:
• mow.
a�.
J 0
00
• w.
• W=
J f.. ,
w
• a.
z a..
w,
z
F-0
z�
• w. •
2
• .0 .
'p =4f w w:
•
US
• o
.z
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Roles and Responsibilities
I f�V
191)6°6/ bi v65
r4-(A
Goal 15.2
Foster a strong sense of regional responsibility and accountability
balanced by an awareness of regional impacts on the City and its
citizens.
POLICIES
15.2.1 In reviewing proposals to site new or expanded essential
public facilities within the City, Tukwila shall consider
accepting its regional share of facilities which provide
essential services, provided other communities accept
their share as well, provided the funding of regional facili-
ties sited in Tukwila relies on an equitable regional source
of funding, and provided the siting of all essential public
facilities is based on sound land use planning principles
and is developed through working relationships with
affected neighborhoods, special purpose districts, ports
and other agencies which serve the Tukwila community.
15.2.2 "Essential public services" are facilities which provide basic
public services, provided in one of the following manners:
directly by a government agency, by a private entity
substantially funded or contracted for by a government
agency, or provided by a private entity subject to public
service obligations (i.e., private utility companies which
have a franchise or other legal obligation to provide service
within a defined service area).
15.2.3 Applications for essential public facilities will be processed
through the unclassified use permit process established in
the City's development regulations. This process shall
assure that such facilities are located where necessary and
that they are conditioned as appropriate to mitigate their
impacts on the community.
172
December 4, 1995
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice for Open House and Public Meeting on Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The City of Tukwila is considering changes to its Comprehensive Plan, including:
1) Request by the Port of Seattle to add a policy supporting the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan and Seattle - Tacoma International Airport expansion, including the
third runway;
2) Requests on Pacific Highway Corridor;
a) Change certain residentially -zoned areas to commercial uses, d pending on certain
conditions;
b) Give the Board of Architectural Review the authroity to waive certain landscape and
setback standards to encouirage pedestrialn and vehicular movement between two
adjoining properties;
c) Expand the number of housing units per acre in the area by increasing the allowable
density in the Neighborhood commercial Center zone, and allowing multi - family
developmnet in the Regional Commercial zone.
An open house has been scheduled to provide residents and businesses with information
on these proposed amendments. It will be held:
Open House
Foster Commons, Foster High School
42nd Avenue S. and S. 144th Street
Wednesday, March 25, 1998
6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
The City Council will hold a public meeting to give residents and businesses an
opportunitiy to express their opinions and give testimony about the proposals:
Public Meeting
Council Chambers, Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Monday, April 20, 1998
7:00 p.m.
The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments. You may send written
comments to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. You may submit comments via E -mail to:
rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Please call Rebecca Fox at (206)431 -3683 if you have questions.
Published: Seattle Times - Thursday, March 19, 1998
Daily Journal of Commerce, Thursday, March 19, 1998
z
�w
re 2;
00`.
moo;
mow.
co
w ='
w 0
Q J'
LL <•
cj,
▪ w;
z�
Z o,
U.1 Ili
o;
o N`
:0 I-
ll! w'
I U
O:
• w z..
co
O
z
Port of Seattle
December 29, 1997
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
II 7997
1' �t f
'Y'71/'
Subject: Proposed amendment to Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
C (,+y
-ohs fee
lS ne0At°l
c-te\p C•,'tvi) by U2-/31/y7
As a follow -up to the Port's letter to the City on September 26, 1997, we request that as part of the 1998
amendment process to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan that the City adopt an amendment to
acknowledge the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) provisions for facility improvements at
Sea -Tac Airport, including the third runway. A copy of that letter, which discusses a decision by the
Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board affirming the need for local comprehensive
plans to be consistent with the MTP, is attached for reference.
Following is a proposed new policy for inclusion under Goal 13.6 "Freight, Rail, Water, and Air
Transportation" that we believe would fulfill the City's responsibility to make its Comprehensive Plan
consistent with the MTP:
13.6.5 Promote transportation and land use strategies that are consistent with the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting regional air transportation needs at Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport, including the third runway.
In the event the City Council does not on its own contemplate a similar amendment, we attach a
completed City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan amendment form for this proposal. We note from the
form that the City requires a $700 Comprehensive Plan amendment fee. Because the proposed
amendment is intended to facilitate the City's responsibility to amend its Comprehensive Plan to be
consistent with regional plans, the Port requests that the fee for the above proposed amendment be
waived. Please respond in writing within 7 days whether such a waiver is acceptable. If not, the Port is
prepared to pay the fee if necessary. If you have questions or need further information, please call '•roy,N,
BtOWATaf 439= 'NO7•.
Sincerely,
Diane Summerhays
Manager, Aviation Planning
cc: Mary McCumber, Puget Sound Regional Council
Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168 U.S.A.
TELEX 703433
FAX (206) 431 -5912
.,,.. ..,... .
HZt
U O'
N0
to w
w ='
. J H,
N LL
wo
2
g Q.
w.
LIJ 11.1.
~~ O,
Z H:
O N.
uj
U. O
w
U.
uy
I= it
z
'
'
September 26, 1997
• Honorable John Rants
Steve Lancaster, Planning Director
City of•Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA. 98188
CITY. CF TUi (kA/ ILA
I'� -, •!k j
PERMIT CENTER
City of Tukwila's Amendments of Comprehensive Plan to Comply with
Resolution A -96-02 .
Dear Mayor Rants and Mr. Lancaster:
In October 1996, the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council
( "PSRC ") notified you of its adoption of Resolution A- 96-02, which amended the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( "MTP ") to include planning for a third runway at Seattle -
Tacoma International Airport ( "STIA "), with additional noise reduction measures. Such
amendment took effect on August 2, 1996. The PSRC's letter informed you that
Transportation Elements of local comprehensive plans, as well as any amendments or updates
tolocal plans adopted after that date, are required to be consistent with the amendment to the
1995 MTP. The letter also stated that transportation strategies and plans should reflect the
need to provide for safe and efficient access and connections to STIA.
In August 1997, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
affirmed the position of the PSRC in its Final Decision and Order on an appeal of
amendments to the City of Des Moines' comprehensive plan filed by the Port of Seattle • in
CPSGMHB Case No. 97 -3 -0014. Specifically, the Board ruled that Des Moines' failure to
amend its Comprehensive Plan in recognition of the third runway planned for STIA, and its
retention of certain Plan policies, precluded the siting of an essential public facility ( "EPF ") in
violation of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.200. The Board stated:
•
•
Although the City's Plan may not have conflicted with [RCW 36.70A].200(2)
when the Plan was originally adopted, the subsequent regional decision to
expand an EPF, STIA, requires the. City to re- evaluate its Plan to determine if
it still complies.with .200(2).
When Des Moines adopted its Plan in December 1995, there was no regional
decision to expand STIA. However, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 96-02,
amending the MTP to include a third runway at STIA, on July 11, 1996. die
• City's duty to comply with the GMA in tilt context of the decision to expand
Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport
P.O. Sox 68727
Seattle, WA 98168 USA
7EUZIt 703433 -
FAX 431 -5912
• .� ... ;,
•
an essential public facility (STIR) was triggered when the PSRC passed
Resolution A- 96-02. RCN 36.70A.200 imposes a duty requiring the City's
Plan not to prelude essential public facilities, even when the adoption
regarding the essential public facility was made subsequent to the initial
adoption of the Plan. •
(emphasis added). A copy of the CPSGMHB's decision is enclosed.
We note that the City of Tukwila has not amended its Comprehensive Plan to adopt
policies in support of STIA improvements, including the third runway, since the PSRC's
adoption of Resolution A- 96-02. Not only does the recent decision of the CPSGMHB affirm
the City's duty to adopt such amendments to its Plan, but WAC 365- 195 -630 requires the City
to, continually evaluate its Plan to ensure that it does not violate the GMA.
The Port of Seattle is prepared to work with the City to assist in its adoption of
necessary amendments to its Comprehensive Plan. Please feel free to call me at (206) 439-
7706: if you have any questions. We look forward to participating in the public participation
process associated with the amendment. of the City's Plan.
Sincerely,
' PORT OF • SEATTLE
Michael D.
Director, Aviation Professional & Technical Services
cc: Mary McCumber, PSRC
Steve Wells, Washington State Department of
Trade and Economic Development,
Growth Management Division
z
Q
T
L�r_• ZW;
re U Oi
>" N W`
W I.
W O:
g J'
u-Q:
a'
H W
_..
�o
Ww
Ca' ;
:
O CO;
ui
o �
w
O ~.
z.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670
CM/ i;.
P E. ; ,h;',T CC f li ER
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment
Application Checklist
The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing
by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your
project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete.
The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However,
they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency
with development standards.
Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670.
APPLICATION FORMS:
n
Application Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application (8 copies)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Fee ($700) — Regacsfir .,g w5; vac' beciuse. p raged
Zoning Code Amendment Fee ($700) q neon 4"len�' S fio q d
ret�� n2,01 en13 oa Cr /4
PLANS [Eight (8) copies of the following]:
Vicinity map showing location of the site.
- rr p no'f dad fro.Polact pvrcY
cumin Mcn+ wov) Fe) y `20- ''"''-fie
For proposed changes to land use designations or rezones, also include the following:
❑ Site plan at a scale of 1'1=20' or 1 " =30', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the
license stamp of the architect and landscape architect. The following information must be
contained on the plan:
O Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s) and names of adjacent streets
O Location and gross floor area of existing and proposed structures with setbacks
O Location of driveways, parking, loading, and service areas, with parking calculations
and location and type of dumpster /recycling area screening
O Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, limit of 200' Shoreline
Overlay District
O Existing and proposed grades at min. 5' contours, extending at least 5' beyond the
site's boundaries, with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20 %. Air
topography data from the Public Works Department may be used if reasonably
accurate
3/96
O Other relevant:. .ctures or features, such as rockerie. ences
O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location /type of utility lines; description of water
and sewer availability
O Location and dimensions of existing and proposed easements and dedications (e.g.
open space, streets, sidewalks or utilities)
O Development area coverage (max. allowable = 50 %) for multi - family proposals.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT/REZONE CRITERIA, IMPACTS &
ALTERNATIVES (See Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application)
❑ OTHER MATERIALS
Other documentation in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as studies
or recommendations that support the proposed change, color renderings, economic analyses,
photos or materials sample board. If other materials are to be considered with the application,
eight (8) copies of each must be submitted (except materials sample board). Color drawings or
photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
❑ King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the
subject property (see attached "Address Label Requirements ").
❑ Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all properly owners and tenants (businesses and residents)
within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g.
apartments, condos, trailer parks- -must be included.) See Attachment A.
❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of filing a complete application.
See Attachment B.
Ore celb‘e— gmen '-auvl d orrery -
�? :
3/96
z
Z'
w
6
J U.
UO:
o
:w I
J1.-:
U) L.'
w0
a
▪ _.
1-0:
Z
Ili al
U 0.
CO'
o F•
= V:
tL
O
Z.
;=
O~
Z
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670
(P -CPA)
(P -R)
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code
Amendment Application
'F.DR=STAFFUSE :ONLY - `
rPlanner
File Num
ecei
t Numb
Project, File a
ppfication.complete ;,(Dat
SEPA File
iplication incomplete: (Date.:
I. PROJECT /PROPOSAL BACKGROUND
A. NAME OF PROJECT /PROPOSAL: New Mpreihen- ' 1)1411 ? 1C—cy -j-� S U peri'
McAr'4)Pal n T nrpor iCait Plti* pcail7-i oas -F " ir►)pr'o%nne)t 1 £eti Tcic qrt
B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT:
STREET ADDRESS: Arne/141'11041+ i S i nit(' dad
c 1 kj
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement)
C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent)
NAME: Troy $(.-0""n Sep; ar pl -, ntier
ADDRESS: 5e.1-1-,%c ^rev' J ?,0 . lox 6 8-72:70 Sec-r41 J `-✓'.A '614'8
PHONE: (2 06) 439 - 7707
SIGNATURE:
DATE: ) 2 /2"/ /97
D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION
The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge:
1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application.
2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent.
4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed
may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit
approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the
property prior to issuance of any construction permits.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United
States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct..
EXECUTED at Seq1-
41 C (city), A/g (state), on
Dere" bar- 25 , 199 -7 .
) coy
(Print Name)
Se.<11 ie c' n71 i-n Jenne., htfcl)
(Address)
CZ °b) 4-39 — 17 °7
?rd`^'; -Self; )r P)67°)0•2,1-
(Phone Nu ber)
(Signature)
r
REC7:NED
CITY OF TUKW!LP
tx_flMiT CEN11
Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING: not' gperi cti.b /e
PROPOSED: h °t
F. ZONING DESIGNATION:
EXISTING: °
q pp 17-c c.,‘ le
PROPOSED: /1°4- 4e p �'C�►-51e
G. LAND USE(S): EXISTING: no+ gipto rc,161e,
PROPOSED: h v+ el ct )e
(for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones)
H. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: (attach additional sheets if necessary) A-d d q new
io I cy 4)3, 6,S uv) de/'' Csoc) 13, 6 '4 RC) ` -Jgfie' ot0d /1-3.-.
Trti6 Pa fiGn . i► j tie, n pore,/ %Arm» rtia iS fo t t t t<s
froni&1'e '1'rinfpvr fo', ePid )field if-Se Srr4,5¢• t qre Contattot i-i-941 tik
N1hr ») +sue Tr•Anf,a"-rFifir6" ?Mi C/WTP) yowl of rieob95 rtg 0%1 rt r -)'rifer/'
r1ead.s qt Se 41.411C-Thiovii 744frott711014) Arf0et ;nolod 7s '-)4) e, -114)---,4 ►y--9 y,►I
I. 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.
rCopied wrr,•rdn,ent wool d 9 prIy C;7_" el'e,
11. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE
A. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Describe potential adverse impacts of
the proposed change on surrounding geographic area, such as affects on land use designations and zoning
of surrounding properties, adjacent natural features or systems, or public utilities or streets. (A summary of
impacts addressed in SEPA checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
B. NON - CONFORMING USES CREATED: Describe any existing uses that are likely to become non - conforming
under the proposed land use /zoning designation.
C. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, ZONING REGULATIONS AND CITY'S
3
• ^:. •
FUNCTIONAL PLANS: Identify sp,„ ific Comprehensive Plan policies and zc„ .,ng regulations and how your
proposal affects them. Identify any functional plans affected by the proposal (e.g. Storm and Surface Water
Plan, Shoreline Master Program, Parks and Open Space Plan) and what changes would be required in those
plans if the proposed amendment were approved. Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
D. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: Describe any capital improvements
that would be needed to support the proposed amendment, and what changes would be required in the
City's Capital Improvements Plan. Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
E. DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING PLAN/CODE RESOLVED BY THE PROPOSAL Explain why the current
Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is deficient or why it should not continue. Be specific; cite policy
numbers and code sections that apply. Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
F. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: Describe how the proposed change
complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Attach
separate sheet(s) with response. .
G. OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Describe any other issues that are important to
consider in the proposal, such as other changes in City codes that would be required, other City - adopted
plans affected, environmental or economic issues. (Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary).
H. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED CHANGE: (A summary of altematives addressed in the project's SEPA
checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA
The burden of proof in demonstrating 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:
Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property
or a change in existing Plan policies:
1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why;
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area
affected and the issues presented by the proposed change;
3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations
are deficient or should not continue in effect;
4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals
and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act;
5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide
Planning Policies;
.
4
A statement of K . changes, if any, would be required ii. ,nctional plans (i.e., the
City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is
adopted;
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
8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or
regulations to implement the proposed change.
B. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
Demonstrate how each of the each 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;
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 areas as set forth in the application form.
s
Attachment to
Port of Seattle's December 29, 1997
Application for amendment to Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
CITY 0; -1•U;;Wi± A
pERMir C tJTER
Section II: Impacts of Proposed Change
A. Impacts of proposed change .on surrounding properties:
No adverse impacts to properties are anticipated by the proposed change.
Non- conforming uses created:
No non - conforming uses are anticipated.
Impacts ofproposed change on Comprehensive Plan Policies, Zoning Regulations, and
City's functional plans:
The proposed amendment would add a new policy under Goal 13.6 "Freight, Rail, Water,
and Air Transportation." It is intended to build upon the existing plan and is not
anticipated to require changes to other existing plan policies. The Port is unaware of any
changes that would be needed to City functional plans (Storm & Surface Water Plan,
Shoreline Master Program, Parks and Open Space Plan) based on the proposed
amendment.
Impact ofproposed change on Capital Improvements Plan:
The proposed amendment is intended to provide general policy guidance. No capital
improvements or changes to the City Capital Improvement Plan are anticipated to be.
needed.
Deficiencies in existing plan /code resolved by the proposal:
Please refer to September 26, 1997 letter from Port of Seattle to City of Tukwila
regarding consistency of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan with the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is attached to this application for reference.
. ._,.,.•..:+'> ": •
te
• JUG.
p,
W w;
•
w =:
-
w
g'J:
S.12 a
Ul
z�
I—O;
zr-
ww
i0 N` .
,w
• I=--. V
0:
Z;
ILI col
•
Compliance of the proposal with Growth Management Act:
The proposal is intended to ensure that the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan does not violate
the GMA provisions against precluding the siting of essential public facilities (RCW
36.70A.200), namely the third runway at Sea -Tac Airport. Please refer to September 26,
1997 letter from Port of Seattle to City of Tukwila regarding consistency of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is s H'
attached to this application for reference.
W
U O'
0
W =;.
. JH..
WO
LL¢
_•
z
I— O.'
z �-
Other issues presented by the proposed change:
The Port is unaware of any other issues presented by the proposed change.
Alternatives to proposed change:
The proposed amendment is intended to provide general policy guidance. Development
alternatives are not applicable.
Section III: Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria
Following is a description of how the proposed amendment meets each of the City's
Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria:
1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why:
The Port proposes addition of the following new policy under Goal 13.6 "Freight, Rail,
Water, and Air Transportation:"
13.6.5 Promote transportation and land use strategies that are consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting regional air transportation
needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, including the third runway.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to ensure consistency between the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) provisions
supporting facility improvements at Sea -Tac Airport, including the third runway. In
August 1997, The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board affirmed
that local plans are required to be amended to be consistent with the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (Port of Seattle v. City of Des Moines, CPSGMHB Case No. 97 -3-
0014). Moreover, Tukwila has not amended its Comprehensive Plan since the Puget
Sound Regional Council amended the MTP in July 1996 to include a third runway at Sea -
Tac Airport. For additional discussion of this issue, please refer to the September 26,
1997 letter from Port of Seattle to City of Tukwila regarding consistency of Tukwila
: �`..
La-
• O
!O
• � H
= V;.
1-
w z
U c;
O •
Z...
Comprehensive Plan with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is
attached to this application for reference.
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area
affected and the issues presented by the proposed change:
The proposed amendment is intended to provide general policy guidance City -wide as
Tukwila implements its Comprehensive Plan through the City Zoning Code and other
related regulatory measures. The proposed amendment is also intended to provide
guidance for evaluating appropriate land use and transportation options for future updates
or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are
deficient or should not continue in effect:
Please refer to response to item #1 above.
A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and
specific requirements of the Growth Management Act:
The proposed amendment is intended to ensure that the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
does not violate the GMA provisions against precluding the siting of essential public .
facilities (RCW 37.70A.200), namely the third runway at Sea -Tac Airport. For additional
discussion of this issue, please refer to the September 26, 1997 letter from Port of Seattle
to City of Tukwila regarding consistency of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan with the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is attached to this application for
reference.
5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide
Planning Policies:
The proposed amendment is consistent with and helps implement the requirements of the
Countywide Planning Policies, specifically Policy T -540 which states:
Aviation, Freight and Ferries — T -540. Consistent with this plan's policies concerning
the siting of essential public facilities, King County should work with the Puget Sound
Regional Council and its members to ensure that any regional projected capacity
problems, and the air transportation needs of the region's residents and economy are
addressed in a timely manner. Siting decisions must be consistent with the Regional
Airport System Plan, the Countywide Planning Policies and this Plan.
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
October 1, 1997
The Honorable John "Wally" Rants
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mayor Rants:
1 ,•
• On August 13, 1997, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board issued its Final
• Decision and Order on a case involving the Port of Seattle and the City of Des Moines.Tlie Board
Ifound;that the: CtSm rehens;tve Plan.Tfor: Des- Moinesµdid riot "corn`l'�:witli' fiez`s'tate Gro
�.,,u. P .,. ............ p Y � `wth= Managemerit,
Act (GMA)fbecause it,contamed`policies that precluded' $iting of an; essential ;public °;facility,,namely,;the
elurdtrunway, atiSea-TacInternatiorial °Airport::
In light of this decision, we are sending this letter to all jurisdictions to offer clarification and guidance
concerning how aviation facilities - both local and regional - are addressed in local comprehensive
plans. The Growth Management Act requires each jurisdiction to identify all transportation "facilities
and service needs." As part of this requirement,Lcities aridr; counties °shouldIdentify;in "a' transportation$
inventory any aviat on;facilities ;owned by;or located,witl in their�urisd>ictions Jurisdictions should also
ecogtuze air facilities servmg#heir.commututy> that are: re `gionally:sigmficantlessent>ial public: facilities,
r supitas Sea Tac Ai' art: Thg existence of round- trans ortation.connections:relevariif to ours:
sjurlsdlctionmwhich ;
Mayor Rants
Page Two
October 1, 1997
As the Regional Council continues work on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, we will continue to
provide information to jurisdictions on tools and strategies for regional transportation planning and
implementation, including planning for aviation and airport facilities. If you have questions concerning
the aviation provisions in the MTP, please call Stephen Kiehl at (206) 464 -6715. For questions on the
certification process, please call Rocky Piro at (206) 464 -6360.
Sincerely,
Mary McCumber
Executive Director
cc: Vernon Umetsu, Planner
Port of Seattle
September 26, 1997
Honorable John Rants
Steve Lancaster, Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA. 98188
Re: City of Tukwila's Amendments of Comprehensive Plan to Comply with
Resolution A -96 -02
Dear Mayor Rants and Mr. Lancaster:
In October 1996, the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council
( "PSRC ") notified you of its adoption of Resolution A- 96 -02, which amended the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( "MTP ") to include planning for a third runway at Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport ( "STIA "), with additional noise reduction measures. Such
amendment took effect on August 2, 1996. The PSRC's letter informed you that
Transportation Elements of local comprehensive plans, as well as any amendments or updates
to' local plans adopted after that date, are required to be consistent with the amendment to the
1995 MTP. '1,herle «also} a ' "'f "-�' "'
�,,� tter,�: ti stated;;. that; transportation "is strategies-; aiii <,.pl "ans-sfiould7teflectthe9
need to provide; for safeland efficient7access,and connections to STIA ='1
In August 1997, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
affirmed the position of the PSRC in its Final Decision and Order on an appeal of
amendments to the City of Des Moines' comprehensive plan filed by the Port of Seattle in
CPSGMHB Case No 97 -3 -0014. Specifically, the4 Boardt ruled' Fthat ,'DesMoines'-`failure,'�.to
end KOAIprehensive Plan intrecognition of the thud runway planned for STIA,� and rts
treteiltiaggig r"fainrPllan policies 'ptecluded;the srtmg ofaan essential'�public:facil ty.-`(EPF ")ring
tiolation�,oftheGrowth ManagementpAct RCWW36:70A'200 :The Board stated:
Although the City's Plan may not have conflicted with [RCW 36.70A].200(2)
when the Plan was originally adopted, the subsequent regional decision to
expand an EPF, STIA, requires the City to re- evaluate its Plan to determine if
it still complies with .200(2).
When Des Moines adopted its Plan in December 1995, there was no regional
decision to expand STIA. However, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 96 -02,
amending the MTP to include a third runway at STIA, on July 11, 1996. The
City's duty to comply with the GMA in the context of the decision to expand
Seattle -Tacoma
International Airport
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168 U.S.A.
TELEX 703433
FAX (206) 431 -5912
.'"
z
i ~.
w
UO
co
u)w
w =.
J H.
N
w O:
¢'
=a
F- w
z 1._ .
moo.
zI-
2
0
W —.
O.
uiz
UN
O
z
City of Tukwila
September 26, 1997
Page 2
an essential public facility (STIA) was triggered when the PSRC passed
Resolution A -96 -02. RCW 36.70A.200 imposes a duty requiring the City's
Plan not to prelude essential public facilities, even when the adoption
regarding the essential public facility was made subsequent to the initial
adoption of the Plan.
.(emphasis added). A copy of the CPSGMHB's decision is enclosed.
` •4e.a- 'C;. �),cfi Cam" T�•??'� °.r".+C•'^•�
y. ... ....may -..,. . .' /
ry :.: �' .. ?t 'h 1, It G.
U, ffot: that the >•.Cit of., Tukwila .,, „: ot;,;ameridedf�its Comprehensive :la ito �adgpt�
olicies inosupport' �oii� Sq?IA M12I.9.,ementSM��including 1the thir : n way Msince, 4:07,PSRC's
• Yw�. �i' fa1F L.. a +...TisSY.x$�%+1W'.�r.C.'PL3'a: `4ID�3�<+ .1:' .s...w Sa '..:x ?u- ....t�_siwtsit � Y ��...+...�a.s7:�.: t,�.... +�.�i�:w.,..�. <ac.. �is,..ww.rr, �� •.al.•:
go of^Rest�luhon7A=96-0 Notronly :`doeskthehrecenttdecision ofithe,CP.SGMHB affirm°
rxaa aaYr.sr . :_ v � •..�. a, w+f.�.,a.;... s 1L �1a .i..1i w. . t,:.. ktS:. i•::: uw7;.:.• �J• cr...,.,-.. KCeau..;tc.....,,..::::ru, •+.<.....:.:...,.v
e ,ity, ltopla liVI uch atrieiidge its to ittpan; but WAC 365- 195 -630 requires the City
to continually evaluate its Plan to ensure that it does not violate the GMA.
The Port of Seattle is prepared to work with the City to assist in its adoption of
necessary amendments to its Comprehensive Plan. Please feel free to call me at (206) 439 -
7706 if you have any questions. We look forward to participating in the public participation
process associated with the amendment of the City's Plan. •
Enclosure
Sincerely,
PORT OF SEATTLE
Michael D.
Director, Aviation Professional & Technical Services
cc: Mary McCumber, PSRC
Steve Wells, Washington State Department of
Trade and Economic Development,
Growth Management Division
.;,}
;;•
Z
I-Z
,re
• . JC
• UO:
rnw;
• w=
ww� a •
Y- J,
u_<.
• H w.
2
:z
•'t-o
zf
:w
W'
w
U
O
z
Staff Report to the Application 1
City Council
FILE NUMBER: L97 -0084
APPLICANT: Port of Seattle
REQUEST: Add policy to support Metropolitan
Transportation Plan provisions for improvements to Sea -
Tac International Airport .
EXHIBITS:
3. L97 -0084 Application for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
4. Final Decision and Order, Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board
DISCUSSION
The Port of Seattle has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(Exhibit 3). The requested amendment text is the following:
13.6.5 Promote transportation and land use strategies that are consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting regional air transportation
needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, including the third runway.
Background
The Port asserts that by adopting this amendment Tukwila would fulfill what the Port
believes is Tukwila's responsibility to make its Comprehensive Plan consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), as amended August, 1996.
The Port based its proposed amendment . on the final Decision and Order by the Central
Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (8/97) (Exhibit 4). This Decision and
Order found that several of the City of Des Moines' Comprehensive Plan policies
precluded the siting of an essential public facility (EPF), i.e. the third runway at SeaTac
International Airport (STIA). By not amending its Comprehensive Plan to acknowledge
the third runway planned for STIA, and by retaining policies that prevent siting an EPF,
the Hearings Board found that Des Moines violates the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.200 which requires that a city's plan not preclude essential public facilities.
Exhibit 2, page 8, paragraph 4, states that "The Board holds that a local government plan
may not, through policies or strategy directives, effectively preclude the siting or
expansion on an EPF, including its necessary support activities."
Page 1
Staff Report to the Application 1
City Council
Several of Des Moines' policies are shown to actively "oppose" the siting of the third
runway, rather than focusing on mitigating adverse impacts. (Exhibit 4, pp. 8 -10)
Given the GMHB's conclusion that Des Moines' Comprehensive Plan violates the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.200) by precluding a third runway, the Port's
amendment as proposed implies that Tukwila must adopt the proposed amendment to be
consistent with this ruling.
Significance /Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Several Tukwila Comprehensive Plan policies address airport improvements and impacts,
as well as the process for siting EPFs.
Residential Neighborhoods:
• Policy 7.2.5: Encourage the reduction of noise from Seattle- Tacoma International
Airport and King County Airport, by promoting the development of new or the
retrofit and modification of existing aircraft engines which are quieter, and
operational procedures that help reduce aircraft noise and emission levels.
• Policy 7.2.6. Work with the Port of Seattle, King County Airport and the Federal
Aviation Administration to promote the development of airport operational
procedures that will decrease the adverse noise effects of airport operations on
Tukwila and its residents.
Transportation:
Policy 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in Updating
their airport master plan, to ensure that airport operations and development:
-- Enhances Tukwila goals and policies
-- Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations
-- Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents
Roles and Responsibilities:
• Policy 15.2.1 In reviewing proposals to site new or expanded essential public
facilities within the City, Tukwila shall consider accepting its regional share of
facilities which provide essential services, provided other communities accept
their share as well, provided the funding of regional facilities sited in Tukwila
relies on an equitable regional source of funding, and provided the siting of all
essential public facilities is based on sound land use planning principles and is
developed through working relationships with affected neighborhoods, special
purpose districts, ports and other agencies which serve the Tukwila community.
Page 2
.. ��..,.
z ,
a
�w
re
U O'
, cop;
w =.
w O'
g¢
v,
f- _.
z �.
t- O
w~
U 0'
w • ur
1 =
• z
U =,
0'
z
Staff Report to the Application 1
City Council
• Policy 15.2.2 "Essential public services" are facilities which provide basic public
services, provided in one of the following manners: directly by a government
agency, but a private entity substantially funded or contracted for by a
government agency, or provided by a private entity subject to public service
obligations (i.e., private utility companies which have a franchise or other legal
obligation to provide service within a defined service area).
• Policy 15.2.3 Applications for essential public facilities will be processed through
the unclassified use permit process established in the City's development
regulations. This process shall assure that such facilities are located where
necessary and that they are conditioned as appropriate to mitigate their impacts on
the community.
Staff believes that the Port's proposed amendment is not necessary. Tukwila's plan is
consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and does not preclude the siting of
any EPF.
Impacts
Existing Tukwila policies support siting necessary, properly- conditioned essential public
facilities (EPFs) and appropriate improvements to the region's airports. An amendment
specifying Tukwila's support of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and a third runway
at STIA is unnecessary.
Alternatives
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following:
• reject the proposal
• defer consideration until a later time;
• refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission..
• modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission.
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could:
• recommend approval;
• recommend denial;
• modify the proposal.
Page 3
Port of Seattle
December 29, 1997
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: Proposed amendment to Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
EXHIBIT 3
As a follow -up to the Port's letter to the City on September 26, 1997, we request that as part of the 1998
amendment process to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan that the City adopt an amendment to
•acknowledge the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) provisions for facility improvements at
Sea -Tac Airport, including the third runway. A copy of that letter, which discusses a decision by the
Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board affirming the need for local comprehensive
plans to be consistent with the MTP, is attached for reference.
Following is a proposed new policy for inclusion under Goal 13.6 "Freight, Rail, Water, and Air
Transportation" that we believe would fulfill the City's responsibility to make its Comprehensive Plan
consistent with the MTP:
13.6.5 Promote transportation and land use strategies that are consistent with the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting regional air transportation needs at Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport, including the third runway.
In the event the City Council does not on its own contemplate a similar amendment, we attach a
completed City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan amendment form for this proposal. We note from the
form that the City requires a $700 Comprehensive Plan amendment fee. Because the proposed
amendment is intended to facilitate the City's responsibility to amend its Comprehensive Plan to be
consistent with regional plans, the Port requests that the fee for the above proposed amendment be
waived. Please respond in writing within 7 days whether such a waiver is acceptable. If not, the Port is
prepared to pay the fee if necessary. If you have questions or need further information, please call Troy
Brown at 439 -7707.
Sincerely,
Diane Summerhays J
Manager, Aviation Planning
cc: Mary McCumber, Puget Sound Regional Council
Seattle - Tacoma
International Airport
P.O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98168 U.S.A.
TELD( 703433
FAX (206) 431 -5912
..” " "'
z •
:.mow
tr2.
J U;
In CI
W• I
LL'
w O.
a
• D.
°
1— w
Z
I- O:
0 •
w to
U
=0:
Z.
•
O~
z_..
•
:4. 1117 ,.,a .:� •
Port of Seattle
September 26, 1997
Honorable John Rants
Steve Lancaster, Planning Director
City of•Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA. 98188
Re: City of Tukwila's Amendments of Comprehensive Plan to Comply with
• Resolution A -96-02
Dear Mayor Rants and Mr. Lancaster:
In October 1996, the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council
( "PSRC ") notified you of its adoption of Resolution A -96-02, which amended the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( "MTP ") to include planning for a third runway at Seattle -
Tacoma International Airport ( "STIA "), with additional noise reduction measures. Such
amendment took effect on August 2, 1996. The PSRC's letter informed you that
Transportation Elements of local comprehensive plans, as well as any amendments or updates
tolocal plans adopted after that date, are required to.be consistent with the amendment to the
1995 MTP. The letter also stated that transportation strategies and plans should reflect the
need to provide for safe and efficient access and connections to STIA.
In August 1997, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
affirmed the position of the PSRC in its Final Decision and Order on an appeal of
amendments to the City of Des Moines' comprehensive plan filed by the Port of Seattle • in
CPSGMHB Case No. 97 -3 -0014. Specifically, the Board ruled that Des Moines' failure to
amend its Comprehensive Plan in recognition of the third runway planned for STIA, and its
retention of certain Plan policies, precluded the siting of an essential public facility ( "EPF ") in
violation of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.200. The Board stated:
Although the City's Plan may not have conflicted with [RCW 36.70A].200(2)
when the Plan was originally adopted, the subsequent regional decision to
expand an EPF, STIA, requires the. City to re- evaluate its Plan to determine if
it still complies•with .200(2).
When Des Moines adopted its Plan in December 1995, there was no regional
decision to expand STIA. However, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 96-02,
amending the MTP to include a third runway at STIA, on July 11, 1996. T
City's duty to comply with the GMA in the context of the decision to expand
' Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport
P.Q. Box 68727 •
Sat*, WA 98168 USA •
7BIX7G 433
FAX 4206 431.5912
m
..
-
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670
Comprehensive= Plan/Zoning- Code Amendment
Application Checklist
The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing
by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your
project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete.
The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However,
they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency
with development standards.
Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670. '
APPLICATION FORMS:
nof •
Application Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application (8 copies)
Revas+715 W Var bea use. p rammed
c1 rrnndr1041 is 172 q d d rely
CV/l43 04 G'MA.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Fee ($700)
Zoning,Code Amendment Fee ($700)
PLANS [Eight (8) copies of the following]:
Vicinity map showing location of the site. --
T )Ap Igo+ inc)u4ed rr'oeocia pro)/
gn�ondMcn'f• would y
For proposed changes to land use designations or rezones, also include the following:
❑ Site plan at a scale of 1' =20' or 1' =30', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the
license stamp of the architect and landscape architect. The following information must be
contained on the plan:
O Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s) and names of adjacent streets
O Location and gross floor area of existing and proposed structures with setbacks
O Location of driveways, parking, loading, and service areas, with parking calculations
and location and type of dumpster /recycling area screening
Co Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, limit of 200' Shoreline
Overlay District
Co Existing and proposed grades at min. 5' contours, extending at least 5' beyond the
site's boundaries, with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20 %. Air , .
topography data from the Public Works Department may be used if reasonably
accurate
3/96
O Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries, fences
O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location/type of utility lines; description of water
and sewer availability
O Location and dimensions of existing and proposed easements and dedications (e.g.
open space, streets, sidewalks or utilities)
O Development area coverage (max. allowable = 50 %) for multi - family proposals.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT/REZONE CRITERIA, IMPACTS &
ALTERNATIVES (See Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application)
OTHER MATERIALS
Other documentation in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as studies
or recommendations that support the proposed change, color renderings, economic analyses,
photos or materials sample board. If other materials are to be considered with the application,
eight (8) copies of each must be submitted (except materials sample board). Color drawings or
photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 1.1 -inch color photocopies.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
King County Assessors map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the
subject property (see attached "Address Label Requirements ").
z
~w
6
J C)'
00:
CO CI
11.1 U) 11J
� LL;
wo
ga
a.
�_:.
z
Z 0'
ta
:0 ",:
❑ Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (businesses and residents) ° t_-;
. within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings --e.g. 111 0'
apartments, condos, trailer parks- -must be included.) See Attachment A. u. o!
LLi z
❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of filing a complete application. 1
See Attachment B.
Arel c'b .- gmen x'74,+ ..4.MAd eye (y
3/96
�$'&' �" .
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670
(P -CPA)
(P -R)
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code
Amendment: Application
: .. . ... ,
. < .
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
?lanner: t H
File Number
�r
Receipt Number = f_.
P
. .'
:Project File #
Y � ; ;
�.
3
>_ -_
0:' Application complete • (Date.
j :
SEPA File #.
=
.:
,
,,`...
CI Application incomplete (Date:
I. PROJECT /PROPOSALBACKGROUND".
A. NAME OF PROJECT /PROPOSAL: New Co M prel Q flJ Q, f) c # {b rcY ID 5 ur eo rt
Meitr'Pal; it T nspoe- IV`ait ?1tin prof oru -FA) t irler-ae,f1Veft11) -e5 Tic /{:r:Art
B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT:
STREET ADDRESS: Amen arlan+ %3 antanded
`stork/
C: y ---- 4a
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement)
c. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent)
NAME: Troy 13 rosA/; Se, Dr plti niter
ADDRESS: Seq —TA c K - pa ?, ", Box 69-727) Se4-f'11 J LVA '8168
PHONE C2 06) I{3e - 77 °7
SIGNATURE: e9 ■ DATE: ) Z 12.9 /97
D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION
The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge:
1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application.
2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent.
4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed
may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit
approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the
property prior to issuance of any construction permits.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United
States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct.
EXECUTED at SQ4 "I C (city), ‘AlA (state), on
Dere" bor 2ci ,199i2
1 r °y
(Print Name)
Se�-i�e,- 72+C "^7ti 'In ,i i) iFrpd . -t
(Address)
C2.o16) 4-39 - r7a7
fro J 5Qd(.3 °)�e.�
(Phone Nu b.er)
(Signature)
Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures.
• ..:;
z
• w: •
.J
U o
CO CO a
w
W=
J
�LL,
w o`
J,
u.
z�
.F- o
z i-
0,
1-.
w w.
I
.H Vi
ELI a
(0
=ce`, •
Z.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING: n °f q p pf; ctibJe
PROPOSED: r1 °t c p
F. ZONING DESIGNATION: EXISTING: P ° + q pp liC�,.51C
PROPOSED: )1°'.1- `ie p r. C ie
3/96
G. LAND USE(S): EXISTING:
PROPOSED:
not gpp17ctisle,
h o'f' �ippl ck►�e
(for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones)
H. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: (attach additional sheets if necessary) A'd d °+ hek-
r lay )3, 6,S urI Jar &o1 . 13, 6 "Piz750 j R C) Lusted gnci 11-5-
Trgrs ,- ,fian.�, j fie. ncrw pel;cy LArvald r¢ci‘ -f-e tlo�s:
1p/
from qr.rd )' nd use SteNt PJ q re C °►�j�'�1)� `"'' � ' e
Al rvpol 5' Tr4egetirl'i'FO" ?Al cm-re) c304 of rie 13 re_570041 rrn,lfrdef
nQads qt seel'fle.- T°f "Or,9 Trv,' o41o14) A,rTvet ;ndt d Q, 'JAE ,l-€, fli#7.49y,►I
1. 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.
?Toppled tiovmdn,ent wvvl d 9p y C; - "17-4'e ,
I1. IMPACTS-OF PROPOSED CHANGE
A. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Describe potential adverse impacts of
the proposed change on surrounding geographic area, such as affects on land use designations and zoning
of surrounding properties, adjacent natural features or systems, or public utilities or streets. (A summary of
impacts addressed in SEPA checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
B. NON - CONFORMING USES CREATED: Describe any existing uses that are likely to become non - conforming
under the proposed land use/zoning designation.
C. IMPACTS) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, ZONING REGULATIONS AND CITY'S
.
FUNCTIONAL PLANS: Identify specific Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning regulations and how your
proposal affects them. Identify any functional plans affected by the proposal (e.g. Storm and Surface Water
Plan, Shoreline Master Program, Parks and Open Space Plan) and what changes would be required in those
plans if the proposed amendment were approved. Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
D. IMPACTS) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: Describe any capital improvements
that would be needed to support the proposed amendment, and what changes would be required in the
City's Capital Improvements Plan. Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
E. DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING PLAN/CODE RESOLVED BY THE PROPOSAL: Explain why the current
Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is deficient or why it should not continue. Be specific; cite policy
numbers and code sections that apply. Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
F. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WRH GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: Describe how the proposed change
complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Attach
separate sheet(s) with response. .
G. OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Describe any other issues that are important to
consider in the proposal, such as other changes in City codes that would be required, other City - adopted
plans affected, environmental or economic issues. (Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary).
H. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED CHANGE: (A summary of altematives addressed in the project's SEPA
checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response.
111. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING CODEAMENDMENTCRITERIA
The burden of proof in demonstrating 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.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property
or a change in existing Plan policies:
1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why;
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area
affected and the issues presented by the proposed change;
3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations
are deficient or should not continue in effect;
4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals
and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act;
5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide
Planning Policies;
•
4
A statement of wndt changes, if any, would be required in Junctional plans (i.e., the
City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is
adopted;
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
A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or
regulations to implement the proposed change.
ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
Demonstrate how each of the each 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;
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 areas as set forth in the application form.
5
.�; +' �
z •
u6°:
U1
• .moo:
ILIL
=.
;J
CO u.,;
w O
• u_ Q_
•( d: •
_•
• ZF..
O,
Z�-;
•° F•°
•w W.
• Z
.
uJZ
U fn;
• O.
• z
•
Attachment to
Port of Seattle's December 29, 1997
Application for amendment to Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
C :T1'
C _;-1
Section II: Impacts of Proposed Change
A. Impacts of proposed change on surrounding properties:
No adverse impacts to properties are anticipated by the proposed change.
Non - conforming uses cret. zted: .
No non - conforming uses are anticipated.
Impacts ofproposed change on Comprehensive Plan Policies, Zoning Regulations, and
City's functional plans:
The proposed amendment would add a new policy under Goal 13.6 "Freight, Rail, Water,
and Air Transportation." It is intended to build upon the existing plan and is not
anticipated to require changes to other existing plan policies. The Port is unaware of any
changes that would be needed to City functional plans (Storm & Surface Water Plan,
Shoreline Master Program, Parks and Open Space Plan) based on the proposed
amendment.
Impact ofproposed change on Capital Improvements Plan:
The proposed amendment is intended to provide general policy guidance. No capital
improvements or changes to the City Capital Improvement Plan are anticipated to be
needed.
Deficiencies in existing plan/code resolved by the proposal:
Please refer to September 26, 1997 Letter from Port of Seattle to City of Tukwila
regarding consistency of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan with the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is attached to this application for reference.
:
z
a
H Z'
mow;
—J 0
UO
t Uo'
wI
CO
w °
w Q.
CO
ul
1— 0
Z
• w
Mo
w w
H U:
u. Z
U U.
0 F,.
z
F. Compliance of the proposal with Growth Management Act:
The proposal is intended to ensure that the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan does not violate
the GMA provisions against precluding the siting of essential public facilities (RCW
36.70A.200), namely the third runway at Sea -Tac Airport. Please refer to September 26,
1997 letter from Port of Seattle to City of Tukwila regarding consistency of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is
attached to this application for reference.
w
rt
6
JU
O 0:
Other issues presented by the proposed change: W
CO LL
w O;
ILQ
Alternatives to proposed change: N v
w
The proposed amendment is intended to provide general policy guidance. Development . z i=..
alternatives are not applicable. z o
LU
U '
;0 cn.
O 1-
ww
O•
ai
I. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why:
0'--
The Port proposes addition of the following new policy under Goal 13.6 "Freight, Rail, Z
Water, and Air Transportation:"
The Port is unaware of any other issues presented by the proposed change.
Section III: Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria
Following is a description of how the proposed amendment meets each of the City's
Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria:
13.6.5 Promote transportation and land use strategies that are consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting regional air transportation
needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, including the third runway.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to ensure consistency between the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) provisions
supporting facility improvements at Sea -Tac Airport, including the third runway. In
August 1997, The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board affirmed
that local plans are required to be amended to be consistent with the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (Port of Seattle v. City of Des Moines, CPSGMHB Case No. 97 -3-
0014). Moreover, Tukwila has not amended its Comprehensive Plan since the Puget
Sound Regional Council amended the MTP in July 1996 to include a third runway at Sea -
Tac Airport. For additional discussion of this issue, please refer to the September 26,
1997 letter from Port of Seattle to City of Tukwila regarding consistency of Tukwila
"..,
Comprehensive Plan with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is
attached to this application for reference.
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area
affected and the issues presented by the proposed change:
c4
6
00
c/)
�w
w =;
w
w0
An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are g
deficient or should not continue in effect: v>
zv
w
Please refer to response to item #1 above. z
I- O:
z �-
A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and .� o
specific requirements of the Growth Management Act: U
O N:
OF
The proposed amendment is intended to ensure that the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan x v
does not violate the GMA provisions against precluding the siting of essential public v=
facilities (RCW 37.70A.200), namely the third runway at Sea -Tac Airport. For additional z
discussion of this issue, please refer to the September 26, 1997 letter from Port of Seattle co 9:
to City of Tukwila regarding consistency of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan with the 0 1-= 1
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Letter is attached to this application for Z
reference.
The proposed amendment is intended to provide general policy guidance City -wide as
Tukwila implements its Comprehensive Plan through the City Zoning Code and other
related regulatory measures. The proposed amendment is also intended to provide
guidance for evaluating appropriate land use and transportation options for future updates
or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide
Planning Policies:
The proposed amendment is consistent with and helps implement the requirements of the
Countywide Planning Policies, specifically Policy T -540 which states:
Aviation, Freight and Ferries - T -540. Consistent with this plan's policies concerning
the siting of essential public facilities, King County should work with the Puget Sound
Regional Council and its members to ensure that any regional projected capacity
problems, and the air transportation needs of the region's residents and economy are
addressed in a timely manner. Siting decisions must be consistent with the Regional
Airport System Plan, the Countywide Planning Policies and this Plan.
The Puget Sound Regional Council amended the Regional Airport System Plan element
of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan in July 1996 to include the third runway at
Sea -Tac Airport. The proposed amendment would fulfill the requirement of Countywide .
Policy T -540 to ensure that regional air transportation needs are addressed in a timely
manner.
The proposed amendment also helps implement the Countywide policies addressing the
siting of essential public facilities (F -217, F -218, F -2I9, F -220, F -221, and F -222).
A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (Le., the City's
water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted:
The Port is unaware of any changes that would be required to the City's functional plans.
. 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:
The proposed amendment is intended to provide general policy guidance. No capital
improvements or changes to the City Capital Improvement Plan are anticipated to be
needed.
A statement, of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans, or
regulations to implement the proposed change:
The Port is unaware of any changes required to other City codes, plans, or regulations to
implement the proposed amendment.
. �.
,
z •
W:.
• J U:
.0 o•
■ N 0:
U W�
All
.J I--'.
• .w
• LQ
.I-w.
•
1
z 1—;
I— 0;
Z
D
cn,•
• — U'
•
I•iZ;
;O~
• z
AUG.-14 -97 04:49 PM CP MHH
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
29
21
22
24
26
27
28
29
20E' 192see P.02
EXHIBIT 4
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PORT OF SEATTLE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
CITY OF DES MOINES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
Case No. 97 -3 -0014
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 14, 1997, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
(the Board) received a Petition for Review (PFR) from the Port of Seattle (the Port)
challenging the comprehensive plan (the Plan) of the City of Des Moines (Des Moines or
the City). The Port alleged that the Plan is not in compliance with the Growth
Management Act (GMA or the Act) because it purports to preclude the expansion of an
essential public facility; violates the property rights goal of the Act; is internally
inconsistent; and is also inconsistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan (County
Plan), the County -wide Planning Policies (KCCPPs) and Multi- County Planning Policies
(M PPs).
On May 5, 1997, the Board received the "Brief of Amiens Puget Sound Regional Council
Regarding, Certain Multi County Planting Policy Issues."
On May 30, 1997, the Board issued an "Order on Motions to Supplement" and an "Order
on Dispositive Motions," in which the Board ruled on the motions to supplement, but
declined to rule on the dispositive motions.
On June 4, 1997, the Board received the "City of' 1)es Moines' Motion for
Reconsideration of Board's Order on Motions to Supplement" (City's Motion for
Reconsideration). On the same date, the Board received the "City of Des Moines
Motion to Supplement the Record with Rebuttal Exhibits" (City's Motion to
Supplement the Record with Rebuttal Exhibits).
(73(01(140c, 3119/97)
97 -3 -0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 1
Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Mariner board
2129 One Union Square • 600 University Street
Seattle, WA 911101 -1129
(206)389.262S • Fax: (206)399- 251111
+
z
~w
re 6
.0 O.
t o:
CO W
LLI
W LL.
W0
gQ
a,
w'
1-=
z �..
1— o:
z I:
LLI W:
2o
o
E-
ww
wz
U ='
01_
z
AUG. -14 -97 84 :49 PM CPS -"IIHB
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
IS
19
21
22
24
25
26
Board member Edward G. McGuire reviewed the briefs and exhibits in this matter and read the
27 , transcript unite hearing utt lite merits.
2/1 2 At the request of the City, Board member Towne absented herself from the hearing room during
argument regarding the City's motion and returned when Presiding Officer '.'over announced his ruling
29 on the motion. Sea. WAC 242 -02- 522(5).
286 '7.892588
On June 5, 1997. the Board received from the Port a "Motion to Strike City of Des
Moines' Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Supplement the Record with Rebuttal
Exhibits" (Port's Motion to Strike).
On June 6, 1997, the Board issued an "Order Granting Port's Motions to Strike" which
granted the Port's Motion to Strike the City's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to
Supplement with Rebuttal Exhibits.
On June 16, 1997, the Board received "Petitioner Port of Seattle's .'rehearing Opening
Memorandum" (Port's Prehearing Memorandum).
On June 30, 1997, the Board received the "Brief of Amicus Puget Sound Regional
Council Regarding Port of Seattle's Pre - Hearing Opening Memorandum."
Also on June 30, 1997, the Board received "Respondent City of Des Moines' Prehearing
Brief' (City's Response Brie!).
On July 7, 1997, the Board received the "Reply Brief of Amicus PSRC."
On July 8, 1997, the Board received "Respondent City of Des Moines' Motion 'l'o Strike
`Reply Brief Of Amicus PSRC`., "' (City's Motion to Strike Reply Brief of PSRC). On
the same date the Board received from the PSRC a "Response To Des Moines' Motion
To Strike Reply Brief Of Amicus PSRC," and later that same day the Board received
"Port Of Seattle's Opposition To City Of Des Moines' Motion To Strike Reply Brief Of
Amicus PSRC."
On July 9, 1997, the Board held a hearing on the merits in room 5500 of Two Union
Square in Seattle, Washington. Board members Joseph W. Tovar, Presiding Officer, and
Chris Smith Towne were present for the Board) The Port was represented by J. Tayloe
Washburn and the City was represented by John W. I-lempelmann. The PSRC was
represented by David A. Bricklin. Court reporting services were provided by Jean M.
Erickson, RPR, of Robert H. Lewis & Associates, Tacoma. No witnesses testified. As a
preliminary matter, the presiding officer heard argument regarding the City's Motion to
Strike Reply Brief of PSRC, alter which he orally denied the motion. The presiding
officer orally granted leave to the City to file a port- hearing brief, by no latter than July
18, 1997, to respond to issues addressed by PSRC in its "Reply Brief of Amicus PSRC"
and "Brief of Amicus PSRC Regarding Opening Memorandum."
(7314fdu.due; 8/1 3/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 2
AUG -14 -97 04:50 PM Cr :MHB
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
111
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
29
20.'3892589 P.04
On July 18, 1997, the Board received "Respondent City of Des Moines' Post - Hearing
Brief In Response To Reply Brief Of Amicus PSRC And Brief Of Amiens PSRC
Regarding Port's Pre - Hearing Opening Memorandum."
On July 28, 1997, the Board received from the Port a copy of Exhibit 163 (PSRC
Resolution A- 91 -01), which was inadvertently omitted from the exhibits filed with the
Board.
On July 29, 1997, the Board received Amicus PSRC's "Motion to Strike" portions of the
City's July 18 memorandum (PSRC Motion to Strike).
On July 31, 1997, the Board received "Respondent City of Des Moines' Memorandum in
Opposition to Amicus PSRC's Motion to Strike."
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 25, 1990, the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) passed
Resolution A- 90 -01, adopting .VISION 2020: Growth and Transportation Strategy
for the Central Puget Sound Region. Ex. 133.
2.' On October 24, 1991, the.City passed Resolution 667-,-authorizing execution of the
;` "Intcrlocal Agreement for the Regional Planning of the Central Puget Sound Area,"
including the crcation .of"a .regional planning .agency, the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC). The PSRC is to "ensure implementation in the [central Puget
Sound] region of the provisions of state and federal law which pertain to regional
transportation planning and regional growth management." Ex. 162.
3. On October 21, 1992, the Executive Board of the PSRC adopted a PSRC Action Item
affirming that the PSRC "is the governmental agency responsible for meeting the
requirement in the [GM/11 for multicounty planning policies." Ex. 160(a).
4. On March 11, 1993, the ;PSRC' General ; Assembly passed Resolution A- 93 -02,
amending VISION 2020'toinclude MPPs, far King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties. Ex. 174.
5. On May 25, 1995, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 95 -02, adopting the 1995 update to
VISION 2020 and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Ex. 136.
6. On December 7, 1995, the City adopted the Greater Des Moines Comprehensive Plan.
Ex. 160.
7. On July 11, 1996, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 96-02, an2ending the 1995 MTP'-to.
'include a third runway at Sea -Tae International Airport (STIR). Ex. 138.
(73I4fdo.doc; 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 3
Cawrnl Puget Sound
Growth Maitagemttnt Hearing' lours
2329 One Union Square • 600 ilniveraity Suva
Seattle. WA 95101 -1129
(206)359.2625 • Fax: (206)3119.2.i*
AUG -14 -97 04:51 PM CPP —"MHB
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
19
20
21
22
24
26
27
28
29
206 „+M.892588 P.65
8. On August 1, 1996, the Port passed Resolution 3212, adopting the Airport Master
Plan Update for STIA. including the development of a third runway, and noise
reduction measures in accordance with PSRC Resolution A- 96 -02. Ex. 140, at 3 -4.
9. An Lit, is a unit of measure representing an average day -night noise level typically used
for airport- related noise measurements. See Port's Prehearing Brief, at 40 n.21. z'
(rw
00
to 0
wwCD Li.
s
III0
¢.
=d
Since they went to the heart of the case, the Board took no action on the two diapositive Z w
motions. Because the Board now addresses the substance of the diapositive motions , the O
Hoard will not rule on these motions. w
The City's Motion to Dismiss the Reply Brief of PSRC is denied. PSRC's motion for =i
O -:
leave to submit additional briefing is granted. . .o 1
2
IL I-
-O
0 52
L1J Z:
Thc City'urged the Board to apply Engrossed' Senate Bill (ESB) 6094, specifically Section 1-
,. 01-
20. ESB 6094, Chapter 429, Laws of 1997. ;Section 20 changes the standard of review.to
be used by the Boards. The Board takes official notice of ESB 6094, which became
effective on July 27, 1997. Section 53 expressly provides that this new law is prospective
in effect, except for Section 22, which is explicitly retroactive. In other words, the 1997
amendments to the Growth Management Act became effective on July 27, 1 997.
The Board obtained jurisdiction to review this dispute when the PFR was filed on
February 14, 1997. Briefing, pursuant to the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
was received from April 21, 1997, through July 8, 1997.3 The hearing on the merits was
held on July 9, 1997. But for the issuance of this final decision and order, all events in this
proceeding occurred prior to July 27, 1997 -- the effective date of ESB 6094.
10. The expansion of STIA requires the use of fill dirt. The borrow.site for this fill dot i
:within Des Moines. Consequently, .trucks .hauling fill dirt . from the borrow site to
STIA;must drive through the,City; See Ex. 148 and C:ity's Response Brief, at 16.
11. The City's development code requires trucks used to haul fill dirt through the City to
obtain permits pursuant to local regulations (Chapter 12.04 DMMC). Ex. 148.
111. RULINGS ON MOTIONS
PSRC's Motion to Strike is denied.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In addition to the preheating briefs, the City and PSRC filed punt- htAtring briefs. See Procedural
History.
(7314fdo.dne: R/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 4
..
r,
AUG, -14 -97 04:51 PM CF 'MHH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
rs
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
20E 892589 P.06
lf, as the City suggests, the date of issuance of the Board's decision is determinative as to
the law to be applied, the Board could select the law to surly based upon its desire and
ability to accelerate or delay the issuance of its decision. This is an outcome the Board
cannot reach, nor can the Board conclude that it is a result the legislature intended.
Consequently, to give effect to thc legislature's clear direction, as contained in Section 53,
the Board has a duty to apply the provision~ of the GMA as they existed at the time the
PFR was filed.5
RCW 36.70A.320(1) provides that:
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, comprehensive plans and
development regulations, and amendments thereto, adopted under this chapter arc
presumed valid upon adoption. In any petition undcr this chapter, the board, after
full consideration of the petition, shall determine whether there is compliance with
the requirements of this chapter. In making its determination, the board shall
consider the criteria adoptcd by the department under RCW 36.70A.190(4). The
board shall find compliance unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
the state agcy cy, county. or city erroneously interpreted or applied this chapter.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The Port must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the City erroneously
interpreted or applied the provisions of the GMA.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board's Prehearing Order sct forth five Legal Issues. While several of these legal
issues raise significant issues of first impression, !the Board finds that, after answering
Legal Issue 2, it need not, . and .will not, reach the remaining issucs.6t, For the reasons
The Retard tit t:s t lature's clear intent to reemphasize the importance of the Boards'
deference to local policy choices and decisions when those choices and decisions comply with thc GMA.
Any actions taken by a local government after July 27, 1997, including actions taken to comply with a
Board remand order, will be subject to the provisions ofESB 6094. The Board's compliance review of the
remand action in this case will, likewise, be subject w ESR 6094.
',rile other legal issues listed in the Prehearing Order were as follows:
1. Does the City's Plan jail to comply with'RCW 36.704.100, because Plan policies (CP) 1 -04
05, 5- 02 -08, 5- 03 -02, 5-04-04, 8 -03- 01(2), 8 -04- 01(1), 8- 04- 01(1)(c), 8 -03- 04(4), 4- 04 -01, 6-03-
23, 6-04- 09(4), 6-04- 09(5), 8 -03- 01(3), 8 -03- 02(3), 8- 04- 01(1)(h) and 8 -04 -02(1) are
Inconslstenr ivl:h King Counry Comprehensive Plan policies T -101, T -107, F-211, T -540 and
T-542?
3. Does the (Cry's Plan fail to comply with RCW 36.704.210 ::
(7J14fdu.dor; R /11/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 5
AUG .-14 -97 04:52 PM CPs- -MH8
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
tt<
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
206 892588 P.07
presented below, the Board concludes that Des Moines' comprehensive plan is not in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.200. and it will therefore be remanded and invalidated in
part.
Lag) issue 2
Does the City's" Plan fail to comply with RCW 36: 70A.200 by containing policies and
strategles which purport to preclude the expansion of Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport (STIR) based on the City Plan policies cited above in Legal issue "No. l and CP
$-04-04, 6-04-09(4), 6-04-09(5), 8-04-01(1)(b), and 8- 04- 02(1)(d)y
DISCUSSION
RCW 36.70A.200 provides:
(1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under this
chapter shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities.
Essential public facilities include those facilities that arc typically difficult to site,
such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation
facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and
in- patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and
group homes.
(2) The office of financial management shall maintain a list of those essential state
public facilities that arc required or likely to be built within the next six years. The
3.1 Is the Ci{'' Plan (including all of the CPs listed In these legal issues)
'�I ,s neOnsistent with king County Countywide "Planning Policies FW -19, S -1.11,
and FW -32?
3.2 Is the City's Plan (including all CPs listed in these legal issues).1nconslstext'
with Multi -county Planning polkles (4fPPs) adopted by the PSRC and
embodied in the VISION. 2020 Regional Growth Strategy and Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP), Including the following MPPs contained in
VISION 2020's 1995 Update adopted on May 2S, 1995: RF -3, RC -2.11 and
RT -R.31, and the RTP as implemented and amended by PSRC Resolution No.
A- 96-02?
4. Does the City's Plan fail to comply with RCW ;36`70.4.070 because it is ..internally
incaaslstent, Including inconsistencies between CP 1- 03 -07, (Including all CPs listed In these
legal issues) and CP 1- 04- 05(I); also, is there an inconsistency between CP 3- 02 -04, and CP S-
04 -04 (as well as all of the CP.r listed in these legal issues) ?
S. Does the City's Plan fall to comply with RC W`36.704.020(6). 36.70.4.020(6)': because it contains policies,
including CP 6- 02 -04, CP 8 -03 -03 and 8- 04- 03(l)(c), that .deprive the Port of Searle of Its
„property rights without contlderatlon of whether such policies protect property owners from
arbitrary and discriminatory actions?
(7314jdn.411)rr; Rf13 /477)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 6
Ceiural Pules Snood
Crut•th htaweazrot f;leariop Huard
2329 One Union Squat • 600 University Street
Seattle, WA 98101 -1129
(206)389.2625 • Fax: (206)389 2388
AUG -14 -97 04:53 PM CF "MHB 20E-892588 P.08
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
21{
29
office of financial management may at any time add facilities to the list. k,No local
;•: comptrixgo eive plan or development„ regulation may preclude the siting of essential
public facilities. (Emphasis added.)
}There arc two ggiaimposed on the City under RCW 36.70A.200: a duty to adopt in its
Plan a process to site essential public facilities (EPFs), and a duty not to preclude their
siting in its Plan or implementing development regulations. In this ease, the question is .;
,.whether 1)es Moines'-1 is c to mend its Plan in recognition of the third runway at S 1 IA,
and thereby retaining certain Plan policies, precludes the siting of an EPF. But first, the
Board must determine whether the expansion of an existing EPF is protected by RCW
36.70A.200.
Airports are specifically identified as EPFs. There is no credible argument that an existing
EPF, such as STiA, is not an EPF, even though it predates the UMA. In addition, there is
no credible argument that expansion of an existing FPF is not within the scope of RCW
36.70A.200. Further, there is nothing in the language of .200 to justify distinguishing
between expansion of an existing EPF and a new EPF. Indeed, the present dispute is
evidence that it is no less difficult to site the expansion of an existing EPF than it is to site
a new EPF. Nor does the language of .200 suggest that a city's comprehensive plan is
prohibited only from precluding RPFs within its jurisdiction. Likewise, .200 does not
support the notion of precluding necessary support activities for the expansion of the 14.1.3t:
that occur within the city's jurisdiction. The Board holds that the expansion-of . an y�
existing EPF,' including necessary support activities associated with that expansion,
Is protected by RCW 36.70A.200.
;The' Port does. not challenge a specific City action; instead, the Port charges that the City's
failure to ,ct-violates the GMA. - Specifically, thc Port asserts that the City failed to amend
its Plan in response to the PSRC's regional decision to expand STTA by adding a third
runway.
Where a petitioner has proposed a comprehensive plan amendment to a local government
and that local government declines to adopt the proposed amendment, the Board has
found in favor of thc local government. See Cole v. Pierce County [Cole], CPSGMHI3
Case No. 96 -3 -0009, Final Decision and Order (1996). Cole argued, among other things,
that his proposed amendment would "correct" a GMA detect in Pierce County's plan. Id.
at 9. The Board rejected Cole's appeal, holding "that the actions challenged in Cole's
pctition were not taken in response to a GMA duty to act by a certain deadline, or
in response to any othcr duty imposed by the act ...." Id., at 10.11.
in Children s Alliance v. City of Bellevue [Children's Alliance], the Board noted that it would regard
thc last sentence of RCW 36.70A.200(2) as a third subsection of .200. CPSGMHB Case No. 95 -3 -0011,
Final Decision and Order (July 25. 1995), at 17.
(7314fda.doc; 8!13!97)
974-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 7
+
Cr etnil Page Sound
Growth Management Hearings board
2329 One Union Square • 600 Univenity Street
Seattle, WA 98101 -1129
(206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 2588
AUG -14 -97 04:54 PM CP,"``jMHB
206,- '^792566 P. 09
The present case is unlike Cole. Here, there is a GMA duty -- the duty not to preclude
EPFs. RCW 36.70A.200(2). Although the City's Plan may not have conflicted with
t .200(2) when the Plan was originally adopted, the subsequent regional decision to expand
an EPF, STIA, requires the City to re- evaluate its flan to determine if it still complies with
x.200(2).
When Des Moines adopted its Plan in December 1995, there was no regional decision to
expand STIA. iTowever, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 96 -02, amending the MTP to
include a third runway at STIA, on July 11, 1996. iThc City's .duty, to comply with the
GMA in the context of the decision to expand an essential public facility (STIAY: was
trigger ,win the PS C passed Resolution A- 2-02.4 RCW 36.70A.200 imposes a duty
requiring the City's Plan not to preclude essential public facilities, even when the decision
regarding the essential public facility was made subsequent to the initial adoption of the
to Plan.
11
In Children's Alliance, the Aoard ..defined .` prccludc'i. as l "render impossible or
12 impracticable." Children 's Alliance, at 19. "lmpr'actieuble ' is defined as "not practicable:
incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command."
13 Merriam Webster s Collegiate Dictionary 584 (10th cd. 1996). In other words, the City's
14 Plan need not make it impossible to build the third runway in order to violate the GMA. ? 1f,.
Ahe.City's Plan .has the effect of making the expansion incapable of being. accomplished. by;
is ,,the means at thc'Port's command, then the Plan is in;violation of the GMA.
16
17
111
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
211
29
The Board holds that a local government plan may not, through policies or strategy
directives, effectively preclude the siting or expansion of an EPF, including its,_.
necessary support activities. +�
The City of Des Moines Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies that the Port
alleges arc not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.200. 'These include policies 1- 04 -05, 5-
02-08, 5- 03 -02, 5- 04 -04, 8 -03- 01(2), 8 -04- 01(1), 8- 04- 01(1)(c), 8 -03- 04(4), 4- 04 -01, 6-
03-23, 6 -04- 09(4), 6 -04- 09(5), 8 -03- 01(3), 8 -03- 02(3), 8- 04- 01(1)(b) and 8 -04- 02(1).
See Port's Prehearing Memorandum, at p. 4 and 37 - 40.
The City's Plan contains four categories of policies: Goals, Findings, Policies, and
Strategies. The policies relevant here are:
Finding 5- 02 -08: The siting, construction, and operation of public facilities and
utilities has sometimes resulted in adverse impacts upon nearby properties and the
natural environment. The City currently accepts more than its fair share of
adverse impacts associated with air transportation; to allow any increase in chose
impacts would require that Des Moines accept an even greater disproportionate
share of those impacts. (Emphasis added.)
Finding 7- 02 -08: Much of Des Moines is impacted by aircraft noise related to
Sca -Tac International Airport (STIA). Virtually all of the Des Moines Planning
17314ftYu.doe: 8/13.097)
97-3 -0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 8
.:; .
Central Puttee Sound
Growth Management Hearings Doard
2.329 One Union Square • 600 University Strut
Seattle, WA 98101-1129
(206)389.2625 • Fax: (206)789.2588
AUG -14 -97 04:54 PM CP' —MHB
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
206892588
P. 10
Area is within the 6S Ldp noise contour, and large portions of the Planning Area
Are within the 70 or 75 Ld,, noise contour (STIA Existing Noise Exposure Map,
1991).... (Emphasis added.)
Policy 5- 03 -02: When not against the City's interests, Des Moines should
promote cooperative working relationships between Des Moines and the other z
municipalities, agencies and districts identified in this 'Comprehensive Plan. _
(Emphasis added.) I- w
Policy 8-03-01: Residential Neighborhood Preservation: ... (2) Develop plans, -J
land use regulations and review procedures to preserve and protect designated t 0
residential communities from inconsistent and incompatible land uses which w =
threaten to undermine their stability and their residential character. (chapter 18.02 ' N I-
u_
DMMC, chapter 18.38 DMMC) w 0
Strategy 1- 04 -05: Jntcrgovcrnmental Cooperation/Annexation: (1) . . . When g
IL Q'
decisions are made by state, county, regional agencies, tribes, or special purpose co ° districts, and those decisions are clearly in the best interests of the state, county I W
or region, take appropriate measures to implement those decisions within Dcs z �.
Moines and the Planning Arca, unless the decisions unfairly or negatively affect z 0
the residents or businesses in the Ties Moines area. (Emphasis added.) W o
Strategy 5- 04 -04: ... Adopt development regulations as needed that provide a p
o
N
process for the identification and possible siting of essential public facilities. ° 1,—
Cooperatively work with surrounding municipalities and King County during the = 0
siting and development of facilities of regional significance. Oppose new fac111tles .. 0
associated with Sea -Tac International Airport that increase adverse impacts 1ai,".. ! id z
the City of Des Moines. (Emphasis added.) o CP
0/
Strategy 6- 04 -09: In order to protect and preserve park and recreation areas Des z
Moines should: . • . (4) Oppose proposed land use and transportation facilities
that would subject park and recreation areas of local significance (except golf
courses, ball fields, outdoor spectator sports areas, amusement areas, riding
stables, nature trails and wildlife refuges) to exterior noise exposure levels which'
exceed 55 Lr/n or the Lin level existing as of the effective date of this Element,
whichever is greater. 4 reduction in the exterior noise level (greater than 55 %.
d13A) that existed as of April 20, 1995 shall become the new maximum exterior''`
noise level. (chapter 18.38 1)MMC). (Emphasis added.)
Strategy 6- 04 -09: In ordcr to protect and preserve park and recreation areas Des
Moines should: ... (5) Oppose proposed land use and transportation facilities
that would subject locally significant golf courses, ball fields; outdoor spectator
sports areas, amusement areas, riding stables, nature trails, and wildlife refuges
to exterior noise exposure levels which exceed an I,d„ of 60 dBA, or the Lin level
existing as ofllw effective date of thin Element, whichever is greater. 4 reduction
(73 14 fdo.doc: 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision nod Order
Page 9
? *
Central Puget Sruad
Growth Mauajerrwt Ilt.riags Board
2329 One Union Square • 600 Univuriity Siren
Saaa n, WA 96101 -1129
(206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588
AUG-14-97 04:55 PM CP°-"MHH 206, 992590
10
11
12
13
it
15
16
17
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
in the exterior noise level (greater Than 60 dBA) that existed as of April 20, 1995
shall become the new maximum exterior noise level. (chapter 18.38 DMMC).
(Emphasis added.)
Strategy 8- 04 -01: Residential Neighborhood Protection: (1) Protect and preserve
residential neighborhoods by: . . . (h) Opposing land use changes and
infra.structure improvements that would subject residential neighborhood, w
environmental noise exposure levels which exceed an Lin of 55 dBA, or existing
levels as of April 20, 1995, whichever is greater. (chapter 18.38 DMMC).
(Emphasis added.)
Strategy 8- 04 -01: Residential Neighborhood Protection: (1) Protect and preserve
residential neighborhoods by: •... (c) Adopting weight limits and maximum noise
levels for commercial trucks on surface streets in residential neighborhoods to
ensure that non- routine commercial traffic dues not damage residential roads, or
subject the neighborhood to unusual congestion and noisy street traffic. (chapter
7.16 DMMC, chapter 10.28 DMMC, chapter 12.04 DMMC). (Emphasis added.)
Strategy 8- 04 -02: Historic Preservation: (1) Protect and preserve historic
properties and archeological sites by: . . . (d) Opposing land use and
transportation proposals that would subject historic and archeological sites of
local significance to environmental noise exposure levels of Ldp of 65 dBA, or
existing levels as of April 20, 1995, whichever is higher. A reduction in the
environmental noise level (greater than 65 Ld,,) that existed as of April 20, 1995
should become the new maximum environmental level. (Emphasis added.)
According to flan Finding 5- 02 -08, the City has "accepted more than its fair share of
adverse impacts" associated with STIR. Any increase in these adverse impacts would
require the City to "accept an even greater disproportionate share." This Finding or "fact"
assists the Board in interpreting Plan Strategies 1 -04- 05(1), 5- 04 -04, and 8- 04- 01(1)(c).
Strategy 1 -04 -05(1) directs the City to implement regional decisions "clearly in the best
interests of the state, county, or region ... unless the decisions unfairly or negatively
affect" the City. There is no question that the ex anysion of S'I7 A co drL have sonic
adverse impacts on the City.ctIonet a ess, these impacts could be minimized or mitigated.
"Since; Finding 5 -02 -08 makes it clear that expansion of STIA will unfairly or negatively;
'affect the City, Strategy 1 -04- 05(1.) can only be read to mean that the City will not take
pleasures to p1ement the regiont_LI deeis-on to_ pand STIA
Further, Strategy 5 -04 -04 states the City's intent to oppose new facilities at STIA "that
increase adverse impacts on the City." Reading this Strategy together with Finding 5 -02-
08 leads to the conclusion that lid action causing adverse impact on the City, however
slight, will result in the City's opposition It is significant that nothing in the challenged
policies cited above talks about mitigation; the language uscd is "oppose.' In its brief, the
City stated "('The City's opposition to the third runway is conditioned on unmitigated
(7314fda.dec; 8 /13/47)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 10
?
Central Puget Sound
Growth Ma, atteul Hearings Board
2329 Ono Llniun Syss•rc • On linivcn,ily Sine!
Sauk, WA 98101 -1129
(206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2388
P. 11
AUG -14 -97 04:56 PM CF 'MHB
10
20r-789251313 P . 12
impacts." City's Response Brief, at 46. However, the City cites to no Plan policy to
support its Argument, nor could the Board find support for this assertion in the City's Plan.
The Plan expresses thc City's clear intent to exercise its municipal authority to prevent
expansion of STiA, not to mitigate its impacts!
Finally, Finding 5 -02 -08 provides direction to the City in carrying out Strategy 8-04 -
01(1)(c), which directs the City to limit weight and noise levels of commercial trucks
through residential neighborhoods. This Strategy cites to three chapters of the City's
municipal code, one of which (chapter 12.04 DMMC) the City asserts requires trucks
hauling fill for STIA expansion to obtain City permits. Ex. 148. Since the (iMA requires
the City to exercise the permit discrction of chapter 12.04 DMMC consistent with the
Strategies and Findings of its Plan, the cicar.cifcct of.the direction of these;Plan policies*.
<.w ll bet proven of mitigate, expansion of STIA.
Strategy 5 -04 -04 directs thc City to "[ o]ppose new facilities associated with Sea -Tae
International Airport that increase adverse impacts to the City of Des Moines." Since
12 expansion of STIA will have adverse impacts to the City, this Strategy is particularly
instructive in reading Strategies 1 -04- 05(1), 8- 04- 01(1)(b), 8- 04- 01(1)(c), and 8-04 -
13 02(1)(d). Reading these Plan provisions as a whole, the City will oppose expansion of
14 STIA because it "unfairly or negatively affcet [sr the City (1 -04- 05(1)), and because it
would increase environmental noise exposure levels (8- 04- 01(1)(b) and (c), and 8 -04-
15 02(1)(d)). These Plan provisions do not allow necessary support' activities, such' as fill dirt
hauling, that are necessary for expansion of STIA.
16
17
18 " in a earlier EPF case dealing with a transportation facility, the Board observed that RCW 36.70A.200
does not prevent a local government from identifying in its plan appropriate and reasonable provisions for
mitigation. In liapsntith v. City ofAuburn [Hapsntetlif, CPSCIMHB Case No. 95.3.0075c, Final Decision
and Order (May 10, 1996), the Board stated:
Regardless of whether the MT'1' or the Preliminary WSDOI' Plan explicitly names the Auburn
21 Railyard as a site for an intcrtttodal lacility serving the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle and much of
Western Washington, all the cvidcnce before the Board indicates that the City trust plan for this
22 eventuality.
19
24
25
26
27
28
29
At thc same time, the City has made a ncrosbc'r of credible points about the serious localized
consequences of siting an essential public facility such as BNSF has ch*4.1ribs -d for its property.
The Board has also concluded that the Special Planning Arca do sibmation for the Railyard is an
innovative comprehensive plan technique authorized by RCW 36.70A.090 to enable the City to
articulate its legitimate site and off site issues in thc form of a more detailed localized planning
document. The planning process described by the City in its briefing and in the Plan itself (Plan,
at 14 -16 to 14 -18) provides the opportunity fur the concerned state, regional and local agencies to
craft appropriate site design standards and identify the ncccsxary infrastructure improvements
and mitigation. Such a planning process provides a reasonable framework for the City to
articulate its legitimate concerns, and for other public agencies and the Railroad to respect and
creatively respond to those concerns. Hapsmirh, at 33.
(73 Nfrlu.dnc: 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 11
f
AUG -14 -97 04:57 PM CP''''`MHB
10
11
12
13
14
13
16
17
id
19
20
21
22
24
23
20
27
211
29
206892588 P.13
The City's Plan also includes a Finding that indirectly affects expansion of STIA.
According to Plan Finding 7- 02 -08. virtually all of the City is within the 65 I,dn noise
contour. This binding illuminates Strategies 6- 04- 09(4), 6 -04- 09(5), 8- 04- 01(1)(b), and
8- 04- 02(1). All of these Strategies direct the City to oppose land use changes and
transportation facilities or infrastructure improvements that will result in noise of 55, 60,
or 65 Ldn, or "existing levels US of April 20, 1995.s9 Most of these Strategies provide that,
il'
thc environmental noise level declines, the new, lower level will become the maximum
allowable. The Board notes that the ambient noise levels, as found by the City in 7- 02 -08,
already exceed the numerical limits of these Strategics; therefore, thc practical effect of
these Strategics is to make thc maximum noise level that level existing as of April 20,
1995. Although the City may certainly impose reasonable mitigating conditions on HPbs,
or necessary support activities if the EPF itself is not within the City's jurisdiction, these
particular Plan provisions direct the City to prohibit arly increase in environmental noise.
The obvious effect of these Plan provisions will be to prevent the excavation and fill dirt
hauling support activities associated with expansion of STIA.
The GMA made comprehensive plans binding documents. See RCW 36.70A.040; see
also, Snoqualmie v. King County, CPSGPHB Case No. 92 -3 -0004, Final Decision and
Order (March 1, 1993), at 15. The City is bound to implement the policy provisions it
includes in its Plan. The Plan Findings, Policies, and Strategies identified by the Port
require the City to oppose activities related to the expansion of STIA. Although the
City's jurisdiction is limited to its city limits, clearly the Plan directs thc City to oppose
those necessary support activities for the expansion of STIA within its limits. See City's
Response Brief, at 16. The expansion of STIA requires a large volume of fill dirt. The
borrow site for the project is within Des Moines and.trucks hauling this fill dirt must travel
within the City limits. ;The City's Plan, particularly Strategies 1 -04 -05 and 5- 04 -04,
obligates the City to oppose necessary support activities, such as the excavation and
hauling operations. The Board holds that the City's Plan does not comply with RCW
36.70A.200 and will preclude expansion of STiA.
CONCLUSION NO. 2
The City's Plan does not comply with RCW 36.70A.200 because it precludes the
expansion of STIA, an essential public facility.
INVALIDITY
The Board specifically finds that Plan policies 1 -04 -05 and 5- 04 -04, by precluding the
siting of an essential public facility, substantially interferes with the fulfillment of RCW
36.70A.020(3), which provides:
' The record does not reveal the existing noise levels on April 20, 1995.
(73 1 4fdo.doe; 3/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Oder
Page 12
. �
AUG -14 -97 04:57 PM CP MHB
•:
•
206'"4.892588 P. 14
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are
based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive
plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3).
These Plan policies substantially interfere with the fulfillment of RCW 36.70A.020(3)
5 lx:causc they preclude the expansion of STIA, a regional transportation priority, and an
essential public facility.
Vi. ORDER
Having reviewed and considered the above - referenced documents, having considered the
arguments of the parties, and having deliberated on the matter, the Board finds that the
Des Moines Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance with RCW 36-70A.200. Because
policies 1 -04 -05 and 5 -04 -04 purport to preclude the expansion of an essential public
facility, namely, Seattle Tacoma International Airport, and such preclusion would
substantially interfere with the fulfillment of RCW 36.70A.020(3), these policies are
invalid.
The Plan is remanded to the City and it is instructed to bring the Plan into compliance with
RCW 36.70A.200 by no later than Monday, December 15, 1997, in order to achieve
14 compliance with this Order and the GMA. In amending the plan to address the invalidated.
is : , policies, the City will, pursuant to the Act, be required to maintain internal plan
consistency. Thus, other related policies may nccd to be amended.
The City is further instructed to file with the Board, and provide a copy to both the Port
and Milieus PSRC, a Statement of Actions Taken to Comply, by no later than 4:30 p.m.
on Monday, December 29, 1997. The Board will then promptly schedule a compliance
hearing.
(7314fdn doe: Rif VIM
97-3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 13
Central repc Sound
Growth Main anent (leering; Baird
2329 One Union Square • 600 University Street
Seattle, WA 911101 -1129
(206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)3119 -2518
?: <
z •
H Z
re 11,
JU
UO
C
w =
J I—:
' �LL
w O;
g5,.
-a
z �.
Z H:
U•
l7
O U.
w w`.
`I— U:.
u_ O'
in Z
P
•O
z
AUG -14 -97 04:58 PM CPP7HB
10
11
12
13
1d
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
So ORDERED this 13th day of August, 1997.
206 - -7.892586
CENTRAL PUGET SOIYNT) GROWTH MANAGF.MENT HEARINGS BOARD
Edward G. McGuire, AICP
Bo, d Me i bcr
ovar, AICP
ember
(Board Member Tovar filed a concurring opinion)
Chris Smith Towne
I3oard Member
Note: 'This Final Decision and Order constitutes a final order as specified by RCW
36.70A.300 unless a party files a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to WAC. 242 -02-
830.
Board Member Tovar's Concurrine Opinion
I concur with the majority in disposing of this case in resolving Legal Issue 2 - finding that
the City's Plan fails to comply with RCW 36.70A.200. However, unlike my colleagues, I
would also have reached Legal Issue 3 - the allegation that Des Moines' Plan fails to
comply with RCW 36.70A.210 because the challenged City policies are inconsistent with
countywide planning policies and multicounty planning policies. Notwithstanding
principles of judicial economy, I believe that the controversy at the core of Legal Issue 3 is
a matter of significant public interest that can and should be reached. In my judgment, the
same policies that the Board funds violate RCW 36.70A.200 also fail to comply with RCW
36.70A.210 because they are inconsistent, to varying degrees, with the King County
Comprehensive Plan and the King County County -wide Planning Policies, as well as the
multicounty planning policies for the Central Puget Sound Region.
Many allegations were madc by the Port regarding the inconsistencies between the City
policies and various policies from these regional documents. Des Moines variously argued
that there was no inconsistency between city and regional policies (City Response Brief, at
21 -42), that various regional policy documents were unlawfully enacted and thus have no
effect (City Response Brief, at 9 -12), and that, in any case, there is no directive
relationship between regional policies and a city plan (City Response Brief, at 49 -57).
(7 I 4filatIoc: 8111,10)
97.3 -0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 14
Centred Pupa Sound
Crowlis M*.ut8e+ueatl llerriup Byrd
2329 cant Union Squats • 600 University Street
Seattle, WA 98101.1129
(206)389 2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2388
P. 15
z
H Z'
re w
JU
O 0
' J=
W
I—.
u.
w
ga
co D
=w
H
.=
Z
1- O
Z I—.
W uj
Do
U
'0
w UJ
2-- 0
U -
O 1-:
z
AUG.:-14-97 04:59 PM CP' 'MHB
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
20 E'"--m 892588
At the hearing on the merits, the City summarized its position by stating that, rather than a
"coercive" hierarchy. the GMA "enshrine[sl the political ethic and the legal history of our
region in saying that in this part of the country we do operate through collaboration,
cooperation and consensus building." Transcript of !fearing on the Merits, July 9, 1997,
at 77. Des Moines insists that there is no hierarchy of policy authorized or required by the
GMA and that there is no support for the proposition that a city plan must yield to a
county -wide planning policy, let alone a multicounty planning policy. City's Response
Brief, at 49 -56. To thc extent that the Port relics on Board holdings to this effect in past
eases, such as S'nnqualmie, Edmonds and Aagaard,t ° the City argues that these readings
1°1n its first CPP case, the Board examined the purpose, nature and effect of CPPs. in Snoqualmie v. King
County fSnoqualmia], CPSGMIIB Case No. 92 -3 -0004, Final Decision and Order (March 1, 1993), the
Board concluded:
The requirement that plans be coordinated suggests the need to jointly dccidc upon procedural
matters such as schedules, formats. common data bases and methods for communication.
However, RCW 36.70A.100 requires not just coordination but also consistency. To achieve the
consistency requirement of the GMA requires more than simply a coordination of the mechanics
of process, but rather a substantive and directive relationship between the policies in the CPPs
and the policies in the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Therefore, the Board
concludes that the effect of the CPPs is both procedural and substantive.
Further, the Board observes that the CPPs _provide substantive direction not to development
regulations, but rather ty the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Thus, the consistency
required by RCW 36.70A.100 and,. RCW 3(.70A.210 is an extenral consistency between
comprehensive plans. The CPPs do NOT speak dire sty to the iraplemeruing land use regulations
of cities and counties. Thus. the Board concludes that the requirement for consistences in RCW
36.70A.100 and .210 does not regiire an altet ijon to the lath _u towers of cities. Snuqualmle,
at 15 -16. Emphasis added.
The Board clarified the new GMA- cxc:atcd reality in a 1993 case, City of Edmunds and City of Lynnwood
v. Snohomish County [Edmondij, CPSGMHB Case No. 93 -3 -0005, Final Decision and Order (October 9,
1993):
To conclude that each of those loc-al governments retains the full range of its pre -GMA land use
prerogatives would perpetuate balkanized self - interest and thwart the Legislature's clear direction to
take decisive rc ni_oo al action to limit sprawl, site needed facilities, meet pressing human needs,
protect thc environment and sustain economic development. See RCW 36.70A.010 and RCW
36.70A.020.
The broadened perspective that permeates the: Act means that local governments, particularly cities,
must include a regional perspective in the making of their plans. indeed. in the definition of their
responsibilities to plan for the future. The "land use powers of cities" cannot be construed in such a
way as to allow a city to deny its regional context ur shirk its regional responsibilities. Edmonds, at
27 -28. Emphasis added.
in 1995, the Board summarized the relationship among the goals of the GMA, policies in regional policy
documents, and city plans. In Aagaard, et al., v. City of Bothell fAagaardJ, CPSGMIIB Case No. 94 -3-
0011, Final Decision and Order (.duly 21, 1995), the Hoard stated:
Thus, thc decision - making regime under GMA is a cascading hierarchy of substantive and
directiv_c,policyt flowinc first from the planning goals to the policy documents of counties and
cities (such as CPPs, 1t'flits and comprehensive plans), then between certain policy documents
(73 ufdo.doc: 8/13/97)
97-3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Pagc 15
:
.
AUG -14 -97 04:59 PM CP ;MHS
3
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
IR
19
21
24
25
16
27
29
20E--3892588 P. 17
}
of the Act have been "called into question" by Poslema v. Snohomish County [Postema]
83 Wn. App. 574 (September 9, 1996), review denied, 131 Wn.2d 1019 (April 4, 1997).
City Response Brief', at 56 -57.
The City's arguments describe a universe in which each city is, in effect, sovereign because
each city has the authority to accept only those regional policy decisions that it deems to
be "fair" and "not against the interests" of that city. In such a city - centered universe, a
city plan is not obligated to yield to a regionali1 decision adopted pursuant to RCW
36.70A.210, regardless of whether or not such a regional policy decision is unambiguous,
explicitly directive, and lawfully adopted. While such a city - centered universe may or may
not have ever existed in the past, or may exist in a county with only a single incorporated
city12, it certainly does not exist now in the Central Puget Sound Region. The great
number of local governmcnts13 and. population density14 of this metropolitan region,
particularly in view of thc tremendous population and employment growth currently
underway, make the notion of absolute city "sovcrcignty" archaic. If commonly held and
acted upon by the four counties and seventy -eight cities in this region, such a notion
would perpetuate the type of "uncoordinated and unplanned growth" that the GMA
identified as a "threat to the environment [and] sustainable economic development" of this
state. RCW 36.70A.010.
(such as from CPPs to IUGAs and from CPPs and IUGAs t9 comprehensive plans), and finally
from comprehensive plans to development regulations, capital budget decisions and other
activities ()follies and counties. Aagaard, at 6. Emphasis added.
11 "Regional" in the context of the GMA means either a county or two or more contiguous counties. RCW
36,70A210(t) and (7).
'Z lit the State of Washington, there are a number of counties planning under the GMA that have only one
city: Ferry, Garfield, Jefferson, Mason and San Juan. None of these counties is in the Central Puget
Sound Region. Washington State Data Book, 1995.
'There are at present four counties and 78 cities in the Central Puget Sound region. Washington State
Department of Community. Trade and Economic Development, "Growth Management - It's Beginning to
Take Shape," Olympia, WA. January 1997, at 9. This does not include the cities of Maple Valley and
Covington, where incorporation has been approved by the voters, but the effective date of the
Incorporation has not yet arrived.
14 The population density of the Central Puget Sound region is 12 times that of the balance of the state. In
a 1995 case, the Board took official notice of the July 6, 190, Correction Release of the Washington
Stale Office of Financial Management's April 1, 1995, Populations of Cities, Tnwns and Counties used
for the Allocation of State Revenues. According to the counts, the four counties of the Central Puget
Sound Region then contained 3,020,000 people (approximately 56 percent of thc state's population) in
6,287 square miles (approximately 9.4 percent of the total area of the state) for a regional population
density of 480 people per square mile. The balance of the population (2,409,900 people) on the remaining
land area of the state (60,295 square miles) then equaled a population density of 40 people per square
mile. Bremerton v. Kitsap Counry, C:I'SGM1113 Case No. 95.3.0039, Final Decision and Ordtx, October
9, 1995, at 29, fn. 12.
(73 r4jdu.due; 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 16
,
\
Central Pnget Sound
Crowth Maaatea<tatt Wattage !bard
2329 One Union Square • 600 Univonity Struet
Seattle, WA 911101 -1129
(206)399 -2625 • Fax: (206)399-253B
AUG -14 -97 05:00 PM CF�'MHB
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
20r—'1992599 P.19
The legislature is presumed to be aware of the Snoqualmie, Edmonds, and Aagaard
decisions. While the legislature has amended the C:MA many times and has had the
opportunity to provide legislative correction to the interpretations that this Board has
given to RCW 36.70A.210 in these cases, it is significant that the legislature has never
done so. In fact, the legislature has made no substantive revisions to RCW 36.70A.210
since it created that section in 1991." Therefore, i can only conclude that the legislature
agrees with the Board's interpretations of the Mt in the above cited cases - that RCW
36.70A.100 requires coordination and consistency between and among county and city
plans, that CPI's adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 provides the mechanism to
achieve that coordination and consistency, and that in order to do so, C['1's must have a
substantive and directive effect on the comprehensive plans of cities."'
Even in the most recent session, the legislature relied upon the substantive and directive
authority of CPPs to carry out the important task of monitoring land use within the urban
growth areas for the purposes of determining what, if any, actions are necessary to assure
that adequate land supply remains available to accommodate expected population growth.
While Des Moines called the Board's attention to a portion of Sec. 25 of r:S(i 6094 in
support of its "collaborate and coordinate - but don't coerce" theory (City's Response
Brief, at 15 -16), a closer inspection of the entirety of this section leads to the opposite
conclusion. It is true that this section directs cities and counties to work together in a
cooperative fashion. However, this simply mirrors the language of RCW 36.70A.210 by
stating that a "county shall adopt. in consultation with its cities, county -wide planning
policies to establish a review and evaluation program." ESB 6094, Sec. 25 (1). The
emphasized language unmistakably says that, while the county has a GMA duty to consult
with the cities, it still has the sole authority to adopt these new CPPs.
While recognizing that "consultation" is essential, the legislature requires more than simply
process and dialogue without ultimate closure. The final subparagraph of Section 25
states that, after a cooperative consultative process including the cities, the county "if
necessary, 'shall] adopt amendments to county -wide planning policies to increase
consistency." Section 25 (4). F.SB 6094. The directiveness of these action verbs (shall
adopt ... increase consistency) reveals legislative intent that cities and counties are to do
more than simply engage in an idle process. Rather, this statutory language provides
direction to local governments to achieve results.
15 RCW 36.70A.210 was created in 1991. ReSHB 1025 § 2. This section
amended by the legislature. Deadlines for adoption of CPI's were changed
the name of the growth planning hearings board was changed to the growth
in 1994. [ 1994 c 249 § 28; 1993 sp.s. c 6 § 4; 1991 sp.s. a 32 § 2.]
16 The Board has recognized that the more abstract CPPs are, the more room
See .Snoquahnie, at 13. In addition, there are limitations on the substantive
at 18-19. Sec also,, Edmonds, at 29 -31.
(7314fd0.doc: 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 17
..; •
has newer been substantively
by amendments in 1993 and
management hearings board
will be left for interpretation.
effect of CPPs. Snoqualmie,
Central Proton Sowed
1 n.wth M.uaKan.ul Mutiny Board
2329 Qn• Union Square • 600 University Street
Seattle, WA 98101 1129
(206)389 -2625 • Fir: (206)389 2588
AUG- 1 4 -97 05 :0 1 PM CPP""`/1HB
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
206,3.892588 P. 19
Inevitably, at some point in these iterative and interactive dialogues, a decision needs to be
rendered by the county and, when necessary, the county needs to take action "to increase
consistency." Section 25 of ESB 6094 describes a process that recognizes the county's
role as a regional government responsible for the long -term viability of the UGA. For a
county to discharge this duty requires the CPPs to constitute more than the voluntary and
advisory process that Des Moines suggests in its arguments. This conclusion is consistent
with prior Board holdings regarding the duty of city comprehensive plans to be consistent
with CPPs. Unless and until either thc legislature or the courts explicitly address the
matter of the relationship between lawfully adopted, unambiguous CPPs and city plans and
provide explicit direction to the contrary, the Board's holdings to date on this subject
retain their vitality.
In conclusion, 1 agree with the City that "collaboration, cooperation and consensus
building' arc good things and that they are part of the "history" ()four region. However,
these principles arc not "enshrined" in the GMA. The City has no explicit GMA duty to
"collaborate" or "build consensus ;" however, it does have an explicit GMA duty to
achieve "coordination and consistency" with the plans of others as to regional issues.
RCW 36.70A.100. The fatal flaw in Des Moines' reading of the Act is that it fails to
acknowledge and meet this most fundamental and important GMA duty - cunsislency with
regional policies that address regional issues.
The regional policies adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 provide the GMA's
mechanism to achieve this consistency. Abscnt an effective mechanism to adopt and
enforce regional policies, whether those be thc location or capacity of UGAs, allocation of
a fair share of various types of housing, siting of essential public facilities, or location of
regional transportation improvements, the Central Puget Sound region would continue to
suffer from balkanized decision- making and =net regional needs. In short, this region
would be captive to the inefficient and uncoordinated land use decision - making of Des
Moines' imagined past - a regime that it mistakenly believes thc GMA now enshrines.
After a review of thc record and the argument in this case, I anz left with the firm
conviction that the City has erroneously interpreted the Act. Des Moines has failed to
acknowledge its duty under RCW 36.70A.100 and RCW 36.70A.210 to achieve
consistency with regional policy documents, and its Plan breaches that duty.
17 As to the City's arguments regarding the Pvslema decision, I note that the court addressed only one
issue - whether RCW 36.70A.210 creates a regional government that violates the principle of one person,
one vote." 83 Wn. App., at 580. To decide this issue, the court looked at the scope of powers of "an
informal intergovernmental planning group" which was tasked by Snohomish County to draft CPPs. Id.,
at 578. The court recognized that the group's draft policies were not binding and that RCW 36.70A.210
did not vest this group with governmental powers. Id., at 582 -583. The court expressly declined to decide
whether RCW 36.70A.210 creates a hierarchy of authority giving CPPs the power to - trump" city policies,
because there was no actual controversy on that issue in Posrcma. Id., at 584.
(7314fdn.dnc; R/13i99)
97 -3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 18
Central Puget Sound
C roMrth Management ite ar ing% Board
2324 Une Uninn Square • 600 University Street
Seattle, WA 98101.1129
(206)369 -2625 • Fey (206)389 -258R
AUG -14 -97 05:02 PM CP'^MHB
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
206e 4E192508
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PORT OF SEATTLE, a Washington
municipal corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF DES MOINES, a municipal
corporation,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent. )
Case No. 97 -3 -0014
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
1, Patience W. Jones, being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say:
1. I am an employee of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board, a United States Citizen, over the age of eighteen years, and am competent to
testify to the mattcrs set forth herein.
2, On August 13, 1997, and in the
17 Decision and Order to be served upon:
18
22
24
26
27
211 .
29
Petitioner Pon of Seattle:
Linda J. Strout
Port of Seattle Legal Department
2711 Alaskan Way
POD 1209
Seattle, WA 98121
Tel /Fax: Unknown
(4 By United States Mail
raga 1
. ,., ,,
P.20
i- z
n
J V'.
O 0,
N 0:
' N W,
W Z`.
• U.
J �r
W O:
g• -J.
_• °
�_
I-0'
Z k—.
LU uj
0 1—
WW
1-
Id co
0
z
AUC-14-97 05:02 PM CPr71H23
10
11
12
13
14
15
Petitioner Represented By:
Linda J. Strout and
Traci Goodwin
Port of Seattle
2711 Alaskan Way
Scattic, WA 98121
Tel/Fax: Unknown
( ) By United States Mail
Respondent City of Des Moines:
Gary N. McLean
City Attorney /City of Des Moines
21630 11th Ave., So.
Des Moines, WA 98198
Tel: (206) 878 -4595
Fax: (206) 870 -6540
( ) By United States Mail
( ) By Facsimile
16 Amicus Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC):
17 Puget Sound Regional Council
1011 Western Ave., Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98104 -1035
19 Tel: (206) 464 -7090
Fax: (206) 587 -4825
111
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
( ) By United States Mail
( ) By Facsimile
206,. -- 992588
Respondent City of Dc's Moines:
City Clerk
City of Des Moines
21630 11th Ave., So.
Des Moines, WA 98198
Tel: (206) 878 -4595
Fax: (206) 870 -6540
( ) By United States mail
( ) By Facsimile
Respondent City of Des Moines:
John Hempellnann, WSBA #1680
Cairncross & Hempelmann
Columbia Center - 70th Fir.
701 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104 -7016
Tel: (206) 587 -0700
Fax: (206) 587 -2308
( ) By United States Mail
PRSC Represented By:
David Bricklin
Bricklin & Gendler
1424 Fourth Avenue - Ste, 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 621 -8868
( )13y United States Mail
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER Tim LAWS OF TIM STATE
OF WASIIINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Dated this
Page 2
day of
*
Z.
• w.
U 0:
0
CO
w 0;
g a•
In D.
=
CI!
17-
z�.
z�. •
ui
• 0 �`
:1
•
w w;
U'
lit
O ~'
.z
Open House, Public Meeting to be held
on Comprehensive Plan amendments
The City of Tukwila is starting to consider changes to the Compre-
hensive Plan and Zoning Codes. The Comprehensive Plan
contains the broad goals and policies that will guide Tukwila for
the next 20 years. The Zoning Code carries out the Comprehen-
sive Plan's policies with specific requirements for land develop-
ment. The proposed amendments are as follows:
Request by Port of Seattle— City-wide:
To add a policy supporting the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan and Seattle- Tacoma International Airport expansion,
including the third runway.
Requests — Pacific Highway corridor:
A) Change certain residentially -zoned areas to commercial uses,
depending on certain conditions (see map).
443) Give the Board of Architectural Review the authority to waive
certain landscape and setback standards to encourage pe-
destrian and vehicular movement between two adjoining
properties.
C) Expand the number of housing units per acre in the area by
increasing the allowable density in the Neighborhood Com-
mercial Center zone, and allowing multi - family development
in the Regional Commercial zone.
An open house has been scheduled to give residents and
businesses information on these proposed amendments, as well
as on the Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan. (See related
article at left.) In April, the Tukwila City Council will hold a public
meeting to give residents and businesses the opportunity to
express their opinions and give testimony about the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments. There will be a public
hearing on the Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan on the
same evening.
The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal com-
ments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code
amendments from Tukwila's citizens and business commu-
nity. Please call Rebecca Fox of the Department of Community
evelopment at 206 - 431 -3683 if you have questions.
Written comments may be addressed to the Tukwila Depart-
ment of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boule-
vard, Tukwila, WA 98188. If you prefer, you may also make
comments via e-mail to rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us.
MARCH 1998
a
Comprehensive Plan/
/Zoning Map Amendments
Zoning Designations
IDR-Low Dandy Residential
MOR-Medlum Denny Residential
NDR -4Ugh Density Resldentl
o-oma
1160Mbad Use Only
NCC- Ndphbahood Carnnerdel Ce,Rsr
cn�E�t Commercial
Proposed Conarmtertsive Plan,
Zaino Amendments
Tukwila City Liras
u
z
133 sr
3136
11HII :dIZ
3 140
13631
140 ET
3144 31
to
314631
775'
41ST
3r
35' r 2.
128'
96'
195'
is
•
. .
isW'.`14]
SEATTLE — TACOMA
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT THIRD
RUNWAY LITIGATION
UPDATE
BY ROGER PEARCE
FP &S is representing the Port of Seattle in
defense of the Port's decision to construct a
wide range of improvements at Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport ( "STIA "), including the
long - debated third dependent air carrier
runway. Several surrounding cities have formed
the Airport Communities Coalition and pledged
to stop any new runway at STIA. The result
has been multiple administrative appeals and
lawsuits challenging the Puget Sound Regional
Council's regional planning decisions,
challenging the Port's environmental review for
the third runway and other airport
improvements, challenging the FAA's decisions
to approve the Port's master plan and funding
part of the master plan improvements, and
challenging surrounding City comprehensive
plans containing anti -third runway provisions.
The Port of Seattle and FP &S won the first key
administrative appeal recently before the
Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board. 'That decision invalidated the
City of Des Moines' - 'comprehensive plan for
failing to accommodate the third runway,
which is an essential public facility for regional
transportation needs. Port of Seattle v. Des
Moires, CPSGMHB Case No. 97 -3 -0014
(decided Aug. 17, 1997). This precedent -
setting decision interpreted the Growth
Management Act's essential public facilities
provisions. The City of Des Moines has
appealed the Board's decision to the Superior
Court, where it is scheduled to be heard in
April 1998.
A second key administrative appeal is scheduled
to begin on December 1997 before the Port of
Seattle's Hearing Examiner. That appeal
challenges the legal adequacy of the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
published by the Port and FAA for the third
runway and other master plan development
actions at STIA.
The first Superior Court lawsuit is scheduled
for trial beginning on January 5. That action
challenges the 1996 regional planning
decision of the Puget Sound Regional Council
to include the third runway in the Puget
Sound area's regional transportation plan.
The PSRC and the Port have already prevailed
on summary judgment motions in that
litigation, which dismissed several
nonenvirorunental claims. The PSRC and
Port have also successfully limited the court's
review to the administrative record before
PSRC when the PSRC decisions were made.
Two other state court lawsuits are also
pending. Those actions challenge the Port's
substantive decisions approving construction
of the Master Plan improvements, including
the third runway. The key issue in those
actions is whether the Port's decisions
complied with the Growth Management Act.
Those suits are currently scheduled for trial in
October 1998, but will likely be joined for
trial with the appeal from the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management I-Icarings Board
decision and with any appeal from this
December's Port of Seattle Hearing Examiner
proceeding.
evriycoiicciitr [csiis
i i tkc in'i nd use and,
xa5 erivirbnriiental; I'aiv:;'::,:?.
lire e "r
c „�Beforee:.,:ing) on. 4i, ..,
Cey" +iirilprac`ticc''1'at'Mccks: -:-
Ivlorgai I3,ueci in; ;Olympia.
t r His; experience' includes
II ' .At:SEPA'.:, t ,1 ,and.:
• �othe"rr.Iir d` "u c. end' env
i
✓ o j': before -• =
44 f he;:Gr'owth Managciiicnt
I-ieai`iii� s;.Boar:.1;i1.:,,, s t ;'. '
. §liperror,-and .atipcll:itc-
courts: «::I-Iejrcccivecl. his
.D: '•crun 7iiirde;' frorK,''.
'Seattle':Univcrsity 'School
aw.:.. _ ...............:: �� . .
ENVINUNMIiNTAL NI WS
ill'C.1' \t if l °It 14.;7
(FP
Staff Report to the Application 1
City Council
FILE NUMBER: L97 -0084
APPLICANT: Port of Seattle
REQUEST: Add policy to support Metropolitan
Transportation Plan provisions for improvements to Sea -
Tac International Airport .
EXHIBITS:
3. L97 -0084 Application for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
4. Final Decision and Order, Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board
DISCUSSION
The Port of Seattle has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(Exhibit 3). The requested amendment text is the following:
13.6.5 Promote transportation and land use strategies that are consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) goal of meeting regional air transportation
needs at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, including the third runway.
Background
The Port asserts that by adopting this amendment Tukwila would fulfill what the Port
believes is Tukwila's responsibility to make its Comprehensive Plan consistent with the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (IMP), as amended August, 1996.
The Port based its proposed amendment on the final Decision and Order by the Central
Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (8/97) (Exhibit 4). This Decision and
Order found that several of the City of Des Moines' Comprehensive Plan policies
precluded the siting of an essential public facility (EPF), i.e. the third runway at SeaTac
International Airport (STIA). By not amending its Comprehensive Plan to acknowledge
the third runway planned for STIA, and by retaining policies that prevent siting an EPF,
the Hearings Board found that Des Moines violates the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.200 which requires that a city's plan not preclude essential public facilities.
Exhibit 2, page 8, paragraph 4, states that "The Board holds that a local government plan
may not, through policies or strategy directives, effectively preclude the siting or
expansion on an EPF, including its necessary support activities."
•�`�
.
Staff Report to the Application 1
City Council
Several of Des Moines' policies are shown to actively "oppose" the siting of the third
runway, rather than focusing on mitigating adverse impacts. (Exhibit 4, pp. 8 -10)
Given the GMHB's conclusion that Des Moines' Comprehensive Plan violates the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.200) by precluding a third runway, the Port's
amendment as proposed implies that Tukwila must adopt the proposed amendment to be
consistent with this ruling. Z
Significance /Consistency with Comprehensive Plan re ui'
J U,
Several Tukwila Comprehensive Plan policies address airport improvements and impacts, y o;
co w:
as well as the process for siting EPFs. w
J �
Residential Neighborhoods: w o
• Policy 7.2.5: Encourage the reduction of noise from Seattle - Tacoma International
Airport and King County Airport, by promoting the development of new or the = c1
retrofit and modification of existing aircraft engines which are quieter, and
operational procedures that help reduce aircraft noise and emission levels. z 0
z f-"
• Policy 7.2.6. Work with the Port of Seattle, King County Airport and the Federal o'
Aviation Administration to promote the development of airport operational o c.
procedures that will decrease the adverse noise effects of airport operations on 0
Tukwila and its residents.
o'
ui z
Uw
• Policy 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in Updating 01—•
their airport master plan, to ensure that airport operations and development:
Transportation:
—Enhances Tukwila goals and policies
—Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations
—Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents
Roles and Responsibilities:
Policy 15.2.1 In reviewing proposals to site new or expanded essential public
facilities within the City, Tukwila shall consider accepting its regional share of
facilities which provide essential services, provided other communities accept
their share as well, provided the funding of regional facilities sited in Tukwila
relies on an equitable regional source of funding, and provided the siting of all
essential public facilities is based on sound land use planning principles and is
developed through working relationships with affected neighborhoods, special
purpose districts, ports and other agencies which serve the Tukwila community.
Page 2
..
z
Staff Report to the Application 1
City Council
• Policy 15.2.2 "Essential public services" are facilities which provide basic public
services, provided in one of the following manners: directly by a government
agency, but a private entity substantially funded or contracted for by a
government agency, or provided by a private entity subject to public service
obligations (i.e., private utility companies which have a franchise or other legal
obligation to provide service within a defined service area).
• Policy 15.2.3 Applications for essential public facilities will be processed through
the unclassified use permit process established in the City's development
regulations. This process shall assure that such facilities are located where
necessary and that they are conditioned as appropriate to mitigate their impacts on
the community.
Staff believes that the Port's proposed amendment is not necessary. Tukwila's plan is
consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and does not preclude the siting of
any EPF.
Impacts
Existing Tukwila policies support siting necessary, properly- conditioned essential public
facilities (EPFs) and appropriate improvements to the region's airports. An amendment
specifying Tukwila's support of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and a third runway
at STIA is unnecessary.
Alternatives
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following:
• reject the proposal
• defer consideration until a later time;
• refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission..
modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission.
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Conunission could:
• recommend approval;
• recommend denial;
• modify the proposal.
-.".
z
a•
.1 1- •
• W,
rt
00.•
w -.
.w
uj
¢:.
a:.
z •
• Z w;.
U p.
Lo
•
w w. •
V:.
z
•
• UNl
z ;.
AUG-14 -97 04:49 PM CPSGMHH 206 3092blib
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
27
28
29
EXHIBIT 4
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PORT OF SEATTLE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
CITY OF DES MOINES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
Case No. 97 -3 -0014
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 14, 1997, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
(the Board) received a Petition for Review (PFR) from the Port of Seattle (the Port)
challenging the comprehensive plan (the Plan) of the City of Des Moines (Des Moines or
the City). The Port alleged that the Plan is not in compliance with the Growth
Management Act (GMA or the Act) because it purports to preclude the expansion of an
essential public facility; violates the property rights goal of the Act; is internally
inconsistent; and is also inconsistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan (County
Plan), the County -wide Planning Policies (KCCPPs) and Multi - County Planning Policies
(M PPs).
On May 5, 1997, the Board received the "Brief of Amiens Puget Sound Regional Council
Regarding Certain Multi County Planning Policy Issues."
On May 30, 1997, the Board issued an "Order on Motions to Supplement" and an "Order
on Dispositive Motions," in which the Board ruled on the motions to supplement, but
declined to rule on the diapositive motions.
On June 4, 1997, the Board received the "City of Des Moines' Motion for
Reconsideration of Board's Order on Motions to Supplement" (City's Motion for
Reconsideration). On the same date, the Board received the "City of Des Moines
Motion to Supplement the Record with Rebuttal Exhibits" (City's Motion to
Supplement the Record with Rebuttal Exhibits).
(,114fdu.duc, 8113197)
97 -3 -0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 1
)
Central Not Sound
Growth Masan/out tt..ri r: Board
2329 One Union Square • 600 University Sirest
Sunk, WA 98101 -1129
(206)369.2625 • Fax: (206)3119 -2588
• z
Z •
'J U:
. UO:
W17:
w =, N
WO
g -J
D.
= a.
•
w
z�:
o
.z I—
ILE
p
U'
1-
W W;
s
U.
. •
N:
z •
AUG .-14 -97 04:49 PM CPSGMHB 206 3892588
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
2a
2S�
26
27
211
29
On June 5, 1997. the Board received from the Port a "Motion to Strike City of Des
Moines' Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Supplement the Record with Rebuttal
Exhibits" (Port's Motion to Strike).
On June 6, 1997, the Board issucd an "Order Granting Port's Motions to Strike" which
granted the Port's Motion to Strike the City's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to
Suppletnent with Rebuttal Exhibits.
On June 16, 1997, the Board received "Petitioner Port of Seattle's Prchcaring Opening
Memorandum" (Port's Prehearing Memorandum).
On June 30, 1997, the Board received the "Brief of Amicus Puget Sound Regional
Council Regarding Port of Seattle's Pre-Hearing Opening Memorandum."
Also on June 30, 1997, the Board received "Respondent City of Dcs Moines' Prchcaring
Brier (City's Response Brief).
On July 7, 1997, the Board received thc "Reply Brief of Amicus PSRC."
On July 8, 1997, thc Board received "Respondent City of Des Moines' Motion To Strike
`Reply Brief Of Amicus PSRC,'" (City's Motion to Strike Reply Brief of PSRC). On
the same date the Board received from the PSRC a "Response To Des Moines' Motion
To Strike Reply Bricf Of Amiens PSRC," and later that same day the Board received
"Port Of Seattle's Opposition To City Of Des Moines' Motion To Strike Reply Brief Of
Amicus PSRC."
On July 9. 1997, the Board held a hearing on the merits in room 5500 of Two Union
Square in Seattle, Washington. board members Joseph W. Tovar, Presiding Officer, and
Chris Smith Towne were present for the Board.' The Port was represented by J. Tayloe
Washburn and the City was represented by John W. Hempelmann. The PSRC was
represented by David A. Bricklin. Court reporting services were provided by Jean M.
Erickscn, RPR, of Robert H. Lewis & Associates, Tacoma. No witnesses testified. As a
preliminary matter, the presiding officer heard argument regarding the City's Motion to
Strike Reply Brief of PSRC, after which he orally denied the motion.' The presiding
officer orally granted leave to the City to file a post - hearing brief. by no latter than July
18, 1997, to respond to issues addressed by PSRC in its "Reply Brief of Amicus PSRC"
and "Brief of Amicus PSRC Regarding Opening Memorandum."
Hoard member Edward G. McGuire reviewed the briefs and exhibits in this matter and read the
transcript of the hearing un the plaits.
2 At the request of the City, Board member Towne absented herself from the hearing room during
argumctt regarding the City's motion and returnee! when Pro:biding Officer Tovar annaunccd his ruling
on the motion. See WAC. 242 -02- 522(5).
(7314fdu.dur; 8/12/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 2
z
~w.
U0
co D.
-J
U) LL
w0
u_j
I- w
z�
1— 0.
Z 1-.
2 o'
00th
0 I-
iw
1— H
u. 0
wz
Ell
z
•
AUG—i4-97 04:59 PM CPSGMHH 286 3894=ao
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
ze
20
On July 18, 1997, the Board received "Respondent City of Des Moines' Post - nearing
Brief In Response To Reply Brief Of Amicus PSRC And Brief Of Amicus PSRC
Regarding Port's Pre - Hearing Opening Memorandum."
On July 28, 1997, the Board received from the Port a copy of Exhibit 163 (PSRC
Resolution A- 91 -01), which was inadvertently omitted from the exhibits filed with the
Board.
On July 29, 1 997, the Board received Amicus PSRC's "Motion to Strike" portions of the
City's July 18 mcmoranduzn (PSRC Motion to Strike).
On July 31, 1997, the Board received " Respondent City of Des Moines' Memorandum in
Opposition to Amicus PSRC's Motion to Strike."
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 25. 1990, the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) passed
Resolution A- 90 -01, adopting VISION 2020: Growth and Transportation Strategy
for thc Central Puget Sound Region. Ex. 133.
2. On October 24, 1991, the.City passed Resolution 667, suthori7.ing execution of the
"Interlocal Agreement for the Regional Planning of the Central Puget Sound Area,"
including the creation -of etcgional planning .agency; the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC). The PSRC is to "ensure implementation in the [central Puget
Sound] region of the provisions of state and federal law which pertain to regional
transportation planning and regional growth management." Ex. 162.
3. On October 21, 1992, thc I.'xecutive Board of the PSRC adopted a PSRC: Action Itcm
affirming that the PSRC "is the governmental agency responsible for meeting thc
requirement in the [GMA1 for multicounty planning policies." Ex. 160(a).
4. On March 11, 1993, the 'PSRC' General Assembly passed Resolution A-93-02,
amending VISION 2020 to include MPPs, for King, Kitsap, Pic-rcc, and Snohomish
Countics. Ex. 174.
5. On May 25, 1995, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 95 -02, adopting the 1995 update to
VISION 2020 and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Ex. 136.
6. On December 7, 1995, the City adopted the Greater Des Moines Comprehensive Plan.
Ex. 160.
7. On July 11, 1996, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 96-02. amending the 1995 MTP'•to•
Include a third runway at Sea Tac International Airport (STIA). Ex. 138.
(7314Jdo.doc, 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 3
.... !
Caatlrnl Puget Sound
Crotib Mtwagsmnt HeatIapt Board
2329 One Union Squat: • 600 Unireraity Stract
wank. WA 93101 -1129
(206)3119 -2625 • Paz: (206)3119 -2511
AUG -14 -97 04:S1 PM CPSGMHB
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
19
21
206 3092506
8. On August 1, 1996, the Port passed Resolution 3212, adopting the Airport Master
Plan Update for STIA. including the development of a third runway, and noise
reduction measures in accordance with PSRC Resolution A- 96 -02, Ex. 140, at 3-4.
9. An 14„ is a unit of measure representing an average day -night noise level typically used
for airport- related noise measurements. See Port's Prehearing Brief, at 40 n.21.
10. The expansion of STIA requires the use of fill dirt. 'Ihc borrow site for this fill-dirt i"
within Des Moines. Consequently, trucks hauling fill-dirt, from the borrow site to
STIA must drive through the City% See Ex. 148 and C:ity's Response Brief, at 16.
11. The City's development code requires trucks used to haul fill dirt through the City to
obtain permits pursuant to local regulations (Chapter 12.04 DMMC). Ex. 148.
111. RULINGS ON MOTIONS
Since they went to the heart of the case, the Board took no action on the two disTositive
motions. Because the Board now addresses the substance of the dispositive motions , the
Hoard will not rule on these motions.
The City's Motion to Dismiss the Reply Brief of PSRC is denied. PSRC's motion for
leave to submit additional briefing is granted.
PSRC's Motion to Strikc is denied.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The City urged the Board to apply Engrossed Senate Bill (ESB) 6094, specifically Section
20. ESI3 6094, Chaptcr 429, Laws of 1997. Section 20 changes the standard of review to
be used by the Boards. The Board takes official notice of ESB 6094, which became
effective on July 27, 1997. Section 53 expressly provides that this new law is prospective
in effect, except for Section 22, which is explicitly retroactive. In other words, the 1997
amendments to the Growth Management Act became effective on July 27, 1997.
The Board obtained jurisdiction to review this dispute whcn the PFR was liked on
24 February 14, 1997. Briefing, pursuant to the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
was received from April 21, 1997, through July 8, 1997.3 The hearing on the merits was
25 held on July 9, 1997. But for the issuance of this final decision and order, all events in this
proceeding occurred prior to July 27. 1997 -- the effective date of ESB 6094.
26
27
28
In addition to the prch wring briers, the City and PSRC filed puss- htstring briefs. See Procedural
29 History.
(7314fdn.dne; !/L3197)
97- 3.1)014 Final Decision and Order
Page 4
... ,,
Caatral Pure Sound
Grmortk Masairenrse fl*arisp Beard
2329 One Union Squats • 600 University Street
Scale, WA 91101-1129
(206)389 -2625 • Fax: (2116)30 -25115
z
tz
6
JU•
Uo
to cp:
w=.
w Qo
LLQ
to a:
• =w
H =
1- o:.
z 1-
i0
wW
--6'
1
z•
• z �1-
•
AUG. -14 -97 04 :51 PM CPSGMHB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
111
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
286 3e92588 _
I1 as the City suggests, the date of issuance of the Board's decision is determinative as to
the law to be applied, the Board could select the law to Apply based upon its desire and
ability to accelerate or delay the issuance of its decision This is an outcome the Board
cannot reach, nor can the Hoard conclude that it is a result the legislature intended.'
Consequently, to give effect to the legislature's clear direction, as contained in Section 53,
the Board has a duty to apply the provisions of the GMA as they existed at the time the
PFR was filed.s
RCW 36.70A.320(1) provides that:
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, comprehensive plans and
development regulations, and amendments thereto, adopted under this chapter arc
presumed valid upon adoption. In any petition under this chapter, the board, after
full consideration of the petition, shall determine whether there is compliance with
the requirements of this chapter. In making its determination, the board shall
consider the criteria adopted by the department under RCW 36.70A.190(4).e
board shall find compliance unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
the _slats agency. county. or ,city erroneously interpreted or applied this chanter.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The Port must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the City erroneously
interpreted or applied thc provisions of the GMA.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS,
The Board's Prehearing Order set forth five Legal Issues. While several of these legal
issues raise significant issues of first impression. the Board finds that, alter answering
Legal Issue 2, it need not, and will not, reach the remaining issucs.6, For the reasons
gear W 7- ' :lature's clear intent to reemphasize the importance of the Boards'
deference to local policy choices and decisions when those choice and decisions comply with thc GMA.
Any actions taken by a local government atter July 27, 1997, including actions taken to comply with a
Board remand order, will be subjc ct to the provisions of ESB 6094. The Board's compliance review of the
remand action in this case will, likewise, be subject to L'SR 6094.
e The other legal issues listed in the Prehearing Order were as follows:
1. Does the City's Plan full to comply with RCW 36.70A.100 because Pion policies (CP) 1 -04-
05, 5- 02 -08, 5- 03 -02, 3- 04 -04, 8-03 -01(2), 1-04- 01(1), 8- 04- O1(1)(c), 8-03- 04(4), 4-04.01, 6.03 -
23, 6-04- 09(4). 6- 04- 09(5), 8- 03 -01(3), 8-03- 02(3), 8- 04- 01(1)(b) and 1 -04 -02(1) are
Inconsittent•with Icing County Comprehensive Plan policies T -101, T-107, F -211, T.540 and
T -542?
3. Does the City's Plan fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.210::
(7J 11Jilu.dor; R/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 5
Cenral Puget Sod
Growth Maageaest Hearings Beard
2329 One Union Square • 600 University Shim
Seattle, WA 91101.1129
(206339 -2625 • Fax: (206)3119454114
AUG.-14 -97 04:52 PM CPSGMHB
206 3992599 P - ICI r
presented below, the Board concludes that Des Moines' comprehensive plan is not in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.200. and it will therefore be remanded and invalidated in
put
'Legal Issue 2
Does the City's Plan fail to comply with RCW M70.4.200 by containing policies and
istrategles which purport to preclude the expansion of Seattle- Taconm International
Airport (STIR) based on the City Plan policies cited above in Legal issue No. 1 and CP
5- 04-04, 6-04-09(4), 6-04- 09(5), 8- 04- 01(1)(b), and 8- O4-02(1)(d)?
DISCUSSION
RCW 36.70A.200 provides:
(1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under this
chapter shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities.
j sscntial public facilities include those facilities that arc typically difficult to site,
such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation
facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and
in- patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and
group homes.
(2) The office of financial management shall maintain a list of those essential state
public facilities that arc required or likely to be built within the next six years. The
3.1 Is the Cip+'s Plan (including all of the CPs listed in These legal issues)
'1Neowsiitent with Ring Costay Cotntywlde.Planning Policies FW -19,
and FW -32?
3.2 Is the City's Plan (including all CPs listed in these legal Issues) .inconslsteal::
with Multi - county . Planning policies (MPPs) adapted by the PSRC and
embodied in the VIS ION, 2020 Regional Growth Strategy and Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP), ineading Ike fallowing MPPs contained in
VISION 2020's 1995 Update adapted an May 25, 1995: RF -3, RC -2.11 and
RT -8.31, and the RTP as implemented and amended by PSRC Rexolution Na
A- 96-02?
4. Does the City's Plan fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.070 because it is iwterwally
inconsistent, including inconsistencies between CP 1 -03 -07, (including all CPs listed In these
legal issues) and CP 1- 04- 05(1); also, is there an inconsistency between CP 3- 02 -04, and CP 5-
04 -04 (as well as all alike CPs listed in these legal issues)?
S. Does the City's Plan fail 10 comply with RCW 36.70.0.020(6) because it contains policies,
including CP 6- 02-04, CP 8 -03 -03 and 8 -04 -03(l)(c), that deprive Ike Port of Seattle of its
• pruperry rights without canslderadon of whether such policies protect property owners from
arbitrary and discriminatory actions?
(7.1I4/Jud.ur; a'I,3N7)
97.3 -0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 6
..
Colors' Puget Snood
Growth M.a.p.ral Owings tlorrd
2329 One Union Square • 600 University Sums
Sm.ttle, WA 98101-1129
(206)389.2625 • Fax: (206)389 2.588
AUG -14 -97 04:53 PM CPSGMH73
10
11
12
13
It
15
to
17
18
19
20
21
22
21
24
27
2K
2`►
LOO
office of financial management may at any time add facilities to the list. 110 focal
gaminghgasive plan or development„ �egtiAtion may preclude the siting of essential
public facilities. (Emphasis added.)'
-There arc two dagsimposed on the City under RCW 36.70A.200: a duty to adopt in its
Plan a process to site essential public facilities (EPFs), and a duty not to preclude their
siting in its Plan or implementing development regulationa...ln .this case, the question is .,
whether 1)es Moines' ' it a to amend its Plan in recognition of the third runway at STIR,
and thereby retsina' certain Plan policies, precludes the siting of an EPIC. But first, the
Board must determine whether the expansion of an existing EPF is protected.by RCW
36.7UA.200.
Airports are specifically identified as EPTs. There is no credible argument that an existing
F.PF, such as STIA, is not an EPF, even though it predates the CiMA. In addition, there is
no credible argument that expansion of an existing F.PF is not within the scope of RCW
36.70A.200. Further, there is nothing in the language of .200 to justify distinguishing
between expulsion of an existing EPF and a new EPF. Indeed, the present dispute is
evidence that it is no less difficult to site the expansion of an existing EPF than it is to site
a new EPF. Nor does the language of .200 suggest that a city's comprehensive plan is
prohibited only from precluding F.PFs within its jurisdiction. Likewise, .200 does not
support the notion of precluding necessary support activities for thc expansion of the }?P):
that occur within the city's jurisdiction. The Board holds that the expansion of. . an ,
existing EPF, including necessary support activities associated with that expansion,
is protected by RCW 36.70A.200.
The Port does not challenge a specific City action; instead, thc Port charges that the City's
failure to ,aviolates the GMA.- Specifically, thc Port asserts that the City failed to amend
its Plan in response to the PSRC's regional decision to expand STIA by adding a third
runway.
Where a petitioner has proposcd a comprehensive plan amendment to a local government
and that local government declines to adopt the proposed amendment, the Board has
found in favor of the local government See Cole v. Pierce County [Cole], CPSGMHB
Case No. 96 -3 -0009, Final Decision and Order (1996). Cole argued, among other things,
that his proposcd amendment would "correct" a GMA detect in Pierce County's plan. Id.
at 9. The Board rejected Cole's appeal, holding "that the actions challenged in Cole's
petition were not taken in response to a GMA duty to act by a certain deadline, or
in response to any other duty imposed by the act ...." Id., at 10.11.
In Children s Alliance v. City ►f Bellevue [Children's Alliance], the Hoard noted that it would regard
the last sentence of RCW 36.70A.200(2) as a third sub c iat of .200. CPSGMHB Case Nu. 95 -3 -0011,
Final Decision and Order (July 25. 1995). at 17.
(7314fdo.dac; N!13197)
97 4-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 7
... ..... '
AUG -14 -97 04:54 PM CPSGMHB
206 3092566 ..—
The present case is unitkce Cole. Here, there is a GMA duty -- the duty not to preclude
EPFs. RCW 36.70A.200(2). Although the City's Plan may net have conflicted with
.200(2) when the Plan was originally adopted, thc subsequent regional decision to expand
an EPF, STIA, requires the City to re- evaluate its flats to determine if it still complies with
.200(2).
s
When Des Moines adopted its Plan in December 1995, there was no regional decision to
6 expand STIA. however, the PSRC passed Resolution A- 96-02, amending the MTP to
include a third runway at STIA, on July 11, 1996. Plc:City's duty-to comply with the
GMA in the 'context of the decision to expand an essential public facility (STIA) . was
triggered win -t+ *SRC nassed Resolution 4;26 -02.- RCW 36.70A.200 imposes a duty
9 requiring the City's Plan not to preclude essential public facilities, even when the decision
regarding the essential public facility was made subsequent to the initial adoption of thc
10 Plan.
11 In Children's Alliance, the ;Board • defined, .. preclude? as:, `render impossible or
12 impracticable. " Children's Alliance, at 19. "Im Mietietabtc'' is defined as "not practicable:
incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command."
13 Merriam Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary 584 (10i1' cd. 1996). In ether words, the City's
14 Plan need not make it impossible to build the third runway in order to violate the GMA. ?lf,
the City's Plan has the effect of making the. expansion incapable of being accomplished by,_
1s the means at thc Port's command, then the Plan is• in violation of the:GMA. •
16 The Board bolds that a Local government plan may not, through policies or strategy
17 directives, effectively preclude the siting or expansion of an EPF, including its
necessary support activities.
Is
The City of Des Moines Comprehensive Phan contains a number of policies that the Port
19 alleges are not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.200. These include policies 1- 04 -05, 5-
20 , 02 -08, 5- 03 -02, 5-04-04, 8 -03- 01(2), 8 -04- 01(1), 8- 04- 01(1)(c), 8 -03- 04(4), 4- 04 -01, 6-
03-23, 6-04- 09(4), 6-04- 09(5), 8 -03- 01(3), 8 -03- 02(3), 8- 04- 01(1)(b) and 8 -04- 02(1).
21 • See Port's Preheating Memorandum, at p. 4 and 37 - 40.
The City's Plan contains four categories of policies: Goals, Findings, Policies, and
zs
Strategies. The policies relevant here are:
24 Finding 5- 02 -08: The siting, construction, and operation of public facilities and
zs utilities has sometimes resulted in adverse impacts upon nearby properties and the
natural environment. The City currently accepts more than its fair share of
i adverse impacts associated with air transportation; to allow any increase in those
impacts would require that Des Moines accept an even greater disproportionate
27 share of those impacts. (Emphasis added.)
24
Finding 7- 02 -08: Much of Des Moincs is impacted by aircraft noise related to
29 Sca-Tac international Airport (STIA). Virtually all of the Des Moines Planning
(7314fta.doe: 8113,97)
973-0014 Final Decision and Order
Pap 8
•
Central Puget Snood
Growth Maaa*esseat tiesriap Board
2329 One Union square • 600 University sueet
Seanlc. WA 9M01 -1129
(206)389.2625 • Fax: (20613119-23116
AUG -14 -97 04 :54 PM CPSGMHB 206 30v:cos,a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Area is within the 65 L,,, noise contour, and large portions of the Planning Area
are within the 70 or 75 Lan noise contour (STIA Existing Noise Exposure Map,
1991).... (Emphasis added.)
Policy 5- 03 -02: When not against the City's interests, Dcs Moines should
promote cooperative working relationships between Des Moines and the other a
municipalities, agencies and districts identified in this 'Comprehensive Plan. x z
(Emphasis added.) re 6
Policy 8- 03 -01: Residential Neighborhood Preservation: ... (2) Develop plans, j o
land use regulations and review procedures to preserve and protect designated : co W
residential communities from inconsistent and incompatible land uses which iii i
threaten to undermine their stability and their residential character. (chapter 18.02 co o
DMMC :, chapter 18.38 DMMC) w �.
Strategy 1- 04 -05: Intergovernmental Cciclperltion/Annexatli�n: (1) . . . When j
decisions are made by state, county, regional agencies, tribes, or special purpose = a
districts, and those decisions are clearly in the best interests of the state, county 1— _
or region, take appropriate measures to implement those decisions within Des Z
Moines and the Planning Arca, unless the decisions unfairly or negatively affect I-- O
the residents or businesses in the Dec Moines area. (Emphasis added.) 2 D.
U Ca.
Strategy 5- 04 -04: ... Adopt development regulations as needed that provide a 0 �'
process for the identification and possible siting of essential public facilities. w W
Cooperatively work with surrounding municipalities and King County during the 2.
siting and development of facilities of regional significance. Oppose new faellltles 11-- co
associated with Sea -Tac International Airport that increase adverse impacts I. • lid z.
P-
the City of Des Moines. (Emphasis added.) o 1
z
Strategy 6- 04 -09: In order to protect and preserve park and recreation areas Des
Moines should: ... (4) Oppose proposed land use and transportation facilities
that would subject park and recreation areas of local significance (except golf
courscs, ball fields, outdoor spectator sports areas, amuscmcnt areas, riding
stables, nature trails and wildlife refuges) to exterior noise exposure levels which`
exceed 55 Ls, or the lam level existing as of the effective date of this Element, •
whichever is greater. A reduction in the exterior noise level (greater than 55 74
dBA) that existed as of April 20, 1995 shall become the new maximum exterior
noise level. (chapter 18.38 DMMC). (Emphasis added.)
Strategy 6- 04-09: In order to protect and preserve park and recreation areas Des
Moines should: ... (5) Oppose proposed land use and transportation facilities
that would subject locally significant golf courses, hall fields, outdoor spectator
sports areas, amusement areas. riding stables, nature trails, and wildlife refuges
to exterior noise exposure levels which exceed an Ls, of 60 dBA, or the L,,, level
existing as opine effective date of this Element. whichever is greater. A reduction
(7214fda.doc; 11/12197)
973 -0011 Final Decision and Order
Page 9
�
Casual Puget Sound
Growth Manasaatart tlearimis Beard
2329 pas Union Square • 600 U uvcniity Suoet
Swink. WA 95101 -1129
(206)3119 -2625 • Fax: (206)359 -2555
AUG -14 -97 04:55 PM CPSGMHH 206 3892588
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
19
in the exterior noise level (greater than 60 dBA) that existed as of April 20, 1995
shall become the new marimum exterior noise level. (chapter 18.38 DMMC).
(Emphasis added.)
Strategy 8 -04-01: Residential Neighborhood Protection: (1) Protect and preserve
residential neighborhoods by: . . . (h) Opposing land use changes and
infrastructure improvements that would subject residential neighborhoods to
environmental noise exposure levels which exceed an Lm► of 55 dBA, or existing
levels as of April 20, 1995, whichever is greater. (chapter 18.38 DMMC).
( Emphasis added.)
Strategy 8- 04-01; residential Neighborhood Protection: (1) Protect and preserve
residential neighborhoods by:... (c) Adopting weight limits and maximum noise
levels for commercial trucks on surface streets in residential neighborhoods to
ensure that non- routine commercial traffic does not damage residential roads. or
subject the neighborhood to unusual congestion and noisy street traffic. (chapter
7.16 DMMC, chapter 10.28 1)MMC, chapter 12.04 DMMC). (Emphasis added.)
Strategy 8- 04 -02: Historic Preservation: (1) Protect and preserve historic
properties and archeological sites by . . . (d) Opposing land use and
transportation proposals that would subject historic and archeological sites of
local significance to environmental noise exposure levels of Lb, of 65 d8A, or
existing levels as of April 20, 1995, whichever is higher. A reduction in the
environmental. noise level (greater than 65 Ld) that existed as of April 20, 1995
should become the new maximum environmental level. (Emphasis added.)
According to flan Finding 5- 02 -08, the City has "accepted more than its fair share of
adverse impacts" associated with ST1A. pny increase in these adverse impacts would
require the City to "accept an even greater disproportionate share." This Finding or "fact"
assists thc Board in interpreting Plan Strategies 1- 04- 05(1), 5- 04-04, and 8- 04- 01(1)(c).
21 Strategy 1 -04 -05(1) directs the City to implement regional decisions "clearly in the best
interests of the state, county, or region ... unless the decisions unfairly or negatively
affect" the City. There is no ucstion that the ex arasion_of -STIR. multi have some
adverse impacts on the City.L jonet ess _impacts could be minimized or mitigutecL
'Since Finding 5 -02 -08 makes it clear that expansion of STIA will unfairly or negatively'
14 affect the City, Strom 1 -04 -05(1) can only be read to mean that the City will not take
u measurca toJplament the renionalskeision to eispat 1A._
26 Further, Strategy 5 -04 -04 states the City's intent to opposc new facilities at STIA "that
increase adverse impacts on the City." Reading this Strategy together with Finding 5 -02-
27 08 leads to the conclusion that y action causing adverse impact on the City, however
28 slight, will result in the City's opposition. It is significant that nothing in thc challenged
policies cited above talks about mitigation: the.languagc used is "oppose.' In its brief, the
Z9 City stated "['f )he City's opposition to the third runway is conditioned on unmitigated
(7114fdo.doc; 8112/97)
97-3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 10
.. ^)?£
,
Cenral Puget Sormd
canals Manaaawast IIeariass Dowd
2129 One Union Square • 60(1 liniversley £truc4
Sunk., WA 91101 -1129
(206)389.2623 • Fax: (206)389 -25D
AUG -14 -97 04:56 PM CPSGMHB 286 SI:17too
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
impacts." City's Response Brief, at 46. However, the City cites to no Plan policy to
support its argument, nor could the Board find support for this as enion in the City's Plan.
The Plan expresses the City's clear intent to exercise its municipal authority to prevent
expansion of ST1A, not to mitigate its impacts!
Finally, Finding 5 -02 -08 provides direction to thc City in carrying out Strategy 8 -04
01(1)(c), which directs the City to limit weight and noise levels of commercial trucks
through residential neighborhoods. This Strategy citcs to three chapters of the City's
municipal code, one of which (chapter 12.04 DMMC) the City asserts requires trucks
hauling fill for STIA expansion to obtain City permits. Ex. 148. Since the COMA requires
the City to exercise the permit discretion of chapter 12.04 DMMC consistent with the
Strategies and Findings of its Plan,,ithe clear effect of the direction of these Plan policies
'=will be te(picvcri�„rr of mitigate, expansion of STIA.f
Strategy 5 -04-04 directs thc City to "[ o]ppose new facilities associated with Sea -'!'ac
International Airport that increase adverse impacts to the City of Des Moines." Since
expansion of STIA will have adverse impacts to the City, this Strategy is particularly
instructive in reading Strategies 1 -04- 05(1), 8- 04- 01(1)(b), 8- 04 -01(1)(c), and 8-04 -
02(1)(d). Reading these Plan provisions as a whole, thc City will oppose expansion of
STIA because it `unfairly or negatively affect [sr the City (1-04- 05(1)), and because it
would increase environmental noise exposure levels (8- 04- 01(1Xb) and (c), and 8-04 -
02(1)(d)). These Plan provisions do not allow necessary support activities, such as fill dirt
hauling, that are necessary for expansion of STIA.
in a earlier EPF case doling with a transportation. facility, the Board observed that RCW 36.70A.200
does not prevent a local government from identifying in its plan appropriate and reasonable provisions for
mitigation. In ffapsntilh v. City ofAwbuns [H.pr„rfraj, CPSCMHB Case No. 95-3-0075c. Final Decision
and Order (May 10, 1996), the Hoard stated:
Regardless of whether the MTP or the Preliminary WSDO1' Plan explicitly names the Auburn
Railyard as a site for an uttatnudal facility serving the Potts of Tacxima and Seattle and much of
Western Washington, all the evidence before the Board indicates that the City must plan for this
eventuality.
At thc same time, the City has made a number of credible points about the serious localized
consequences of siting an essential public facility such as BNSC has dwcaiboxl fur its prupcxty.
Thc Board has also concluded that the Special Planning Area dosibnatiun for the Railyard is an
innovative comprehensive plan technique authurizcd by RCW 36.70A.090 to enable the City to
articulate its legitimate site and off-site issues in thc form of a more detailed localized planning
document. Thc planning process described by the City in its briefing and in the Plan itself (Plan.
at 14 -16 to 14-1g) provides the opportunity fur the concerned state, regional and local agencies to
craft appropriate site design standards and identify the nc css ary infrastructure improvements
and mitigation. Such a planning process provides a reasonable framework for the City to
articulate its legitimate concerns, and for ether public agencies and the Railroad to respect and
creatively respond to those concerns. Hapsmirh, at 33.
(7J14fdu4nct 8'13N7)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 11
Central Peet Sand
Growls Ma.ia eaatnt Marini" Ward
2329 ore Uuiun Square • Bt10 llnivanisy Strain
Spank. WA 98101.1129
(206)389 2625 • Fix; (206)389 -2581
AUG -14 -97 04:57 PM CPSGMHB 206 3892588
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
2e
29
The City's Plan also includes a Finding that indirectly affects expansion of STIA.
According to Plan Finding 7- 02 -08. virtually all of the City is within the 65 L,,„ noise
contour. This Finding illuminates Strategies 6-04- 09(4), 6- 04- 09(5), 8- 04- 01(1)(b), and
8- 04-02(1). All of these Strategies direct the City to oppose land use changes and
transportation facilities or infrastructure improvements that will result in noise of 55, GU,
or 65 Ldn, or `existing levels as of April 20, 1995.'y9 Must of these Strategies provide that,
thc environmental noise level declines, the new, lower level will become the maximum
allowable. The Board notes that the ambient noisc levels, as found by the City in 7- 02 -08,
already exceed the numerical limits of these Strategics; therefore, the practical effect of
these Strategics is to make thc maximum noise level that level existing as of April 20,
1995. Although the City may certainly impose reasonable mitigating conditions on H PFs,
or necessary support activities if thc F.PF itself is not within the City's jurisdiction, these
particular Plan provisions direct the City to prohibit i>rz increase in environmental noise.
The obvious effect of these Plan provisions will be to prevent the excavation and fill dirt
hauling support activities associated with expansion of STIA.
The GMA made comprehensive plans binding documcnts. See RCW 36.70A.040; sec
also, Snoqualmie v. King County, CPSGPHB Case No. 92 -3 -0004, Final Decision and
Order (March 1, 1993), at 15. The City is bound to implement the policy provisions it
includes in its Plan. The Plan Findings, Policies, and Strategies identified by the Port
require the City to oppose activities related to the expansion of STIA. Although thc
City's jurisdiction is limited to its city limits, clearly the Plan directs the City to oppose
those necessary support activities for the expansion of STIA within its limits. See City's
Response Brief, at 16. The expansion of STIA requires a large volume of fill dirt. The
borrow site for the project is within I)es Moines and trucks hauling this rill dirt must travel
within thc City limits. The City's Plan, particularly Strategies 1 -04-05 and 5- 04 -04,
obligates the City to oppose necessary support activities, such as the excavation and
hauling operations. The Board holds that thc City's Plan does not comply with RCW
36.70A.200 and will preclude expansion of STiA.
CO$CLUSION NO. Z
The City's Plan does not comply with RCW 36.70A.200 because it precludes the
expansion of STIA, an essential public facility.
iNVALIDITY
The Board specifically finis that Paul policies 1 -04 -05 and 5- 04 -04, by precluding the
siting of an essential public facility, substantially interferes with the fulfillment of RCW
36.70A.020(3), which provides:
' The record does not reveal the existing noise levels on April 20, 1995.
(7314fdo.dac; 8113197)
97 -3-0014 Final Decision and Order
• Pagc 12
r
Cameral r4[ot Sound
Growth Massageaseat U..iiap board
2329 Ow Utica Square • 600 University Strad
Statue. WA 98101-1129
(206)389 -2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2588
z
w'.
re 6
JU
0 00 •
cn w
11.1
=.
1-
w.
wO
2
cn =d
f_ w
1- O.
w F- uj
0'
o N:
o I--,
W W:
—O
wz
Uco
O
z
AUG -14 -97 04 :57 PM CPSGMHB
10
11
12
13
1s
15
16
17
11
206 30925$b
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are
based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive
plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3).
These Plan policies substantially interfere with thc fulfillment of RCW 36.70A.020(3)
because they preclude the expansion of STIA, a regional transportation priority, and an
essential public facility.
VI. ORDER
Having reviewed and considered the above - referenced documents, having considered the
arguments of the parties, and having deliberated on the matter, thc Board finds that thc
Des Moines Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.200. Because
policies 1 -04 -05 and 5 -04 -04 purport to preclude the expansion of an essential public
facility, namely, Seattle Tacoma international Airport. and such preclusion would
substantially interfere with the fulfillment of RCW 36.70A.020(3), these policies are
invalid.
The Plan is remanded to the City and it is instructed to bring the Plan into compliance with
RCW 36.70A.200 by no later than Monday, December 15, 1997, in order to achieve
compliance with this Order and the GMA. In amending the plan to address the invalidated
policies. the City will, pursuant to the Act, be required to maintain internal plan
consistency. Thus, other related policies may need to be amended.
The City is further instructed to file with the Board, and provide a copy to both the Port
and Amiens PSRC, a Statement of Actions Taken to Comply, by no later than 4:30 p.m.
on Monday, December 29, 1997. The Board will then promptly schedule a compliance
hearing.
21
24
25
27
2r
29
(7a 14fln doe; RI! 319 ?)
97-3-0014 Final Decieion and Order
Page 13
z
z ,.
,„ w.
00
to o'
w ='
w0
a,
w'
z1._
1-0'
z 1-
w ur
2
U13.
oF-
'w w'
1— U
,
O.
ti.i
w Ni
1= I
0
z
AUG -14 -97 04:58 PM CPSGMHB 206 3892588
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
21
14
23
2e
27
2$
29
So ORDERED this 13th day of August, 1 997.
CENTRAL PUGET SOIJNT) CfROWTH MANAGF.MENT HEARINGS BOARD
Edward G. McGuire, AICP
Bo -dM r
ovar, AICP
ember
(Board Member Tover filed a concurring opinion)
.001";
Chris Smith Towne
Board Member
Note: This Final Decision and Order constitutes a final order as specified by RCW
36.70A.300 unless a party files a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to WAC 242 -02-
830.
Board Member Tovar's Coneurrine Opinion
I concur with thc majority in disposing of this case in resolving Legal Issue 2 - finding that
the City's Plan fails to comply with RCW 36.70A.200. However. unlike my colleagues, I
would also have reached Legal Issue 3 - the allegation that Des Moines' Plan fails to
comply with RCW 36.70A.210 because the challenged City policies are inconsistent with
countywide planning policies and multicounty planning policies. Notwithstanding
principles of judicial economy, I believe that the controversy at the core of Legal Issue 3 is
a matter of significant public interest that can and should be reached. In my judgment, the
same policies that the Board finds violate RCW 36.70A.200 also fail to comply with RCW
36.70A.210 because they are inconsistent, to varying degrees, with the King County
Comprehensive Plan and the King County County -wide Planning Policies, as well as the
multicounty planning policies fclr the Central Puget Sound Region.
Many allegations were made by the Port regarding the inconsistencies between thc City
policies and various policies from these regional documents. Des Moines variously argued
that there was no inconsistency between city and regional policies (City Response Brief, at
21-42), that various regional policy documents were unlawfully enacted and thus have no
effect (City Response Brief, at 9 -12), and that, in any case, there is no directive
relationship between region] policies and a city plan (City Response Brief, at 49 -57).
(711Jfdn.doc; W1!."J7)
97-34014 Final Decision and Order
Page 14
Cameral Pogo Cored
Growth Ktusseesevesel llerrirp Boned
2329 one Union Squaw • 600 University Sweet
sessile, WA 96101-1129
(206)369 2625 • Fax: (206)389 -2568
AUG -14 -97 04:59 PM CPSGMHB 206 38925aes
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
At the hearing on the merits, the City summarized its position by stating that, rather than a
"coercive" hierarchy. the GMA " entihrine[sl the political ethic and the legal history of our
region in saying that in this part of thc country we do operate through collaboration,
cooperation and consensus building." Transcript of l learing on the Merits, July 9, 1997,
at 77. Des Moines insists that there is no hierarchy of policy authorized or required by the
GMA and that there is no support for the proposition that a city plan must yield to a
county -wide planning policy, let alone a mutticounty planning policy. City's Response
Brief, at 49 -56. To thc extent that the Port relics on Board holdings to this effect in past
cases, such as S'nnqualmie, Edmonds and Aagaard,l ° thc City argues that these readings
10In its first CPP case, the Board examined the purpose, nature and affect of CPPs. in Snoqualnrie v. King
County %SnoqualmieJ, CPSGMI ID Case No. 92 -3 -0004, Final Decision and Order (March 1, 1993), the
Board concluded:
The requirement that plans be coordinated suggests the need to jointly decide upon procedural
matters such as schedule, formats. common data base and methods for commtuhicatiol.
However, RCW 36.70A.100 requires not just (=ordination but also consistency. To achieve the
consistency requirement of the GMA requires more than simply a coordination of the mechanics
of procxss, but rather a substantive and directive relationship between the policies in the CPPs
and the policies in the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Therefore, the Board
concludes that the effect of the CPPs is both procedural and substantive.
Further, the Board observes that the CPPs provide substantive direction, not to development
regulations, but rather tp the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Thus, the consistency
requiral by RCW 36.70A. 100 and KCW 36.70A.210 is an external consistency between
comprehensive plans. The CPPs do NOT speak directly to the implementing hind use regulations .
of cities and counties. Thus. the Board concludes that the requirement for consistency in RCW
36.70A.100 and .210 does not require an alterati9nosl j ang unse powers of cities. snug: auntie,
at 15.16. Emphasis added.
The Board clarified the new GMA-mated reality in a 1993 case, City of Edmunds and City of Lynnwood
v. Snohomish County (Edmonds], CPSGMHB Case No. 93 -3 -0005, Final Decision and Order (October 9,
1993):
To conclude that each of those low) governments retains the full range of its pre -GMA land use
prerogatives would perpetuate balkanized self-interest and thwart the Legislature's clear direction to
take decisive regional action to limit sprawl, site needed facilities, meet pressing human needs,
protect thc environment and sustain economic development. See RCW 36.70A.010 and RCW
36.70A.020.
The broadened perspective that permeates the Act inenns that local governments, particularly cities,
must include a regional perspective in the making of their plans, indeed, in the definition of their
responsibilities to plan fur the future. The "land use Dowers of cities" cannot be construed in such a
way as to allow a city to deny its regional context ur shirk its regional responsibilities. Edmonds, at
27 -28. F.mphasis added.
In 1995, the Board summarized the relationship among the goals of the GMA, policies in regional policy
dueumcnts, and city plans. In Aagaard, et al., v. City of Bothell Maraud], CPSGMHB Case No. 94 -3-
0011,Final Decision and Order (July 21. 1993), the Hoard stated:
Thus, thc decision - making regime under GMA is a cascading hierarchy of substantive and
dircctiv_c.policy, flowing first from the planning goals to the policy documents of counties end
cities (such as CPPs, 111GAic and comprehensive plans), then between certain policy dneuments
(73 14fdo.do c: 8/13/97)
97- 3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 15
Central Hraat Snead
(:ruu44 Maaolr eeat tlserings [bard
2729 One Union Square • 600 University Street
Seaule, WA 91101 -1129
(306)319 -2623 • Fat: (206)359 -MU
•
AUG -14 -97 04:59 PM CPSGMHB 206 3892588
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
21
25
26
27
29
of the Act have been `balled into question" by Posiemo v, Snohomish County (Poslemai
83 Wn. App. 574 (September 9, 1996), review denied, 131 Wn.2d 1019 (April 4, 1997).
City Response Brief, at 56-57.
The City's argwncnts describe a universe in which each city is, in effect, sovereign because
each city has the authority to accept only those regional policy decisions that it deems to
be `fair" and "not against the interests" of that city. In such a city - centered universe, a
city plan is not obligated to yield to a regional" decision adopted pursuant w RCW
36.70A.210, regardless of whether or not such a regional policy decision is unambiguous.,
explicitly directive, and lawfully adopted. While such a city - centered universe may or may
not have ever existed in the past, or may exist in a county with only a single incorporated
city12, it certainly does not exist now in the Central Puget Sound Region. The great
number of local governments13 and . population density" of this metropolitan region,
particularly in view of the tremendous population and employment growth currently
underway, make the notion of absolute city "sovereignty" archaic. If commonly held and
acted upon by the four counties and seventy -eight cities in this region, such a notion
would perpetuate the type of "uncoordinated and unplanned growth" that the GMA
identified as a "threat to the environment [and] sustainable economic development" of this
state. RCW 36.70A.010.
(such as from CPI's to MGM and from CPPs and IUGAs jp comprehensive plans), and finally
from comprehensive plans to development regulations, capital budget decisions and other
activities of cities and counties. Aagaurd, at 6. Emphasis added.
11 "Regional" in the context of the GMA means either a cxunty or two or more contiguous counties. RCW
36.70 &210(l) and (7).
'2 ltt the State of Washington, Mire are a number of counties planning under the GMA that have only one
city: Ferry, Garfield, Jefferson, Mascot and San Juan. None of these counties is in the Central Puget
Sound Region. Washington State Data Book, 1995.
"There are at present four counties and 78 cities in the Canes] Puget Sound region. Washington State
Department of Community. Trade and Economic Development, "Growth Management - It's Beginning to
Take Shape," Olympia, WA. January 1997, at 9. This does not include the cities of Maple Valley and
Covington, where incorporation has been approved by the voters, but the effective date of the
incorporation has not yet arrived.
1• The population density of the Central Puget Sound region is 12 times that of the balance of the state. in
a 1995 case. the Board took official notice of the July 6 1995, Correction Release of the Washington
State Office of Financial Management's April 1, 1995, Populations of Cities, Towns and Counties used
for the Allocation of State Revenues. According to the counts. the four counties of the Central Puget
Sound Region then contained 3,020,000 people (approximately 56 percent of the state's population) in
6.287 square miles (approximately 9.4 percent of the total arca of the state) for a regional population
density of 480 people per square mile. The balance of the population (2,409,900 people) on the remaining
land area of (fie slate (60,295 square miles) then equaled a population density of 40 people per square
mile. Bremerton v. Kitsap Cotmry, C:1'SGM11D Case No. 95-3-0039. Final Decision and Orolcr, October
9, 1995, at 29, fn. 12.
(731400.dtn; 8/13/97)
97 -3 -0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 16
r- Ai
Coral Pty c Sound
Growth Maaagaamt Heae4$s loud
2329 One Union Square • 600 Univwdty Suva*
Sunk. WA 96101.1129
(206)369 -2625 • Fax: (206)3119.2SStt
AUG -i4 -97 05:00 PM CPSGMH$ 206 3tow.e=wo
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
25
29
The legislature is presumed to be aware of the Snoqualmie, Edmonds, and Aagaard
decisions. While the legislature has amended the t",MA many times and has had the
opportunity to provide legislative correction to the interpretations that this Board has
given to RCW 36.70A.210 in these casts, it is significant that the legislature has never
done so. In fact, the legislature has made no substantive revisions to RCW 36.70A.210
since it created that section in 1991." Therefore, I can only conclude that the legislature
agrees with the Board's interpretations of the Act in the above cited cases - that RCW
36.708.100 requires coordination and consistency between and among county and city
plans, that CPPs adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 provides the mechanism to
achieve that coordination and consistency, and that in order to do so, CPPs must have a
substantive and directive effect on the comprehensive plans ofcities.1'
Even in the most recent session, the legislature relied upon thc substantive and directive
authority of CPPs to carry out the important task of monitoring land use within the urban
growth areas for thc purposes of determining what, if any, actions are necessary to assure
that adequate land supply remains available to accommodate expected population growth.
While Des Moines called thc Board's attention to a portion of Sec. 25 of kiSii 6094 in
support of its "collabcirate and coordinatc - but don't coerce" theory (City's Response
Brief at 15 -16), a closer inspection of the entirety of this section leads to the opposite
conclusion. It is true that this section directs citics and counties to work together in a
cooperative fashion. However, this simply mirrors the language of RCW 36.70A.210 by
stating that a "county shall adopt, in consultation with its cities, county -wide planning
policies to establish a review and evaluation program." ESB 6094, Sec. 25 (1). The
emphasized language unmistakably says that, while the county has a GMA duty to consult
with the cities, it still has the sole authority to adopt these new CPPs.
While recognizing that "consultation" is essential, the legislature requires more than simply
process and dialogue without ultimate closure. The fmal subparagraph of Section 25
states that, atter a cooperative consultative process including the cities, the county "if
necessary, ('shall] adopt amendments to county -wide planning policies to increase
consistency." Section 25 (4). ESB 6094. The directiveness of these action verbs (shall
adopt ... increase consistency) reveals legislative intent that cities and counties are to do
more than simply engage in an idle process. Rather, this statutory language provides
direction to local governments to achieve resuits.
15 RCW 36.70A.210 was created in 1991. ReSHB 1025 § 2. This section
amended by the legislature. Deadluies for adoption of CPI's were changed
the name of the growth planning hearings board was ebangcd to the growth
in 1994. (1994 c 249 § 28; 1993 sp.s. c 6 § 4; 1991 sp.s. a 32 § 2.]
e` The Board has recognized that theme= abstract CPPs are, the more room
Sec Snoqualmie, at 13. In addition, there are limitations on the substantive
at 18-19. Sec also, F,dinonds. at 29 -31.
(7314fdo.doc: 8/13197)
974 -0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 17
:
has never been substantively
by amendments in 1993 and
management hearings board
will be left for interpretation.
effect of CPPs. Snoqualmie,
Curd Puget Sound
I:nrwtt, M i, *r.d II•oriugs Hoard
2329 On• Union Square • 600 University Sweet
9ewnte. WA 95101 1129
(206)389 -2625 • F. ::(206)389 2588
AUG -14 -97 05:01 PM CPSGMHS
1
2
3
4
6
7
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
206 3892588 P.1w
Inevitably, at some point in these iterative and interactive dialogues, a decision needs to be
rendered by the county and. when necessary. the county needs to take action "to increase
consistency." Section 25 of ESII 6094 describes a process that recognizes the county's
rolc as a regional government responsible for the long -term viability of the UGA. For a
county to discharge this duty requires tlx: CPPs to constitute more than the voluntary and
advisory process that Des Moines suggests in its arguments. This conclusion is consistent
with prior Board holdings regarding the duty of city comprehensive plans to be consistent
with CPPs. Unless and until either thc legislature or the courts explicitly address the
matter of the relationship between lawfully adopted, unambiguous CPPs and city plans and
provide explicit direction to the contrary, the Board's holdings to date on this subject
retain their vitality.17
In conclusion, 1 agrce with the City that "collaboration, cooperation and consensus
building" arc good things and that they are part of the "history" of our region. Ilowever,
these principles arc not "enshrined" in the GMA. The City has no explicit GMA duty to
. "collaborate" or "build consensus;" however, it does have an explicit GMA duty to
achieve "coordination and consistency" with the plans of others as to regional issues.
RCW 36.70A.100. The fatal flaw in Des Moines' reading of the Act is that it fails to
acknowledge and meet this most fundamental and important GMA duty- consistency with
regional policies that address regional issues.
is The regional policies adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 provide the GMA's
16 mechanism to achieve this consistency. Absent an effective mechanism to adopt and
enforce regional policies, whether those be the location or capacity of UGAs, allocation of
17 a fair share of various typcs of housing, siting of essential public facilities, or location of
1i regional transportation improvements, the Central Puget Sound region would continue to
suffer from balkanized decision- making and ultlnct regional needs. In short, this region
tta would be captive to the inefficient and uncoordinated land use decision - making of Des
Moines' imagined past - a regime that it mistakenly believes thc GMA now enshrines.
20 After a review of thc record and the argument in this case, I am left with the firm
21 conviction that the City has erroneously interpreted the Act. Des Moines has failed to
acknowledge its duty under RCW 36.70A.100 and RCW 36.70A.210 to achieve
22 consistency with regional policy documents, and its Plan breaches that duty.
23
24
17 As to the City's arguments regarding the Pasiema decision, I note that the court addressed only one
25 issue - whether RCW 36.70A.210 creetec a ri giunal guvcxrtmcnt that violatm the principle of unc person,
one vote." 83 Wn. App., at 580. To decide this issue, the court looked at the scope of powers of "an
26 informal intergovernmental planning group" which was tasked by Snohomish County to draft CPI's. id.,
27 at 578. Thc court recognized that the group's draft policies were not binding and that KCW 36.70A.210
did not vest this group with governmental puwta5. ld., at 582 -583. Thc court expressly declined to decide
whether RCW 36.70A.210 enwes a hierarchy of authority giving CPI's the power to "trump" city policies,
because there was no actual controversy on that issue in Posrema. Id., at 584.
29
(7314fde.dnc; 8/13/97)
97 -3-0014 Final Decision and Order
Page 18
.' .
C 1rai VLpt S. d
Crowth Maoagatartat liseriugs Board
2.129 One Uninn Square • 600 University Street
Seattle. WA 91101.1129
(206)389 -262.5 • Fs :: (206)389-25U
AUG -14 -97 05:02 PM CPSGMHB
206 SttyL0ev
2
3
4
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IIEARINGS BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
S PORT OF SEATTLE, a Washington
municipal corporation,
6
7
9
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF DES MOINES, a municipal
10 corporation,
11
12
13
14 1. 1 am an employee of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board, a United States Citizen, over the age of eighteen years, and am competent to
15 testify to the mattcrs set forth herein.
Rcspondent.
Case No. 97 -3 -0014
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
1, Patience W. Jones, being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say:
16
2. On August 13, 1997, and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Final
17 Decision and Order to be served upon:
18
19
20
Petitioner Port of Seattle:
Linda J. Strout
Port of Seattle Legal Department
2711 Alaskan Way
21 I POB 1209
Seattle, WA 98121
Tel/Fax: Unknown
22
23
24
25.
26
27.
28
29
(4-By United States Mail
ragal
Petitioner Represented By:
J. Tayloe Washburn and
Richard Settle
Foster Pepper & Shcfciman
1111 Third Aveue - Ste. 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel/Fax: Unknown
(4.Ay Unitcd States Mail
Caning ruin Sound
Growth Mauagwsant Hearings Board
2319 One Union Square• 6ti. , WA Univenity
9$ioi -1 t
2
(206)3119.2625 • Fax: (206)3119 -2588
"
Z
• Z
taar w `
J V'
U O
t Np;
N w;
w =:
— i—
w
u- Q:
cn
=a
_.
z1-
1- o;
Z H;
w w,
o • N.
iw w
H V.
o:
z,
lii
• tt
o
z
AUC -14 -97 05 :02 PM CPSGMHB
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
111
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
30
Petitioner Represented By:
Linda J. Strout and
Traci Goodwin
Port of Seattle
2711 Alaskan Way
Seattle, WA 98121
Tcl/Fax: Unknown
( ) By United States Mail
Rc.spondent City of Des Moines:
Gary N. McLean
City Attorney /City of Des Moines
21630 11th Ave., So.
Des Moines, WA 98198
Tel: (206) 878 -4595
Fax: (206) 870 -6540
(.) By. United States Mail
( ) By Facsimile
Am/eus Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC):
Puget Sound Regional Council
1011 Western Ave., Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98104 -1035
Tel: (206) 464 -7090
Fax: (206) 587 -4825
( ) By United States Mail
( ) By Facsimile
206 3092509
Respondent City of Des Moines:
City Clerk
City of Des Moines
21630 11th Ave., So.
Des Moines, WA 98198
Tel: (206) 878 -4595
Fax: (206) 870 -6540
( ) By United States mail
( ) By Facsimile
Respondent City of Des Moines:
John Hempelmann, WSBA #1680
Cairncross dr. Hempelmann
Columbia Ccntcr - 70th Fir.
701 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104 -7016
Tel: (206) 587 -0700
Fax: (206) 587-2308
( ) By United States Mail
PRSC Represented Ry:
David Bricklin
Bricklin & Gendler
1424 Fourth Avenue - Ste. 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206) 621 -8868
( ) By United States Mail
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER TIM LAWS OF TILL STATE
OF WASHINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Dated this
Page 2
day of
P. 21
Cootral Puget Sound
Growth Maragement Hearluil hoard
2329 One Union Square • 600 University Street
Seattle. WA 911101 -1I29
(206)3119 -2625 • Fax: (206)3119 -2 11*
• • no. w :
u6m
00;
. '<n O!
. cnW
W I
J 1-
•
qa J
,
u- ¢:
a.
_•
Z
.1— O
Z
•
0
•i0 N
o �
w
0
`ui Z
• •
H
• z
Staff Report to the
City Council
FILE NUMBER
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
EXHIBITS:
Application 2
L97 -0085
City of Tukwila
Amend certain Comprehensive Plan policies and land use designations to
implement Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan (see below)
Pacific Highway Study area, generally from South 116th to South 160th
Streets and from 42nd Avenue South to Military Road
5: L97 -0085 Comprehensive Plan Application
6. Pacific Highway Corridor -- Proposed Map Changes
7. Proposed Map Change - -Site 1
8. Proposed Map Change—Site 2
9. Proposed Map Change - -Site 3
10. Proposed Map Change—Site 4
11. Proposed Map Change- -Site 5
DISCUSSION
Reinvigorating the Pacific Highway corridor was identified as the highest priority for City action
during the Vision Tukwila process in. 1993, and the second highest priority objective in the entire
Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in 1995 (Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, page 3). The following
requested amendment brings this priority closer to reality by implementing several of the key
recommendations of the Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan (12/97). The Pacific Highway
Revitalization Plan was developed over several years with residential and business members of the
community in partnership with the City.
The proposed amendment application includes 3 requests, as follows:
Request A proposes to change selected residentially -zoned areas to commercial use, depending
on certain conditions being met. Sites 1 through 5 describe the five areas which have been
identified.
• Request B proposes to give the Board of Architectural Review the authority to waive certain
landscape and setback standards to encourage pedestrian and vehicular movement between two
adjoining properties;
• Request C proposes expanding the number of housing units per acre in the area by increasing the
allowable density in the Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) zone, and allowing multi-
family development in the Regional Commercial (RC) zone.
If all parts of the requested amendment are approved, the Zoning Code may also need revision.
'
z
• •
�Z
CC 11
UO
CO CI
cnw
wO
u- • a.
sa
I- Ili
Z
F- O.
z �-
2 ui
U
�
O N
0 I-
410
ui
U
N:
O
z
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
REQUEST A: Add a Comprehensive Plan policy to allow the commercial use of
residentially -zoned property in order to expand small and/or irregularly
shaped commercial districts subject to certain conditions.
Discussion z
z i-:;
1.-z.
In order to allow and encourage future consolidation of individual parcels into competitively -sized u
commercial sites, the Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan recommends amending the 6 D
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Maps to redesignate several sites from Low Density v O
Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR) or High Density Residential (HDR) to either w tu
Neighborhood Commercial Center - Conditional (NCC -C) or Regional Commercial- Conditional _ _1 F-,
(RC -C). w o
The Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan recommends revising the Comprehensive Plan to g
include an administrative conditional use permit that would allow commercial redevelopment of v_� v.
selected multi- family zoned properties and single - family zoned properties subject to several w
conditions. These include: z
i--0
z F-.
Allow commercial use of residentially -zoned property where such action expands small or lli �.
irregularly- shaped commercial districts within the Pacific Highway Transportation Corridor. Sites D 0
should be chosen subject to the following conditions: 0 ▪ 5
Di-:
i
w.
• site development must have frontage on Pacific Highway, S. 144th St. or a collector arterial; F- v
• primary access points must be from Pacific Highway and vehicular access must be limited on z'
residential local access streets, and; . Z
• design review and approval of comprehensive site development plans by the Board of o
Architectural Review. z
Attracting new development is a key strategy in the future success of the Pacific Highway business
community. Pacific Highway South runs generally diagonally through Tukwila. Reviewing the size
and shape of the commercial districts along Pacific Highway reveals that they are irregular in shape,
largely due to the highway's route. In some cases, the commercial districts are very shallow, not
more than one lot deep. The Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan states that this pattern
impedes new business development. Allowing commercial uses on a "conditional" or "future" basis
in multi- family zones adjacent to selected commercial areas would enlarge the commercial areas. It
would also make them more regular in shape and expand their street frontage. This would result in
sites which are better- suited to commercial development.
Receiving a "conditional" commercial designation definitely does not mean that the existing uses
would "go away" immediately. Rather, it provides an incentive for redevelopment which would be
allowed only if certain, agreed -on conditions were met. These conditions would be used to create
well - designed development and to minimize impacts to surrounding uses.
Page 2
.
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
Specific implementation techniques are not yet determined, since the Council is now considering
whether or not the proposed change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's directives.
Specifics would be developed if and when the proposal went to the Planning Commission.
Significance/Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
In general, the requested change from the High Density Residential (HDR) and Medium Density z
Residential (MDR) Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation to Neighborhood Commercial w
Center - Conditional (NCC -C) and Regional Center - Conditional (RC -C) is consistent with Goal 7.3 re 6
which stresses grouping similar, supportive uses. o
t No:
• Goal 7.3 Overall Land Use Pattern states: "A land use pattern that encourages a strong sense of J i
community by grouping compatible and mutually supportive uses and separating incompatible w
uses." w 0
5
• Policy 7.3.1 states: "Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the preservation and u.
enhancement of single - family and stable multi-family neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible = car
land uses; and clearly establishes applicable development requirements through recognizable 1- _
Z I,
boundaries. O
z F-.
This requested amendment is consistent with the overall policy direction for improving the Pacific 2 D
Highway South Corridor. It was developed in the Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan, and it v w
:O
implements the Comprehensive Plan. The specific policies are: 0 I.-'
w w:
• Goal 8.2 Pacific Highway Corridor "A Pacific Highway corridor that is an attractive, safe and u_
profitable place to live, do business, shop and work, and is a positive reflection of the City as a — z
whole and of the surrounding residential and business community." 0 w
0
• Policy 8.2.11 "Develop a strategic and financial plan for implementing Pacific Highway policies z
that facilitate private and business investment."
The proposed change from the MDR Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation to the NCC is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies which call both for a diversity of uses along Pacific
Highway and which support the NCC designation along the northern portion of the Corridor.
• Policy 8.2.16 states: "Allow a diversity of uses along the corridor, including residential, retail,
service, light manufacturing, office, and recreational and community facilities."
• Policy 8.2.17 states: "Create a pedestrian- oriented Neighborhood Commercial Center as focal
area along Pacific Highway South; create a Regional Commercial area south of the Neighborhood
Commercial Center and create opportunities for either commercial or industrial uses at the north
end of the corridor."
Page 3
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
Impacts
The overall potential impact of the proposed amendment would be a Pacific Highway Corridor
redeveloped with more and better- functioning commercial and mixed -use activities.
Redevelopment would eliminate some single - and multi- family housing. Some of the existing
housing needs significant repair. In some cases, housing which might be redeveloped in a mixed use
development needs significant repair. In virtually all cases, existing the housing could be considered
"affordable" housing. It is likely to be replaced with more expensive housing. Redevelopment
would also improve the conditions of the commercial district, including an appropriate transition
between commercial and adjacent residential districts.
The proposal could also result in temporarily worsened conditions, with owners deferring
maintenance and improvements as they awaited property sales and the aggregation of sites for
redevelopment.
Alternatives
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following:
• reject the proposal
• defer consideration until a later time;
• refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission.
modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission.
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could:
• recommend approval;
• recommend denial;
• recommend modification of the proposal.
The following five map changes would implement the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment
proposed above. Each one is discussed individually below. Exhibit 6 shows the Pacific Highway
corridor with each of the proposed map changes.
SITE 1
LOCATION:
SITE SIZE:
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium
Density Residential (MDR) to Neighborhood Commercial
Center - Conditional (NCC -C) subject to certain conditions
3736, 3742 and 3748 South 141st Street
(See Exhibit 6)
Approximately .96 acre
Page 4
Staff Report to the
City Council
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
Application 2
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
Project Description:
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Neighborhood
Commercial Center - Conditional (NCC -C) subject to certain conditions.
ExistingDevelopment:
Three single - family units
Surrounding Land Use:
Single - family residential and retail
Restaurant/club and parking
Commercial
Single - family units
North:
South:
East:
West:
Topography:
Flat
Access:
South 141st Street
Discussion
The subject properties are developed with 3 single - family houses that fronton S. 141st Street, one
lot west of Pacific Highway South. (See Exhibit 7). The area proposed for redesignation is located
immediately west of a "shallow" (one lot deep) Neighborhood Commercial Center zone. The
current use in the NCC zone has insufficient room for parking; cars must back in and out onto the
state highway. When curb improvements are made, less space will be available for paring and
loading. The Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) zone immediately south of S. 141st Street is
significantly deeper (two and three lots wide). Extending the existing NCC boundary westward to
include the subject site would even out the mass of the commercial areas and enhance redevelopment
opportunities.
Impacts
Loss of three single - family. homes.
"
�-- Z:
Cew` .
• .J U'
• .0 O;
CO
w =;
1-,
CO LL
W O;.
LL Q:
•
•z�.
•z0
UU
O N:
• O 1-
= '•
o;
•
w z:
U.N
O:
z
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
SITE 2
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential
(MDR) to Neighborhood Commercial- Center -- Conditional (NCC -C) subject to
certain conditions
LOCATION: 14004 42nd Avenue South, & 4101 S. 141st Street South
(See Exhibit 6)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 3 acres
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Vicinity /Site Information
Project Description
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Neighborhood
Commercial Center - Conditional (NCC -C) subject to certain conditions.
Existing Development
Southgate Trailer Park, one single - family home, Ben Carol Motel East and parking
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Commercial, multi- family and single - family
South: Commercial and multi- family -
East: Single- family
West: Mobile home park, vacant, auto repair, cardroom
Topography:
Flat
Access:
Access is from South 141st Street, 42nd Avenue South, S. 140th Street
Discussion
The western portion of the Southgate Mobile Park site is already designated NCC, while the eastern
portion is MDR. (See Exhibit 8). Having the property designated part - commercial and part -
residential limits its redevelopment potential. Enlarging the NCC designation/zone will enable the
owner of the partially- vacant Southgate Mobile Park site the opportunity to redevelop, and provide a
larger area for redevelopment.
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
The Southgate Mobile Home Park existed prior to any specific rules governing mobile home parks.
When King County passed its mobile home ordinance, the Park submitted a layout plan. In
succeeding years, larger units have been placed there, making it even more difficult to follow through
on the plan. Prior to annexation to Tukwila, the entire property was designated "commercial." As a
result of annexation to Tukwila, the property was split between "commercial" and "multi- family."
During the Comprehensive Plan deliberation, the commercial area was increased slightly. F z
w
At this point, the Southgate Mobile Park site is already partially vacant. Many of the occupied units 0
are in need of repair; some rest on cinder blocks or other supports rather than being attached to o o
foundations. In the past, the property has been considered for other uses, due at least in part to its ` 'w =;
under - utilized status, single- ownership and relatively large size. While efforts to improve the living
environment appear to be having some success, the poor condition of many of the homes and lack of o
space or amenities limits improvement efforts. To the south, the Ben Carol Motel East provides 2
short-term housing. g
/-_
Loss of low income and short-term housing. z o
uj
D Ca
O 52
F-`
SITE 3 Change Comprehensive Plan designation from High Density Residential w:.
(HDR) to Neighborhood Commercial Center- Conditional (NCC -C) subject to
certain conditions — O
ui z'
o ff.
0
Impacts
LOCATION: 34th Avenue South, between S. 144th Street and S. 146th Street
(See Exhibit 6)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 9.42 acres
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:
High Density Residential (HDR)
ZONING DISTRICT: High Density Residential (HDR)
Vicinity /Site Information
Project Description
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from High Density Residential (HDR) to Neighborhood
Commercial Center - Conditional (NCC -C) subject to certain conditions.
Existing Development
Colonial Gardens, Riverton View and La Rochelle Apartments, Victoria Arms, Villa Nelle, several 4-
plexes and single family dwellings.
Page 7
:
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Multi- family
South: Multi- family
East: Commercial
West: Commercial, single - family
Topography:
The site is generally flat.
Access:
Access is from South 144th Street, South 146th Street and 34th Avenue South.
Discussion
This site is primarily High Density Residential (HDR), with Medium Density Residential (MDR)
sandwiched between two Neighborhood Commercial Center zones to the east and west. ( See
Exhibit 9) Redesignating this area would eventually bring about its change in use to commercial or
mixed -use residential/commercial. The resulting large site would provide ample space for
redevelopment and improvements.
Currently, the area is largely multi- family with several larger buildings and a number of 4- plexes.
There are also several single - family houses. Villa Nelle, Colonial Gardens, and several of the 4-
plexes are certified members of Tukwila's Crime Free Multi- family Program Other complexes are
not currently involved in the program. Several single family homes front on South 144th Street.
South 144th Street is more pedestrian- friendly than Pacific Highway, since it is narrower and has
lower speed limits. Any community- oriented redevelopment with neighborhood retail uses would be
appropriate along South 144th and would be compatible with the multi - family development to the
north. If redevelopment occurred, development in the RC district south of S. 146th Street would not
be negatively affected.
Impacts
Redesignating this area NCC -C would mean the eventual redevelopment of up to 248 housing units
to either commercial or a mixture of commercial and housing. At some point, current residents
would need to relocate.
- SITE 4
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from High Density Residential
(HDR) to Neighborhood Commercial Center - Conditional (NCC -C) subject to
certain conditions
LOCATION: 4028 S. 146th Street, 4030 S. 146th Street, and 4029 S. 144th Street
(See Exhibit 6)
z
z':
U O,
N W
=.
J I-:.
w O
g J.
to �.
z�
▪ w
z_�
•
zI..
LU
U• �
N W W.
_
Ltz
ui z`
U�
o I-
z
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
SITE SIZE: Approximately .79 acres
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:
High Density Residential (HDR)
ZONING DISTRICT: High Density Residential (HDR)
Vicinity/Site Information
Project Description
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from High Density Residential (HDR) to Neighborhood
Commercial Center-Conditional (NCC-C) subject to certain conditions.
Existing Development
Pacific Court Apartments (36 units), two single-family dwellings, one of which owned by the King
County Housing Authority
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Commercial, single-family
South: Trailer park, single-family
East: Parking, outdoor storage, multi-family
West: Commercial and multi-family
Topography:
The site ilopes significantly from west to east.
Access:
Access is from South 144th Street and South 146th Street.
Discussion
Redesignating this site would maximize the area available for future commercial redevelopment.
(See Exhibit 10) The lots fronting on Pacific Highway are narrow and relatively deep, with minimal
retail frontage on Pacific Highway. Aggregation of existing lots into larger sites would "open up"
the lots and enable businesses to maximize frontage on the key commercial roadway. This would
compensate for the west to east slope.
Impacts
Redevelopment would result in loss of housing that may or may not be replaced in a mixed use
development.
Page 9
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
SITE 5
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential
(MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) to Neighborhood Commercial
Center - Conditional (NCC -C) subject to certain conditions
LOCATION: 3743 S. 148th St., 3739 S. 148th St., 3814 S. 150th St., 3804 S. 150th St.,
3700 S. 150th St:, 3728 S. 150th St., 14839 38th Ave. S., 14837 38th Ave. S.,
14836 38th Ave., S. and 14838 38th Ave. S.
(See Exhibit 6)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 6 acres
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential
(LDR)
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential
(LDR)
Vicinity /Site Information
Project Description
Change Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium and Low Density Residential (MDR and
LDR) to Regional Commercial - Conditional (RC -C) subject to certain conditions.
Existing Development
Vacant land and seven single - family units
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Multi- family housing
South: Multi- family and single- family housing
East: Single- family housing
West: Commercial
Topography:
The site slopes somewhat from west to east.
Access:
Access is from South 150th Street, South 148th Street and 38th Avenue South.
Page 10
z.
Z;
JO.
CO CI'
00:
CO W'
WI.
J H.
CO LL
W 0:..
u- Q:'
= a.
�w
1-0:
z 1-
w
i0 N'
1
W w'
I 0
1-
z
0 fn'.
z F
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
Discussion
The site includes two good -sized vacant MDR lots and seven single - family homes, in a cul -de -sac,
designated LDR. (See Exhibit 11) The land is generally "underutilized," and is adjacent to similarly
underutilized or vacant properties. Redesignating the properties would encourage redevelopment
which would enhance Pacific Highway South.
Impacts
•
Redesignating the site to RC -C could result in the loss of several single - family housing units on site.
The MDR lots currently serve as a buffer between the RC and LDR designations /zones.
Redesignating the entire site as RC -C, would result in the loss of the transitional use, and bring
commercial development in the RC designation/zone up to the LDR line. Any redevelopment would
need to be designed to provide a buffer for the adjacent single - family designation/zone.
Summary
The intent of the proposed changes is to allow and encourage future consolidation of individual
parcels into competitively -sized commercial sites. The issue is whether the City should consider
amending the Comprehensive Plan to encourage this to occur. The specific details of how this would
occur will be addressed if the proposals go forward for further review.
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following:
• ' reject the proposal
• defer consideration until a later time;
• refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission..
• modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission.
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could:
• recommend approval;
• recommend denial;
• recommend modification of the proposal.
REQUEST B: Add Comprehensive Plan policy to support coordinated development of
adjacent lots by giving the Board of Architectural Review the authority to
waive standards in order to encourage pedestrian and vehicular movement
between two adjoining properties.
Page 11
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
Discussion
Commercial sites in this area are typically small, limiting space for parking and site amenities.
Creating opportunities to obtain waivers from zoning code standards would have several positive z
effects on land development in the area. _
~w
These include: 1) the joint use of parking facilities; 2) reducing the number of driveways and 6 D
eurbcuts to improve the overall pedestrian environment and reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts; c.) p
3) improving circulation between sites and buildings; 4) and increasing the efficiency of land , N
co development. x a
CO u..
The Pacific Highway Design Manual establishes criteria and objectives that encourage pedestrian- 2 o
friendly design, and coordinated vehicular and pedestrian circulation between development sites. The I
Board of Architectural Review (BAR)already has discretionary authority to apply the Draft Pacific u. a;
Highway Design Manual in reviewing developments in the RC, NCC and MUO zones along the z w
Pacific Highway Corridor. Supporting coordinated development would be advantageous for some z
types of development. Requesting modification of setback and landscaping standards for a proposed z o
development would be at the discretion of the individual applicant and subject to approval of the w ur
BAR. U o
Any increased flexibility resulting from waiving the basic design standards will not lower the overall o i.-;
objective of high quality design. Rather, approving site plans that differ from the standards for side 1 o
yard setback and landscaping would provide opportunities for creativity and flexibility in meeting
design objectives for the Pacific Highway Corridor. Any landscaping that is waived within the side w z
yard set back would be replaced with an equivalent amount of landscaping placed elsewhere on the
site per Guideline 1.F. Shared Facilities (p. 16). •- O F_
z
Significance/Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment is consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies which address
general transportation corridor issues.
• Policy 8.1.1 Improve pedestrian environment with street improvements that include curbs,
sidewalks or trails, and regularly spaced street trees.
Policy 8.1.2 Provide pedestrian pathways between sidewalks and building entrances and between
adjacent properties and buildings to ensure that parking lots are not a barrier to pedestrians within
commercial areas.
• Policy 8.1.3 Develop parking standards that are (1) sufficient to meet typical daily demand, (2)
reflect any significant shifts in transit usage in the corridor, (3) encourage shared parking
between mixed uses and sites (emphasis added), and (4) includes off -site parking when impact to
adjacent uses is not affected.
Page 12
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
Policy 8.2.11 Develop a strategic and financial plan for implementing these Pacific Highway
corridor policies that facilitates private and public investment.
These policies speak to the need to enhance the pedestrian environment and encourage shared
parking. They are to be implemented through a Pacific Highway Corridor Plan. The proposed
amendment, developed as part of the Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan, encourages shared
parking along with improved circulation between sites, to improve the pedestrian environment. They
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Impacts
No negative impacts are anticipated by allowing flexibility in code requirements and giving the
Board of Architectural Review discretion to use the flexibility. Waiving standards may result in
more visible "hardscape" such as building facades and plaza areas. The proposal would include
some transfer of the waived landscaping from the side yard to the rear or the interior of the lot.
Alternatives
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the followin
• reject the proposal
• defer consideration until a later time;
• refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission..
• modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission.
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could:
• . recommend approval;
•, recommend denial;
• recommend modification of the proposal.
REQUEST C Amend the Comprehensive Plan's Land use Designations legend (page 190)
by adding the words that are underlined and deleting the words
with overStfilee .
"Neighborhood Commercial Center: pedestrian- friendly
areas characterized and scaled to serve multiple residential areas, with a
diverse mix of uses. Uses include certain commercial uses mixed with
residential at second story or above
aere= retail; service; office; and recreation and community facilities, generally
along a transportation corridor."
Page 13
z
• •�
z:
—I C.)
U O:
NO
CO I
J
CO IL
w O'
g a. •
co a
_a
▪ _
z�
I— O
Z �-
111 ui
U
o)—
ww
• o.
w z:
U N`
z
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
"Regional Commercial: Areas characterized by commercial services, offices,
lodging, entertainment, and retail activities with associated warehousing and
accessory light industrial uses, along a transportation corridor and intended for
a mix of high intensity regional uses including residential.
Discussion
This amendment is intended to strengthen the relatively weak trade area by expanding the number of
households, and thereby increasing overall retail economic strength in the Pacific Highway area.
This would be accomplished by: 1) allowing multi- family development in the Regional Commercial
designation; and 2); increasing housing density in the Neighborhood Commercial Center by
dropping the 14.5 unit/acre maximum density limitation in mixed use housing. No specific density
requests have been proposed for either the RC or the NCC zone.
While the City has broadened the range of uses allowed in its commercial zones, high land values
keep less desirable commercial uses, such as used car lots, in the area, rather than the light industrial
uses allowed in the expanded commercial zoning. This makes the more people- intensive, light
industrial/manufacturing uses less likely to move in.
There is strong housing demand in the area. New housing built to higher standards would boost the
overall level of housing quality. Additional households would also increase demand for commercial
services and retail in the area. This would strengthen the potential for a neighborhood commercial
center, as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Higher quality households also require supportive
amenities, and will only be created in a neighborhood with good schools, nice parks, pleasant
streetscapes and the potential for good shopping and public services.
The Regional Commercial (RC) designation and zone is unique to the Pacific Highway corridor, and
is found nowhere else in Tukwila. The RC zone extends to Military Road and exists on local access
streets where traffic volumes are low and regional retail is less likely to locate. Sites in these areas
currently have some single- and multiple - family housing in good condition. As the Draft Pacific
Highway Revitalization Plan is implemented, neighborhood conditions are expected to improve.
The Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) designation and zone has setback and height standards
that would allow higher densities than the 14.5 units per acre that is currently allowed. The City's
real estate consultant has recommended raising the allowable density to match typical development
profiles. A higher number of households is possible while maintaining Tukwila's height, setback
and landscaping standards.
Significance/Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
This proposed amendment is consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies which support
commercial and residential development along the Pacific Highway Corridor as follows:
• Policy 8.2.16 Allow a diversity of uses along the corridor, including residential, retail, service,
light manufacturing, office and recreational and community facilities.
Page 14
Staff Report to the Application 2
City Council
• Policy 8.2.17 Create a pedestrian- oriented Neighborhood Commercial Center as a focal area
along Pacific Highway South; create a Regional Commercial area south of the Neighborhood
Commercial Center and create opportunities for either commercial or industrial uses at the north
end of the corridor.
Impacts
Allowing residential uses in the Regional Commercial (RC) designations/zones, would change the
streetscape since one -story commercial development could be replaced with three to four -story
residential development. Additional housing could create more activity on the street, and would
support the retail market in both the RC and NCC zones. Depending on the number of units allowed,
traffic and school impacts are possible. Excess capacity in both areas is unknown at this time.
Alternatives
The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following:
•
•
•
•
reject the proposal
defer consideration until a later time;
refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission..
modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission.
If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could:
recommend approval;
recommend denial;
recommend modification of the proposal.
Page 15
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
Draft Environment Impact Statement
City of Tukwila
Community Development Department
June 1995
June 1995
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Dear Readers:
Please find attached to this letter a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the proposed Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
The City proposed Comprehensive Plan has been prepared pursuant to the Growth
Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A), and in coordination with the overall planning
framework of the King County Countywide Planning Policies. its overall goals, policies,
and implementation strategies are intended to be the basis for managing anticipated
growth and development in Tukwila over the next two decades.
This DEIS- provides information to citizens and public officials about the potential
environmental implications of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan comprises 15 elements,
six of which focus on the issue of land use. These elements cover the categories of
Community Image, Economic Development, Housing, Natural Environment, Shoreline,
Annexation, Residential Neighborhoods, Transportation Corridors (Pacific Highway,
Interurban Avenue, Southcenter Boulevard), Tukwila South, Tukwila Urban Center,
Manufacturing/Industrial Center, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, and Roles
and Responsibilities. The plan elements have been evaluated with respect to eleven
"elements of the environment."
We encourage your comments on this Draft EIS. Written comments on the Draft EIS
must be submitted no later than July 27, 1995, and should be addressed to Steve
Lancaster, Director, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300
Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188.
I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to the City's Comprehensive
Plan process. Your assistance is helping us arrive at the very best possible plan for
Tukwila's future.
Sincerely,
Steve Lancaster
SEPA Responsible Official and Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665
•z •
z
dd� •
J 0
00'
.N 0;
w X'
V) w;
w.o',
w=:.
z •
z
E- o:
Z
:D
0 Ni •
wW
H V;
z
• ui •
U ti2i
r
• 0
z
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Project Title
File Number
Proposed Action
Proponent and Lead Agency
FACT SHEET
City of-Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
L92 -0053
Adoption of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (the
Plan) as per the Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A) and in coordination with the overall
planning framework of the King County Countywide
Planning Policies. Upon adoption, the Plan will
become official City policy guiding future decisions
related to but not limited to land use, housing,
transportation, and utilities within the municipal
boundaries of Tukwila. The Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Plan conforms with the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requirements for non - project or programmatic
proposals. The contents of the EIS provide a level of
detail commensurate with that of the Comprehensive
Plan and incorporates by reference the components
of the Plan.
The planning area is generally bounded by:
• North: The City's border with Seattle.
• South: The City's border with Sea -Tac at 160th
and 164th Street, then further south to 204th.
• East: Generally by Martin Luther King Way and
the railroad rights -of -way to 43rd Street, then the
Green River to 204th Street.
• West: Generally by Des Moines Way South and
Military Road to 154th Street, then by the City's
boundary with the City of Sea -Tac.
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
FACT SHEET
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Implementation Final Plan adoption by the Tukwila City Council is
anticipated in September 1995.
SEPA Responsible Official
Contact Person
Location of Documents
Comments on the Draft EIS
EIS Authors
Prepared under the direction of the Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Steve Lancaster, Director
City of Tukwila
Department of' Community Development
Telephone: 206.431.3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100
Tukwila, Washington. 98188
Vernon Umetsu, Project Manager
Telephone: 206.431.3684
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
City of Tukwila Department of Community
Development offices, located in Suite 100, 6300
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington.
Office hours are from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
All comments should be addressed to:
Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Kask Consulting, Inc.
Mart Kask, Principal
500 Union Street, Suite 930
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: 206.467.1444
Licenses /Permits Required Adoption of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan by the
Tukwila City Council.
FACT SHEET
•
J U:
0 0'
0:,
U)w
w =:
N LL'
W 0:
gQ
a-
w.
Z�.
I- 0''.
Z I-..
LU D CE
,0
off'.
:w w`
1- CI
u- O
wz.
ON
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Materials Incorporated
by Reference:
Background Elements and
Other Supporting Information for
the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
Existing Documents
The following materials are incorporated by reference
pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -635. Their content has been briefly
described in Appendix B. All materials are available at the
City of Tukwila Department of Community Development
during normal business hours.
• Community Image
• Economic Development
• Housing
• Natural Environment
• Shoreline
• Annexation
• Residential Neighborhoods
• Transportation Corridors
• Tukwila Urban Center
• Manufacturing/Industrial Center
• Utilities
• Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Community Resource
• City of Tukwila Centers Comparative Analysis
• Tukwila Tomorrow (Citizen Advisory Committee)
Verbatim Minutes
• Tukwila Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
• . Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment
Environmental Impact Statement, 1992
• Tukwila Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 1991
• Tukwila Comprehensive Water Plan, 1991
• Tukwila Surface Water Comprehensive Plan , 1993
• Multi- Family Design Standards, 1992
• Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan , 1994
• Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan, 1995
• Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, 1991 et. seq.
Date of Issuance of Draft EIS June 27, 1995
Date Written Comments Due
July 27, 1995
FACT SHEET
z
F- Z.
Lim
J U:.
0 0':
w:
cum,
co w;
opyi
W0
w ¢:
z.i
:2 Di
;V ;
■O coi
0 t-
=w
O•.
0—
z
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary and Proposed Action
Summary v
Description of Proposed Action: The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan 1
Environmental Analysis
Earth 11
Air 20
Water 27
Plants and Animals 37
Environmental Health 46
Land Use 57
Population and Housing 71
Aesthetics /Community Image 78
Public Services 82
Public Utilities 89
Transportation 105
Tables and. Figures
Table Title Page
Summary Table viii -xvi
1 The Tukwila Comp Plan and its Relationship to GMA and CPP 6 -10
2 Sediment Yield from Development Sites 12
3 , National, State, and Regional Ambient Air Quality Standards 21
4 Illustrative Sound Levels for Outdoor and Indoor Uses 46
5 Maximum Permissible Daytime Sound Levels in Tukwila 47
6 Residential Units within Sea -Tac Airport's 60 dBA Contour and Above 48
7 Residential Units within King County Airport's 65 dBA Contour and Above 53
' ^:,•, •
Table of Contents Continued
Table Title Page
8 Generalized Comprehensive Plan Land Uses (in acres) 65
9 Comprehensive Plan: Zoning Changes (in acres) 65
10 Summary of Existing Population and Housing Information 71
11 Comparison of Housing Affordability by Income Group 73
12 Household Project Compared with Residential Capacity 74
13 Tukwila Fire Stations 82
14 Inventory of Existing School Facilities 85
15 Utility Funding Capacities ($$$ in millions) 101
16 Level of Service Standards 106
17 Proposed Intersection and Arterial Capacity Improvements 108
18 Principal Arterials LOS 109
19 Principal Arterials LOS, No Action Alternative 111
20 Averaged V/C Ratios and LOS for Tukwila Urban Center Cordon Locations 112
Figure Title Page
1 Tukwila Surface Water Drainage Basins 28
2 Natural Environmental Features Map 40
3 Sea -Tac International Airport Existing and Alt. 1 (No Action) Noise Contour 49
4 Sea -Tac International Airport Alts. 2, 3, and 4 Noise Contour 50
5 1998 King County International Airport Noise Contour 51
6 2008 King County International Airport Noise Contour 52
7 Land Use Areas of the City 58
8 Age of Housing Stock 72
9 City of Tukwila Community Images 80
10 Location of Public Facilities 83
11 Water Purveyor Boundaries 91
12 Sewer Purveyor Boundaries 92
13 Surface Water Management Drainage Basins 94
14 Water Deficiencies 98
li
•
z
• • Z:
mow:
J U� NC
U 0:
co
• w =.
J 1-:
CO LL
wO
El a.
al
Z
HO
Z E-
w
U• �. co
O —
w W,
1-`
—O
Z.
U N
i- �.
z
Table of Contents Continued
Figure . Title Page
15 Sewer Deficiencies 100
16 Surface Water Deficiencies 102
17 Functional Classification 113
18 1991 Traffic Flow Map (24 -hour (AWDT) 114
19 Existing Level -of- Service 115
20 Metro Bus Routes in City of Tukwila 116
21 Non - Motorized Transportation Plan: Category 117
22 Non- Motorized Transportation Plan: Category II 118
23 2010 Recommended Alternative 119
24 2010 V/C No Improvements 120
Appendices
Brief Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
Summarized Elements of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
Documents Incorporated. by Reference
• The documents incorporated by reference have been identified in the preceding Fact
Sheet, as well as in Appendix A.
w
rtQ=i
J U;
0o:
ww
p,
w 0'
g J; 73`
w a
w,
Z Hi
0
Z
w w.;
.D
I-
w;
V
ui Z
• H �4.
O ,
Z
SUMMARY'
ROPOSED ACTION
City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement
Summary
The Proposed Action
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) serves to provide information to citizens and public
officials about the potential environmental implications of a new comprehensive plan for the City
of Tukwila. The City proposed "Tukwila Comprehensive Plan" has been prepared pursuant to the
Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A), and in coordination with the overall planning
framework of the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Plan comprises 15 elements,
six of which focus on the issue of land use. The Plan elements are:
Required GMA Elements
• Housing
• Utilities
• Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Land Use
- Residential Neighborhoods
- Transportation Corridors
Tukwila South
- Tukwila Urban Center
- Manufacturing /Industrial Center
- Shoreline
Alternatives Considered
Optional Elements
• Community Image
• Economic Development
• Natural Environment
• Annexation
• Roles and Responsibilities
For the purposes of this analysis, the two alternatives to the proposed action are the No Action
Alternative and a special alternatives analysis for the Tukwila Urban Center. In addition, an
alternatives analysis was conducted for the designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Its
contents and associated EIS are incorporated by reference into this document. These alternatives
are presented below.
No Action Alternative
The existing Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan represents the "No Action" alternative as
per WAC (197- 11- 440(5)(b)(ii)). This plan includes general goals, objectives, policies, and a
land use map, as well as a network of specific functional plans and single purpose ordinances
which have been largely independently developed.
SUMMARY
.-
v
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Policies of the No Action Alternative are as broad in scope as the Proposed Action. However,
they are very significantly less detailed. Under this alternative, existing residential, commercial,
and industrial land use designations would remain.
The existing Comprehensive Plan would not satisfy various State Growth Management Act
requirements including, but not limited to: providing for future growth in a comprehensive and
coordinated manner, due to the independent manner in which its contents were developed;
providing implementation provisions for the City Council's nominated Southcenter business
district as an urban center; establishing a level of service for transportation systems; and
establishing criteria for evaluating concurrency. The City would also artificially limit its access
to the full range of impact mitigation options, and be subject to State sanctions for non-
compliance.
Alternative Designations for the Tukwila Urban Center
A special alternatives analysis was conducted for the Tukwila Urban Center due to its special,
high- density nature. The City of Tukwila considered a range of alternatives for its urban center
area to satisfy both regional criteria and local needs. The Proposed Action represents a hybrid of
the alternatives presented in the discussion below.
• Urban Center, as defined by the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). Maintains principal
high- density characteristics of an urban center as defined in the CPP; proposes an average of
50 employees per gross acre and an average of 15 household per gross acre; oriented towards
pedestrians and mass transportation, with less dependency on single- occupancy vehicles.
• Activity Area. Follows the principal medium - density characteristics of an activity area as
defined by the CPP; however, analysis considered Tukwila's desired built environment for
the center; proposes 15 to 25 employees per acre and an average of 5 households per acre;
building heights limited to three to five stories and strong emphasis placed on providing
access to mass transit.
• Commercial Area. Approximates the existing built form and land use mix of the study area;
proposes a maximum of three -story building heights, with a mix of low- density regional
commercial and industrial uses; supports auto - oriented development and densities of 17 -20
employees per acre and .01 households per acre.
These alternative designations propose either lower or equal densities to the Proposed Action,
and maintain similar land use mixes. The final proposed action represents a hybrid of the
alternatives. As such, the discussion of the affected environment and impact analysis
encompasses the characteristics of the alternative designations.
vi
SUMMARY
z
i~
• mow:
•
JU
• 0
w=
N U.
wO
g¢
=a
▪ X :
Z �.
• O
Z
ww
UO
rz:
f
W
U
LII•
:
ui z •
O I'
z
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Were any of the three alternatives implemented individually it could be expected that they may
create their own varying impacts. For example, a lower - intensity, auto - oriented commercial area
would likely result in greater traffic, air quality, and surface water runoff impacts. Or, a higher -
intensity urban center may create strains on public utilities and infrastructure, while having fewer
impacts on traffic due to high- capacity transit and creating opportunities for urban open spaces.
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Alternatives Analysis
An alternatives analysis was conducted for the City's Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Entitled
the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Project EIS (File EPIC - 2191), the analysis
examines a range of possible development scenarios for the corridor. The lead agency for the
project was the City of Tukwila, with participation from the City of Seattle and King County.
The project's contents and its EIS are incorporated by reference into this document.
Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures,
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, and Major Plan Issues
Pursuant to WAC 197- 11-440 (4), the following section summarizes the environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, impacts of the No Action Alternative, and major plan issues for . each
category analyzed in the body of this Draft EIS. Please refer to the table that begins of the
following page.
SUMMARY
VII
z
I I-
w
a::
0 01
CO Cl
co w;
II)I
t J 1—
LL:
wO
u-
N d
w`
z�
I- O
z
uj
moo;
0 Uj,
oF'
wuj
= U
iii
co;
O F-
z
TUKWIIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
SUMMARY TABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EARTH
The Proposed Action increases the development potential in several soil erosion
prone areas, landslide hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas. Development in
erosion prone areas contributes to water pollution. Development in landslide,
seismic hazard and shoreline areas can result in significant damage to property, as
well as the natural environment. Severe slides are possible when subsurface
layers are overburdened by development and suddenly "let go."
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Growth will result in some degree of erosion
and sedimentation. Growth also entails increases in the potential risk of damage
to buildings and facilities from landslides, earthquakes, and flooding. Continuing
existing regulatory controls and promoting the recommended mitigation
measures will minimize negative environmental effects.
AIR QUALITY
Given the predominately urban character of the area, the presence of major
regional highways, and the close proximity of uses such as airports and
manufacturing zones, the City of Tukwila has many sources of air pollution.
Auto emissions are the single largest source of air pollution in Tukwila,
contributing carbon monoxide and particulate matter to the air. Other sources of
air pollution in Tukwila include: Sea-Tac and King County International
Airports, residential wood -burning stoves, lawn and garden equipment (which
generates five times the pollutants of Sea-Tac aircraft), emissions from
industrial/commercial sites, and construction sites. As Tukwila's population and
employment grows, and as its importance as a regional hub for employment and
shopping increases, degradation of the area's air may also increase.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Most of the adverse impacts will result from
increased vehicle emissions, and increased industrial and residential emissions.
Some impacts can be avoided by implementing existing State and Federal
regulations. Other impacts such as from residential power lawn equipment are not
effectively addressed.
SUMMARY TABLE
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures include reducing the
intensity of development in these hazardous
areas to a level easily accommodated by the site,
or recognizing and enforcing a rigorous
development review process to ensure full
impact mitigation. Project mitigating actions
could include special piping in areas prone to
erosion, and special drainage schemes in
landslide and seismic hazard areas. Creative
design solutions should be used including
clustering, "special land form grading"
requirements, and restoring vegetative cover.
The City can pursue a variety of mitigation
measures. First, the City should comply with all
federal, state and regional air pollution control
regulations. Reduced automobile emissions can
be 'achieved through encouraging non -motorized
transportation (walking and bicycling), and
through mass transit (bus, rideshare, Dial -A -
Ride, etc.). The City can also enhance its
Commute Trip Reduction program. Other
mitigation options include: working with the
airports to limit aircraft emissions, tree planting
programs, and public education programs.
IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the Proposed Action and No Action
Alternatives, sensitive areas such as geologic hazard
areas, erosion areas, and shoreline areas would be
managed through existing City regulations such as
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) and the
Shoreline Master Plan. However, the Proposed
Action contains many additional policies aimed at
managing geologic, erosion prone and shoreline
areas. The Proposed Action could result in greater
impacts because it increases the amount of
developable land in Tukwila, and/or increases
allowable densities of development in
environmentally sensitive areas, if proper mitigation
is not provided.
Under both the Proposed Action and No Action
alternatives, air quality is managed by federal, state,
and regional regulations. However, the Proposed
Action contains many polices designed to address the
issue of air pollution. Emissions from automobiles,
aircraft, and residential woodbuming stoves would be
the same under the Proposed Action and No Action
alternatives.
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
VIII
( TUKWILA COMPREHN.�
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
WATER
Many threats from water, such as flooding, have been largely eliminated or are
being effectively addressed (see Public Utilities section). The most significant
exception is increased peak flows on hillsides due to single-family development
replacing vegetative interception, detention, and transportation for increased
periods of soil saturation which can cause down slope basement flooding and
slope failure. The threat to identified valued water resources will increase as
Tukwila becomes more developed, and development becomes increasingly dense.
The greatest threat to Tukwila's surface water quality is non -point source
pollution. These pollutants are deposited in surface water resources by urban
runoff, soil erosion, and direct atmospheric deposition. Point -source polluters,
such as industrial establishments and wastewater treatment plants, also contribute
pollutants to surface water resources. but are subject to relatively effective
regulation. Point -source and non -point source pollution can result in degraded
water quality, water contamination, turbidity, and eutrophication. This, in turn,
negatively impacts local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Threats to groundwater
resources include surface water runoff, spills and leakages, underground storage
tanks, household hazardous wastes, and abandoned mines.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Increased pollution of water resources may be
inevitable given forecasted growth in Tukwila. Impacts cannot be eliminated
completely, but can be reduced controlled through some of the recommended
mitigation measures.
PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE (continues on to next page)
The primary potential impact upon plant and animal life, resulting from the
Proposed Action, will be the disturbance of the terrestrial wildlife network. As
development occurs, habitat may be reduced in area and/or quality. Tukwila's
important habitats include wetlands, shorelines, water bodies, and steep slopes.
Habitat in wetlands, shorelines, and steep slopes is threatened by encroaching
development. Wetlands and water bodies are threatened by water pollution.
Wildlife species of special concern are the red-tailed hawk and salmonids, both
of which are threatened species. There are no known threatened plant species,
although the loss of natural vegetation is undesirable.
E PLAN DRAFT EIS
MITIGATION MEASURES
The City has many mitigation options. First, the
City must comply with all state and federal water
quality regulations. The City can also reduce
sedimentation by controlling soil erosion from
current land use activities, and from future
development sites. Special drainage facilities
can be used to control urban runoff and reduce
the incidence of flooding. Other mitigation
options include: continued implementation of
the surface water runoff management program;
street cleaning; preserving and enhancing the
water detention capability of natural wetlands;
and public education. Increased hillside
saturation periods is a long-term issue, whose
realized impacts should be monitored.
Should the Proposed Action be adopted, the City
should pursue a number of mitigation options.
First, clearing and grading during construction
should be minimized to retain as much natural
vegetation as possible. The City should also
adopt a permanent Tree Ordinance. Other
mitigation measures include: protection of
wetlands and shorelines; cataloging of unique of
significant plant and animal species; restoration
of sustainable populations of anadromous fish in
IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Potential flooding and water quality impacts from
flooding to water resources would, be similar to the
Proposed Action. Water resources under this
alternative would be protected by federal and state
regulations, along with the City's Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. However, the Proposed Action contains
additional policies aimed at managing and protecting
water resources.
Under the Proposed Action and the No Action
Alternatives, threatened and endangered species are
protected by federal and state regulations. Under
both alternatives, plant and animal life, as well as
habitat, are managed through the SAO and the
Shoreline Master Plan. The Proposed Action
contains additional policies to conserve plants,
animals and habitat in its Natural Environment and
Shoreline Elements. Because the Proposed Action
increases the amount of land available for
SUMMARY TABLE
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE_ TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
IX
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Population and employment growth, and the
goals and policies that govern it, put pressure on wildlife habitat and existing
natural vegetation. It can be expected that as growth continues in Tukwila,
adverse impacts will occur to the area's plant and animal life. These impacts can
be minimized to some degree by implementing a range of the proposed
mitigation measures.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: NOISE
Noise affects Tukwila land uses due to the proximity of both Sea-Tac and King
County International Airports. Areas of the City which could be impacted by
future expansion of both facilities include, Tukwila's west hill plateau, the
proposed higher -density Pacific Highway Corridor, and the northern residential
neighborhoods of Ryan, Riverton, and Allentown.
Another source of noise would be transportation rights -of -way (including
highways, streets, and railroad lines). Because the City's proposed land use plan
concentrates medium- and higher -density growth in existing higher "high noise"
areas, population and traffic growth (and their accompanying noise) will be in
fewer areas. Rail loading and marshaling yards add another source of noise to the
City. Existing and future passenger rail systems also have the potential to
marginally increase ambient noise conditions.
LAND USE (continues on to next page)
Land use impacts involve possible effects associated with changes to
comprehensive plan land use designations; consequences of land use changes on
various areas of the City; and impacts to shoreline areas based on proposed uses.
The primary land use changes proposed by the Comprehensive Plan are the
elimination of designated agriculture and public facility lands, and the creation of
a Tukwila Urban Center. The largest significant actual use change is in Tukwila
South where over 100 acres of existing lands designated for single-family use
have been redesignated for multi -family residential and commercial/light
industrial. This decrease was partially offset by increased single-family
designated lands in the Riverton area.
MITIGATION MEASURES
local streams and rivers; and incorporation of
habitat areas and linkages in facility designs.
Proposed mitigation measures recommend
developing and adopting an ordinance that
identifies and designates noise -sensitive land
uses, working with the Airports to develop
mitigation strategies, participating in King
County Airport master planning; working to
institute Airport operational noise mitigation
techniques; working interdepartmentally to
ensure street speeds and truck traffic match
proposed land use patterns; and examining the
possibility to structure development to maximize
noise proofing.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies generally serve to mitigate potential
adverse land use impacts. However, to mitigate
impacts associated with growth, the following
mitigation measures are recommended:
coordinate transportation and land use policies,
particularly with respect to GMA concurrency
requirements; prepare Capital Facilities Planning
and the Capital Improvement in conjunction
with the Finance Department and all affected
City service providers; use the Shoreline Master
IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
development, and/or increases development densities
on hillsides, it will likely have a greater negative
affect on remaining wildlife habitat.
Increased noise levels will accompany increased
development as part of either the proposed
Comprehensive Plan or the No Action Alternative.
Because of the City's highly urbanized environment
and its close proximity to noise sources like Sea-Tac
and King County International Airports, ambient
noise will be high in either scenario. Implementation
of the No Action Alternative would not affect
enforcement of the City's noise ordinance or impact
the City's ability to work with other agencies to abate
aircraft -related noise sources.
The No Action Alternative assumes that the existing
land use and zoning maps would continue in effect
over the next 20 years. There would be roughly
similar impacts on the existing land use pattern due to
the rough equivalence in land use designations with
the Proposed Action. Notable exceptions in the
Tukwila Urban Center, Pacific Highway
Transportation Corridor, and Tukwila South were
discussed earlier in "Alternatives Considered."
SUMMARY TABLE
., >
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
TUKWIEA COMPREHE; jE PLAN DRAFT EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use designations may result in varying
impacts to City of Tukwila neighborhoods. Conflicts may occur due to the
unmitigated proximity of incompatible land uses, increased densities, and
changes to the existing form of an area. Possible areas affected include: northern
residential neighborhoods near Manufacturing/Industrial Center land uses; •
proposed low -density areas adjacent to Renton; proposed medium -density
residential in South Tukwila; transformation of Pacific Highway from regional to
neighborhood commercial; and proposed land use and built environment changes
to the designated Tukwila Urban Center.
With respect to shoreline use, the Green/Duwamish River represents as a
shoreline of statewide significance. City shoreline policies give priority to
economic vitality of the MIC, and focus intense multi -purpose urban uses like
water -oriented commercial activity and public access in the area where the Green
River bounds the Tukwila Urban Center. The City's proposed shoreline
management actions also emphasize other issues, including the creation of
linkages to other areas of the region; wildlife habitat protection; and assurance of
high -quality development.
Increased development intensity will require commensurably greater attention to
high quality designs, and harmony with valued natural features and the
surrounding built environment.
POPULATION AND HOUSING (continues on to next page)
Over the next 20 years, Tukwila will plan for a net increase of 5,388 new
households, 2,973 of which would be outside the designated Tukwila Urban
Center (TUC). The Plan proposes over 3,700 dwellings and allows additional
accessory units outside the TUC. The TUC is zoned for the remaining units at 40
dwelling units per acre in over 800 acres. Proposed City zoning will facilitate that
growth under either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative. Impacts
related to growth and land use compatibility will result from increased density.
New areas for housing are planned for the Pacific Highway corridor and the
Tukwila Urban Center. Creation of residential enclaves in these areas could pose
possible impacts associated with traffic, noise, and air quality.
The development of housing in close proximity to higher intensity uses such as
business parks, light industrial use, and heavy manufacturing should also be
considered a significant impact. This situation occurs in several parts of the City
(see Housing section for greater detail).
MITIGATION MEASURES
Program as an effective means for mitigating •
potential impacts to City shorelines; and prepare
design and development standards in order to
achieve the desired built environment in each
area of Tukwila.
Proposed mitigation recommend developing
guidelines and strategies for targeting affordable
housing projects; identifying programs that
could increase home ownership and home
maintenance; and exploring strategies for
creating landscape buffers to minimize impacts
when housing abuts incompatible land uses.
IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Tukwila's environmentally sensitive land uses and
critical areas would still be protected through its
sensitive areas ordinance and shoreline master
program.
Conditions of new incompatible land uses adjacent to
housing would also occur under the No Action
Alternative. This Alternative would supply the
residential capacity needed to meet the total number
of non -Tukwila Urban Center households, thereby
satisfying the Countywide Planning Policies. Existing
programs would be in place to continue providing a
range of housing types in the City. No Tukwila
Urban Center housing requirements exists in this
alternative.
The No Action Alternative would fail to implement
several of the housing strategies in the Proposed
Action that supports efforts to encourage affordable
units at all rungs of the housing ladder, including
SUMMARY TABLE
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO. THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
xi
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACTS
The issue of consistency between local housing policies and those established on
a countywide level are another important issue for ensuring adequate supply at all
rungs of the housing ladder. Chief among the concems are the issues of supply,
demand, and affordability. Plan policies state that the City will count its existing
surplus of affordable units toward regulatory requirement's for new growth and
will monitor the condition. The City will continue to participate in the regional
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and King County
Housing consortium with staff and funding. City policies also call for allowing
accessory units, reducing lot sizes for both market rate and affordable housing
projects, and instituting a density bonus for affordable housing development.
It is possible that affordable housing provisions may be modified or eliminated
from the ultimately adopted plan. Should this occur, the average cost of Tukwila
housing would increase.
COMMUNITY IMAGE/AESTHETICS
The proposed Comprehensive Plan has the potential to affect the visual character
of Tukwila in the following areas: developing an overall community image;
defining the "small-town" features of the residential neighborhoods;
recommending standards and guidelines to achieve the vision for the City's three
major transportation commercial corridors; proposing land use designations and
development standards to create an attractive, multi -faceted mixed -use
environment for the Tukwila Urban Center; proposing development strategies
and guidelines for the MIC; and instituting a network of parks, open spaces, and
trails.
As the growth occurs, Tukwila will experience changes in the physical character
of its residential, commercial, and industrial areas. As the City moves to higher
densities, a range of visual impacts may occur, including the reduction of natural
open spaces, alterations in the "sense of place" in various communities, and
disturbance of viewsheds with increased building heights and densities,
particularly in the Tukwila Urban Center. These potential impacts are balanced
against Plan policies which provide for preserving historical, cultural, and natural
resources, and promoting community identity via signage and gateways.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are proposed
to minimize visual impacts associated with
growth: design review.for multi -family,
commercial, and industrial development, and
require streetscape designs to lessen visual
impacts of development
IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
allowing homes on 5,000 sf lots, allowing accessory
units, and instituting density bonus programs for
affordable housing projects.
The No Action Alternative would approximate the
present level of zoned density and its community
image/aesthetic impacts would be similar to those
currently experienced throughout the City's
residential and commercial areas. This means that the
City would still have multi -family development
design guidelines and an architectural design review
procedure for the Southcenter commercial area.
However, there would be much less design guidance
than in the Proposed Action
SUMMARY TABLE
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
xul
.,
TUKWILA COMPREHE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire and Police. Impacts to public services focus on fire, police, schools, and
human services. Tukwila's Fire and Police Departments indicate that increased
densities in both residential and commercial areas could possibly effect their
service capabilities. These impacts would primarily be related to the total volume
of calls for service, and could involve the need for additional personnel and
equipment. The Fire Chief indicates possible future need for a new 8-car
apparatus and accompanying personnel. With respect to policies services, the
Department predicts that an increase in density will not, in itself, equate to a
future need to increase personnel. The necessity for new officers and equipment
will be assessed as the service demand dictates. If the community policing
approach is successful, it may reduce the possible need for an additional patrol
district (5 officers) and associated court/jail costs.
Parks and Recreation. Increased demand on public recreation resources (e.g., a
regional park and pool facility, six neighborhood parks, and a community center)
should be expected commensurate to a 50 percent household increase. A new
community center and on -going park acquisition/development are activities
underway to help satisfy future demand.
Schools. The South Central School District should expect increases in the
number of school -aged children living within the district service area. As such,
future capital facility improvements will need to be supplied to meet the demand
of new children. In addition, the District's resource encumbrance of accepting
dismissed or expelled students from other school districts may be further
stretched as increasingly more students at risk arrive in the region and district.
Human Services. This City service provider may be impacted by increased
growth as a portion of new growth are low-income families. Overall, the Human
Services Office provides a coordinating resource to the City's needy constituents.
The relative impacts associated with implementing the proposed action do not
seem to significantly affect its service capacity. However, on -going monitoring of
its service demands will need to be coordinated.
PLAN DRAFT EIS
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures recommended include
potential development of a GMA Impact Fee for
the South Central School District; preparation of
a long-range strategic plan for the school district
to meet the facility demands of new growth;
continued interdepartmental coordination of the
City's six -year financialplanning program;
further development of police and fire protection
strategic plans to ensure efficient use of
resources; and greater emphasis placed on
addressing public safety issues through design
criteria and other project review.
IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Public services are primarily impacted as growth
occurs. Each of the public service providers would
continue to meet the needs of Tukwila residents and
businesses regardless of whether the proposed
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan is implemented. The
No Action Alternative would require fire, police,
school, and human services at a similar level as the
Proposed Action.
SUMMARY TABLE
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Public utilities includes the following systems: water supply, sewer services,
surface water drainage, solid waste, electricity, natural gas, and
telecommunications. The water supply, sanitary sewer and surface water systems
represent the major utilities impacted by growth. For each of these facilities, a
separate analysis has been prepared to address supply, demand, and deficiency
issues. While they each have their own varying degree of impacts, the majority
of the identified problems relate to system deficiencies, distribution difficulties,
service capacities, and general maintenance and operations. A complete listing of
identified impacts appears in greater detail in the environmental analysis of this
section.
Funding capacities for these major utilities is another potential impact. In the
short-term, financing is available satisfy capital improvements proposed under
the current six -year plan. In the long -tern, shortfalls have been identified for
each system. The City should monitor and review the load capacity impacts of
growth. It will be the City's responsibility to ensure adequate service.
TRANSPORTATION (continues on to next page)
Much of Tukwila's land use pattem, and hence planning, has been linked with its
major transportation corridors. Because of the strong interrelationship between
the corridors and the surrounding residential and employment areas,
transportation planning needs to be conducted in the context of proposed land
uses. The Tukwila Urban Center and principal arterials are being monitored to
ensure maintenance of the desired levels of roadway service. The policies of the
Transportation Element suggest that the City has considered land use issues as
part of its transportation planning efforts.
However, several conflicts occur between transportation goals and policies, and
land use objectives. Pacific Highway represents an important consideration; as
do increased residential densities. The Transportation Element addresses many
of the issues between local and regional needs, and the effect of higher densities
on the residential street network. The City's Transportation Element tries to
resolve possible conflicts with useful implementation strategies, including a
Roadway Mitigation Payment System, promotion of the Commute Trip
Reduction Program, and possible opportunities to implement noise abatement
techniques not only for roadways but also aircraft noise.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Service capacities for each utility is met either
through a City -operated CIP program or through
the plans of independent utility service
providers. To mitigate potential impacts the
following measures are recommended: review
long-term demand and shortfalls as part of
annual and six -year capital facilities planning;
and telecommunications towers should be shared
between different companies to minimize
aesthetic impacts to the immediate
neighborhood.
Proposed mitigation measures recommend a
range of solutions from roadway improvements
and increased ridesharing to working with
regional transit agencies and coordinating land
use and transportation planning. Among the
recommendations are an "average" LOS system
to use a system -wide approach to evaluating
congestion, a traffic impact mitigation payment
system for the impacts of additional future
traffic; specific arterial, HOV, and traffic signal
operation improvements; transportation systems
management and commuter trip reduction
programs; working with Metro and the Regional
Transit Authority; ensuring sufficient and
effective alternatives to single -occupancy
vehicles, particularly in the Tukwila Urban
Center and transportation corridor planning
areas; and ensuring implementation of a
concurrency program.
IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Each of the public utility providers, both City -owned
and non -City -owned, would continue to meet the
needs of Tukwila residents and businesses regardless
of whether the proposed Tukwila Comprehensive
Plan is implemented. The No Action Altemative may,
in fact, have slightly lesser impacts due to lower
population capacity permitted under existing zoning.
However, that growth may be dispersed throughout
the City rather than concentrated in targeted urban
growth areas. This could result in both financial and
service capacity impacts to several utilities.
A comparison of the year 2010 V/C with the existing
system V/C reveals a significant drop in the level of
service for the latter. If no action is taken or no
improvements to the arterial system are made, the
LOS drops significantly at the Tukwila Urban Center
cordon line. The average LOS drops from D to F.
The cordon serves as a measure of how easy it is to
enter and exit the TUC on the seven arterial links and
two freeway ramps providing this access. The average
V/C ratio for the seven arterial links under existing
conditions is 0.82 (LOS D). In 2010 with no
improvements, the V/C ratio is projected to increase
to 1.29 (LOS F). Traffic volumes at the CBD cordon
line are forecasted to increase from current count of
142,753 (1992) to 173,654 in 2000, and 206,658 in
2010. All modes of vehicular travel, automobiles,
buses, and service trucks, are negatively impacted
without further improvements.
SUMMARY TABLE
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
xiv
TUKWILA COMPREHi 'E PLAN DRAFT EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Impacts on the transportation system involve motorized vehicles, emergency Increased residential area densities will require a
access issues, public transit, and non -motorized transportation. The following more complete, inter -connected local access road
summarizes the potential environmental impacts of each: network.
Motorized Vehicles. The Proposed Action calls for a number of arterial street
improvements as well as improvements to streets providing access to the Tukwila
Urban Center. A comparison of the proposed transportation plan year 2010 V/C
with the existing system V/C shows a significant drop in the level of service, but
an increase of the level of service when compared to the year 2010 V/C with no
improvements. Several improvements are planned; however, many parts of the
arterial street system will still not meet the LOS standard of E for commercial and
industrial streets.
Future traffic circulation analysis will be based on a system basis rather than a
single intersection or single road segment basis. This system approach requires
use of a GMA impact fee ordinance. The average level of service `E' is
anticipated to primarily require impact fees in the Tukwila Urban Center and
several other commercial road corridors. Residential areas are not anticipated to
trigger an impact fee.
Low volume (single-family neighborhood) local access street design (28 to 30 fee
wide) provides parking on two sides, and a 12- to 14-foot wide travel lane. It is to
slow traffic and requires pulling aside for on -coming cars to pass each other. This
will reduce through traffic, lower speeds, and increase pedestrian orientation.
However, the Fire Department supports that all access streets should allow for a
full -two way fire truck/car passing to allow safe, rapid vehicle movement. this
would mean a minimum 36-foot wide road if two-sided parking is provided. The
City will need to reach a policy decision on this issue.
Public Transit. The Proposed Action will increase the number and density of
transit riders. Additional transit service from King County will be needed to
capture these potential future riders, and realize the currently assumed 5 percent
peak hour ridership. Failure to provide the additional service may require
recalibrating the model for a smaller transit ridership and requiring more road
improvements. In addition, a transit center(s) will be needed in the Tukwila
Urban Center to create a destination where buses can collect at a given time.
(continues on to next page)
SUMMARY TABLE
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN.
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
XV
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Non -Motorized Transportation. The Proposed Action envisions extensive
improvements to residential area trails and sidewalks. Commercial area
improvements are a combination of sidewalk improvements with transit and
pedestrian supportive private development criteria. Both sets of improvements
provide essential support for the transit system, as well as providing facilities for
its own mode of travel.
MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACTS OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
SUMMARY TABLE
f_ ..
h..
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. _ __,
xvi
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Proposed Action: Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) serves to provide information to citizens and public
officials about the potential environmental implications of a new comprehensive plan for the City
of Tukwila. The City proposed "Tukwila Comprehensive Plan" has been prepared pursuant to the =
Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A), and in coordination with the overall planning w
framework of the King County Countywide Planning Policies. 6
J U'
0
The Proposed Actin which is evaluated in this document is the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan ; u9 w
recommended by the Tukwila Planning Commission to the Tukwila City Council. Any changes Lir
to the Proposed Action will be evaluated as to the need for an addendum (WAC 197 -11- co u
600(4)(c)) or supplemental EIS (WAC 197 -11- 405(4)).
gJ
The relationship of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan to statewide and countywide plans is N P
discussed below. Table 1, which begins on page 6, summarizes how the City's Comprehensive I W
Plan meets the provisions of both the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies. z
1- O
z1-;
Growth Management Act Ili ILI
The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 and 1991 established a framework for o SP-
'-
growth and development throughout the state. It mandates fast - growing counties and cities, w w
including the City of Tukwila, to develop comprehensive plans, covering a 20 -year planning 1=-
cycle, that incorporate a number of specific elements. In response to the Act, the King County . z
Council adopted a series of countywide planning policies to serve as guidelines for coordinating cn
planning by all cities and districts. These include: .o
z
• Providing a fair share of regional housing through residential neighborhood development and
land use policies;
• Identification of urban growth areas (UGA) that can accommodate at least 20 years of new
population and employment, and, where appropriate, urban centers of concentrated
population and employment within them (such as the Tukwila Urban Center);
• Determining potential annexation areas consonant with the urban growth areas;
• Identifying, establishing, and protecting open space corridors of regional significance; and
• Adopting policies regarding criteria for urban centers and manufacturing/industrial centers
into local comprehensive plans to ensure future maintenance of the existing quality of life
and the environment.
Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan expands on these mandates and serves as the City's primary tool
and guide for preserving and enhancing Tukwila's long -term economic growth, community
viability, and sense of identity. It expresses the vision of the community and how that vision
may be realized.
PROPOSED ACTION
The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's "vision" is articulated in core values. Specific and definable
statements of these values are:
• Tukwila was and will continue as a regional crossroads.
• We honor the past as we move toward the future.
• We support our families as primary care givers.
• We support our children.
• We value our environment.
• We appreciate our surroundings.
• We support and cooperate with our thriving and responsible businesses.
• We seek responsive government that respects citizen rights.
• We seek to provide opportunities for our citizens.
Comprehensive Plan Elements
The GMA requires comprehensive plans to address at least five primary elements to responsibly
plan for their future: housing, utilities, transportation, capital facilities, and land use. In addition
to these elements, cities may choose to add other elements to serve local needs and
considerations. The proposed action, the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, comprises 15 elements,
six of which focus on the issue of land use. These plan elements are listed below and summarized
in Appendix B.
Required GMA Elements
• Housing
• Utilities
• . Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Land Use
- Residential Neighborhoods
- Transportation Corridors
- Tukwila South
- Tukwila Urban Center
- Manufacturing/Industrial Center
- Shoreline
Optional Elements
• Community Image
Economic Development
• Natural Environment
• Annexation
• Roles and Responsibilities
Technical Background Reports. Background analyses used in formulating initial policies have
been incorporated by reference and briefly described in Appendix A. Although many initial
policies have been modified, many of the technical findings remain valid. The verbatim minutes
of the citizen/business advisory group named the "Tukwila Tomorrow Committee" and the
PROPOSED ACTION
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Tukwila Planning Commission provide the rational bridge between staff technical reports, and
proposed goals and policies. The technical data has been excerpted and summarized in the
description of existing conditions and used to evaluate Plan impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As per WAC 197 - 11-442 of the SEPA rules, a lead agency's discussion of EIS alternatives "for a
comprehensive plan, community plan, or other areawide zoning or for shoreline or land use plans
shall be limited to a general discussion of the impacts of alternate proposals for policies
contained in such plans, for land use or shoreline designations, and for implementation measures.
The lead agency is not required under SEPA to examine all conceivable policies, designations, or
implementation measures but should cover a range of such topics. The EIS content may be
limited to a discussion of alternatives which have been formally proposed or which are, while not
formally proposed, reasonably related to the proposed action." For the purposes of this analysis,
the two alternatives to the proposed action are the No Action Alternative and a special
alternatives analysis for the Tukwila Urban Center. In addition, an alternatives analysis was
conducted for the designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Its contents and associated Boeing
Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS are incorporated by reference into this document.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative assumes that the existing Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and its
associated land use and zoning maps would continue in effect over the next 20 years. The
existing Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan . represents the overall "No Action" alternative
as per WAC (197- 11- 440(5)(b)(ii)). This plan includes general goals, objectives, policies, and a
land use map, as well as a network of specific functional plans and single purpose ordinances
which have been largely independently developed. Plan elements and incorporated functional
plans are listed below:
• Natural Environment Element
• Open Space Element
• Residence Element
• Commerce/lndustry Element
• .TransportationfUtilities Element
• Plan Maps: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, Circulation, and Historic Sites.
Functional Plans incorporated include:
• Long -Range Parks and Open Space Plan
• Central Business District Sidewalk Plan
• Comprehensive Sewer System
• Comprehensive Water System Plan
• Comprehensive Surface Water Management System Plan
• Multi- Family Design Guidelines
PROPOSED ACTION
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
The No Action Alternative does not suggest that population and employment growth will not
occur, but rather that existing plans would remain in effect, and not be replaced by the proposed
goals and policies of the proposed action. Policies of the No Action alternative are as broad in
scope as the Proposed Action. However, they are very significantly less detailed.
z
Tukwila's overall distribution of land uses and development potential would not significantly z
1- z:
differ from the Proposed Action except in the Tukwila Urban Center, Pacific Highway ce 2
Transportation Corridor, and Tukwila South areas. The differences are summarized below. 6 D
00
• Tukwila Urban Center: Many Light Industrial areas have been replaced with Commercial . w W
(e.g., office and retail) areas to the east of Tukwila Pond/So. 168th Street right -of -way "
I= (3
z
b) providing implementation provisions for the City Council's nominated Southcenter business
district as an urban center;
c) establishing a level of service for transportation systems; and
d) establishing criteria for evaluating concurrency.
The City would also artificially limit its access to the full range of impact mitigation options, and
be subject to State sanctions for non - compliance. In order to address the potential impacts of the
No Action Alternative in greater detail, each category of the environment examined in the impact
analysis section also explores this project alternative.
Alternative Designations for the Tukwila Urban Center
A special alternatives analysis was conducted for the Tukwila Urban Center due to its special,
high - density nature. The proposed action, the Tukwila Urban Center, represents a hybrid of the
alternatives presented in the discussion below. The Tukwila Urban Center foresees a long -term
vision (over 30 to 50 years) of a high - density area with regional employment, housing, shopping,
and recreational opportunities for business people, residents, and visitors. As part of defining an
PROPOSED ACTION
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
"urban center" that satisfies both regional criteria and local needs, the City of Tukwila considered
a range of alternatives for its urban center area. These included:
• Urban Center, as defined by the Countywide Planning Policies. This type of center
maintained the principal characteristics of an urban center as defined in the Countywide
Planning Policies. It proposes an average of 50 employees per gross acre and an average of
15 household per gross acre. It emphasizes a pedestrian- oriented environment, mass
transportation, and less dependency on single- occupancy vehicles.
• Activity Area. The City explored the potential of lesser densities for the urban center area.
This alternative follows the principal characteristics of an activity area as defined by the
countywide planning policies, but also considered Tukwila's desired built environment for
the center. Target densities are 15 to 25 employees per acre and an average of 5 households
per acre. Building heights would be limited to three to five stories and.strong emphasis would
be placed on providing access to mass transit.
• Commercial Area. The commercial area alternative closely approximates the existing built
form and land use mix of the study area. It proposes a maximum of three -story building
heights, containing a mix of low- density regional commercial and industrial uses. It primarily
supports auto - oriented development and maintains the existing densities of 17 -20 employees
per acre and .01 households per acre.
These alternative designations propose either lower or equal densities to the proposed action, and
maintain similar land use mixes. Their principal differences focus on their vision for the future,
and the level of intensity of development. In an effort to ensure that the Tukwila Urban Center
maintains a character that responds to local needs, the final proposed action represents a hybrid
of each alternative. As such, the discussion of the affected environment and impact analysis
encompasses many of the characteristics of the alternative designations.
Were any of the three alternatives implemented individually it could be expected that they may
create their own varying impacts. For example, a lower - intensity, auto - oriented commercial area
would likely result in greater traffic, air quality, and surface water runoff impacts. Or, a higher -
intensity urban center may create strains on public utilities and infrastructure, while having fewer
impacts on traffic due to high- capacity transit and creating opportunities for urban open spaces.
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Alternatives Analysis
As part of defining the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the City of Tukwila's
Manufacturing/Industrial Center, an alternatives analysis was conducted. Entitled the "Boeing
Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS" (File EPIC- 21 -91), the analysis examines a range of
possible development scenarios for the corridor. The lead agency for the project was the City of
Tukwila, with participation from the City of Seattle and King County, and funding by the Boeing
Company. The project's contents and its EIS are hereby incorporated by reference into this
document.
PROPOSED ACTION
-
z
re
_1 C.)
U O:
O'
• Wilk
J I-
CO Ll-.
w0
2
ga
to D.
= a.
z�
O.
z
w
U0
•0 -
0 I--
w
I-
LL O.
w
Z.
UN •
- _
z
TABLE 1: The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and its Relationship
to Growth Management Act Goals and Countywide Planning Policies
GMA Goal/Requirement
Countywide Planning Policy
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal 1. Urban Growth
Encourage development in urban areas where adequate
facilities and services exist or can be provided efficiently.
land Use Pattern:
Urban Growth Areas LU-26: Lands should be characterized by urban
development; contains all land within cities; be able to accommodate 20-year
population forecast.
Appendix!: Urban Growth Area Map. •
The Plan fpcourages development to take place within the current City boundary,
the Tukwila Urban Center, the Manufacturing/Industrial Center, and within e
potential expansion area to the south where land is designated for commercial,
light industrial, and medium density uses.
Chapters 7, 11, and 12, and the proposed Land Use Map.
Goal 2. Reduce Sprawl
Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
pprop lx
sprawling, low density development.
Land Use policies and regional growth pattern.
FW-2 Interim actions including minimum density ordinances and rural zoning.
FIV-6 Protect natural environment by reducing consumption of land and
concentrating development.
Chapter 2, Policy 2.1.3-Economic Development
Chapter 2, Policy 2.1.4- Economic Development
Chapter 3, Policy 3.1.3-Housing
Chapter 7, Policy 7.1.6- Annexation
Chapter 11, Policy 11.1.1- Tukwila Urban Center
Urban Growth Areas (RCW 3670A.110)
O Designate an urban growth area within which urban
growth is encouraged.
0 Include each city within UGA.
•
O Include areas densities sufficient to accommodate
20 year growth forecasts.
O County & cities negotiate on location of UGA.
0 Include land outside cities if urban in character
or adjacent to urban lands.
O Permit urban densities & include greenbelts/open space.
O Review UGA at least every 10 years.
O Locate urban growth first in urban areas with existing
public facility & service capacity, nest in urban areas that
will be served by a combination of existing & new
facilities & services.
F►V--1 Growth management is a multi -step process.
FIV-3 Household and employment targets- monitoring.
FW-11 Designate Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas and Resource Lands based
on the Countywide Planning Policies.
FIV-12 Provision of urban services and efficient use of growth capacity in
UGA.
Urban Growth Area LU-26,27 Accommodate the 20-year projection for
population and jobs within the UGA with a full range of urban services.
Include low density urban separators within the UGA.
Appendix 2: Household and Employment Ranges. •
Appendix 3: Affordable !lousing Index.
Appendix 4: Lund Capacity Work Program.
Phasing In Urban Growth Area LU-28-30: Direct growth first to carters 6e
urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity, second to areas that can
be serviced easily and last to areas needing major improvements.
Joint Planning FIV-13, LU-31-37 Counties should provide county -wide
services and cities should provide local services. Designate annexation areas;
adopt annexation criteria; and phase annexations with services.
Cliles lri Rural Area LU-38 Urbanized areas not contiguous to UGA.
In accordance with both GMA and Countywide Planning Policies, the Plan
establishes potential annexation and urban growth areas to accommodate housing
and employment densities projected over the next twenty years. The elements of
the Plan which cover these issues are Annexation, Chapter 7, and three land use
elements: Transportation Corridors, Tukwila South, and Tukwila Urban Center
(Chapters 9,10, and 11, respectively). The following policies address the
requirements of GMA and Countywide Planning Policies:
Chapter 7, Policies 7.1.3, 7.1.4, and 7.1.6- Designates annexation areas.
Chapter 7, Policy 7.1.7- Supports Countywide Policies for UGAs.
Chapter 9, Policies 9.1.1 to 9.3.9 - Supports growth areas and its phasing.
Chapter 10, Policies 10.1.3 and 10.1.4- Phasing of growth areas.
Chapter 11, Policy 11.1.1- Meets growth targets.
Chapter 11, Policy 11.1.1- Supports phasing of growth.
Chapter 11, Policies 11.1.2 and 11.1.3- Households/employment ranges.
.
Land Use Element Contents (RCW36.d0A.070(1)):
O General distribution, location, extent of uses of land;
O Population densities, building intensities, estimates of
future population growth;
O Provide for protection of quality/quantity of ground water,
O Review drainage, flooding and stormwater runoff and
provide guidance for corrective actions.
Appendix 1: Urban Growth Areas Map
Appendix 2: Household and Employment Ranges
FW-3 Monitoring of household and employment targets.
FW-4.5. Overall Environmental Protection
CA-5.6, Aquifers
CA-I2, Frequently Flooded Areas
The Plan's land use contents appears in six of the fifteen elements. These are:
Shoreline, Chapter 5, Residential Neighborhoods, Chapter 8, Transportation
Corridors, Chapter 9, Tukwila South, Chapter 10, Tukwila Urban Center,
Chapter 11, and Manufacturing/Industrial Center, Chapter 12.
The Plan ensures overall environmental protection in Chapter 4, Natural
Environment Element. Policies specifically addressing the issue of water quality
and flooding arc:
Chapter 4, Policies 4.1.2 to 4.1.8, and 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
GMA Goal/Requirement
Countywide Planning Policy
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goals 1 and 2,
Urban Growth Area requirements continued:
Urban Centers FIV-14-15, LU-39-SO Zone to accommodate minimum 15,000
jobs in I-1/2 square miles and within 1.2 mile of transit station, average of 50
employees per acre, and IS households per acre.
kW/Industrial Centers LU-51-62 Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs
(15,000 if to be served by high capacity transit. Four centers are designated.
Urban and Mfg./Industrial Centers FIV-16 Completed by surrounding land
use patterns. •
Urban ResidentlalAreas LU 66,67 Establish target numbers of new dwelling
units that will be accommodated in the next 20 years. Establish 20-year targets
for employment growth within and outside urban centers.
Appendix 2 Household and Employment Ranges
Appendix 3 Affordable !lousing Index
The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates both an urban center and
manufacturing/industrial center as parts of its urban growth area. Chapters 11
and 12 detail how they satisfy the requirements of the Countywide Planning
Policies (CPP).
Chapter II, Figure 11-A compares CPPs with Tukwila Urban Center.
Refer to all goals and policies in Chapter 12.
See the proposed Land Use Map designations.
In addition to these centers, the Housing and Residential Neighborhoods
Elements establish housing unit target numbers. More specifically:
Chapter 3, Policies, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3- Housing
Goals I and2,
Urban Growth Area requirements continued:
NW Development LU-69 Develop local neighborhood planning and design
processes to encourage infill.
ActiviyAreas FIV-17, LU 63:65 Designate local Activity Areas within the
UGA (outside Urban Centers)
Urban Employment Growth LU-611 Provide for 20 year targeted employment
growth both for incorporated and unincorporated areas
Mainers/Office Parks LU-70:74 Direct offices primarily to Urban Centers;
office development outside Centers should occur in activity areas and promote
transit and pedestrian use.
To supplement the growth anticipated for the Tukwila Urban Center and the
Manufacturing/Industrial Center, the Plan also designates activity areas in the
form of transportation corridors to accommodate ancillary growth that would be
more appropriate outside of the centers areas. Policies which consider this
condition are:
Chapter 2, Policy 2.1.3- Economic Development
Chapter 2, Policy 2.1.4- Economic Development
Chapter 9, all goals and policies- Transportation Corridors: Pacific Highway,
Interurban Avenue, and South Center Boulevard.
Rural Element Requirements (RC1V 37.70A.070)
Rural Areas FIV-7:10, LU-6:25 Rural Areas, considered to be permanent,
shall be designated based on the Countywide Planning Policies and consistent
with the GMA. Density guidelines are 20 acres for forest lands; 10 acres to
protect small-scale farming, and where predominant lot pattern is 10 acres or
1.4 mile of resource activities; or 5 acres where land is physically suitable and
services are adequate.
Not applicable to the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 3. Transportation:
Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that
are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county
& city comprehensive plans.
Transportation
Appendix 5 Transportation
High Capacity Transit (!ICI) T-S Urban Centers and mfg./industrial centers
meeting size/density criteria should be served by HCT; comprehensive plans
should reflect future HCT improvement needs (e.g. ROW, stations) and
supportive land uses.
Regional Transit Project T-6 WSDOT completion of I1OV lanes in Puget
Sound Region.
Non -Motorized T-7 Comprehensive plans should address pedestrian and
bicycle travel.
Freeways, Highways and Arterials T-8 Improvements should help alleviate
existing traffic congestion and provide access to new growth areas.
Level ofService T-9:14 Level of Service
The following policies address GMA and CPP transportation issues:
Chapter 11, Policies 11.3.1, 11.3.3, and 11.3.4- Tukwila Urban Center
Chapter 12, Policy, 12.1.13- Manufacturingflndustrial Center
Chapter 14, Policies 14.4.1 to 14.4.13- Transportation
Chapter 1, Policy 1.10.1- Community Image. It should be noted that policies
supporting non -motorized modes of travel also appear in Chapters 5, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 14 (specifically Policies 14.5.1 to 14.5.10).
Chapter 10, Policies 10.4.1 to 10.4.4- Tukwila South (proposed annexation area)
Chapter 11, Policies 11.3.1 and 11.3.2- Tukwila Urban Center
Chapter 14, Policies 14.2.1 and 14.2.2- Transportation System
Chapter 14, Policies 14.3.1 to 14.3.8- Level of Service
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
GMA Goal/Requirement
Countywide Planning Policy
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal3, Transportation, continued:
.
Transportation Polices FW-18-20. T-I-4. Develop land use policies and
financing strategies to support transportation goals.
Reassessment & Financing T-1549 if transportation adequacy/concurrency
can't be met, consider adjusting land use and LOS standards, use all authorized
local option transportation revenues, and seek additional state revenue; give
high priority to preserve and maintain facilities; structure impact fees to ensure
fair share mitigation for new development, but not to cure existing deficiencies;
execute interlocal impact fee agreement with adjoining jurisdictions to address
inter jurisdictional traffic impacts; identify (with King County, WSDOT, other
Chin, PSRC and Metro) regional land acquisition needs and establish a process
for prioritizing and siting transportation needs.
State Transportation Role T-20-22.
Siting Regional/Countywide Transportation Facilities FW-21-23. T-23.
Refer to Capital Facilities Element Background Report (Attachment C).
See concurrency requirements, reassessment text in Chapter 21.04.
See SEPA requirements of Land Use Development Regulations.
1 t
•
Transportation Element Contents (RCW 36670A.070(6)):
O lend use assumptions need to estimate travel;
O inventory of facilities and service needs;
O level of services standards (regionally coordinated);
0 10-year travel forecasts based on the plan;
O system expansion needs to meet demands;
O analysis of funding capability to meet needs & multi -year
financing plan;
0 discussion of reassessment of land use or additional
funding strategies to meet financing needs;
0 intergovernmental coordination efforts and identification
of impacts on adjacent jurisdictions;
O demand management strategies; and•
O prohibition of development approval if proposal would
cause level of service to fall below adopted standards
unless strategies or improvements are made to
accommodate the development concurrent with
development.
See Chapter 14, Transportation, and associated background report.
The Plan's Transportation Element uses the most current Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) land use assumptions that go into the transportation
model. The model generates future multi -modal travel demand on the regional
transportation network. The PSRC periodically updates their transportation
model. At the time of its first comprehensive plan amendment, the City will
update the transportation plan by utilizing the most current PSRC travel demand
modeling output.
Key policies addressing GMA requirements are:
Background Report, pps. 9, 17, 42-49, 53, and 65- Inventories and Needs
Chapter 14, Policies 14.3.1 to 14.3.8- Level of Service
Chapter 21.04 Concutrency and Reassessment Text
Background Report, Figures 6 and 7- 10-year Forecasting
Capital Facilities Element- Funding Capability.
Background Report, Sections C, D, and E- Intergovernmental Coordination
Chapter 14, Policy 14.4.8- Transportation Demand Management Strategies
Goal 4. Housing
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all
economic segments of the population of this state, promote a
variety of residential densities & housing typos, & encourage
of existing housing stock.
Affordable Housing Fit-28: All l-S Plan to meet the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community; specify the number of planned units
affordable to specified income groups.
Appendix 3 Affordable Housing Index
Chapter 3, Policies 3.1.1 to 3.1.3- City's fair share of regional housing.
Chapter 3, Policies 3.2.1 to 3.2.9- Provision for fair share of affordable housing.
preservation
Housing Element Contents (RCW36.70A.070(2):
O inventory/analysis of existing & projected needs;
O goals, policies, objectives for housing preservation,
improvements, development
O sufficient land for various housing types; and
0 provides for needs of all economic segments
Required GMA contents included in the City Housing Element:
Background Report, pps. 7,12, 18, and 23- Inventory and Needs
Chapter 3, all policies- Housing preservation, improvement, and development
Background Report, pps. 19 and 29- identification of land for housing
Chapter 3, Policies 3.2.1 to 3.2.9- Housing for all economic segments
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
GMA Goal/Requirement
Countywide Planning Policy
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal S. Economic Development
Encourage economic development throughout the state that is
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans; promote
economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially
for unemployed and disadvantaged persons; & encourage
growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic genvironmentalrous
all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public
services, and public facilities.
Economic Development & Finance FW-33 36; ED-I-24 Local
comprehensive plans should include policies that support retention and
expansion of the regional economic base, including policies that improve
business climate; support export industries; local job retention and attraction
where appropriate; achieve a balance between economic growth and
environmental protection; and address disadvantagedgroups.
Regional Finance & Governance FW-37-39; RF-1-5. King County and the
cities shall develop a Regional Financing Plan (by July 1996)
The City's Plan addresses GMA and CPP economic development issues through
the following policies:
Chapter 2, Polities 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, and 2.1.10- Promote job growth
Chapter 2, Policies 2.1.3, 2.1.5, 2.1.7, and 2.1.9- City actions
I
Goal 6. Property Rights
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of
landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and
discriminatory actions.
No comparable policies contained CPPs.
The City's Plan, on page sill of the Introduction, states that "we respect the
rights of our residents, workers, and visitors to pursue their individual and
collective visions, provided that their actions respect the same rights of others."
Plan policies supporting property rights include:
Chapter I, Policy 1.10.5- Community Image
Chapter 5, Policies 5.4.1 to 5.4.3- Shoreline
Goal 7. Permits
Applications for both state & local government permits
should be processed in a timely & fair manner to ensure
predictability.
No comparable policies in CPPs.
The Land Use Development Regulations propose a new "ordinance to establish
requirements for application and timeliness for processing construction -related
permit applications. Other Plan policies supporting this GMA goal are:
Chapter 2, Policy 2.1.6- Economic Development
Chapter 12, Policy 12.1.3- Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Goal 8. Natural Resource Industries
Maintain & enhance natural resource -based industries,
including productive timber, agricultural &fisheries
industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest
lands & productive agricultural lands, & discourage
incompatible uses.
Land Use Pattern
Resource Lands FIKQ LU-/- LU-S. Protect existing resource lands with
long-lenn commercial significance; encourage compatible land uses; adopt
BMPs for mining.
Because of Tukwila's highly urbanized environment, natural resource industries,
as defined by the GMA and CPP, do not exist in the City of Tukwila. Please
refer to the discussion in Chapter 4, Natural Environment Element, page 4-1,
paragraph 3.
Goal 9. Open Space & Recreation
Encourage the retention of open space & development of
recreational opportunities, conserve fish & wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands & water, & develop
p
Open Space FW-27; CC-6-13 The regional open space system should provide
physical & visual buffers to separate incompatible uses and define urban
growth boundaries; provide active & passive recreation; and/or contain natural
areas, habitat lands, natural drainage features and/or other environmental/scenic
resources.
•
Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan meets the open space mandates of both the GMA
and CPP through goals and policies in several plan elements. These include:
Chapter I, Policies 1.10.1 to 1.11.8- Community Image
Chapter 4, Policies 4.2.1 to 4.2.4- Natural Environment
Chapter 5, Policies 5.1.1 to 5.1.3- Shoreline
Chapter S, Policies 5.6.1 to 5.6.11- Shoreline
Chapter S, Policies 5.9.1 to 5.9.3- Shoreline
Chapter 8, Policies 8.4.2, 8.4.4, 8.4.5, and 8.4.6- Residential Neighborhoods
Chapter 10, Policy 10.3.1- Tukwila South
Chapter II, Policies 11.2.1 and 11.2.7- Tukwila Urban Center
Goal 10. Environment
Protect the environment & enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air &water quality, le the availability of water.
Critical Areas
Environmental Protection FW 4-S. Protect and enhance natural ecosystem
through comprehensive plans, policies and regulations. Mange the built
environment to protect, improve and sustain environmental quality while
minimizing public and private costs. Manage water resources for multiple
beneficial uses.
Wetlands CA-I-4. Protect wetlands and buffers; assure no net loss; increase
quantity/quality; consider flexible mitigation (systems & corridors).
Aquifers CA-S-6. Protect aquifers; and implement management plans; adopt
Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Fish & Wildlife Habitat CA-7-II. Identify/protect critical habitat & species;
protect natural drainage systems & habitat networks between jurisdictions;
maintain water quality (control runoff & apply BMPs).
See Chapter 4, all goals and policies- Natural Environment
Also refer to the following policies
Chapter 13, Policies 13.1.15 to 13.1.20 - Utilities
Chapter 14, Policy 14.4.12- Transportation
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) also details Critical Areas
and Natural Environment features.
•
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
GMA Goal/Requirement
Countywide Planning Policy
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal 10, Environment continued:
•lnrplementatlon
Frequently Flooded Areas CA-I2 Protect natural flood storage & conveyance;
plan and regulate to reduce flood impacts.
Geologic Hazard Areas CA-13 Protect steep slopes, landslide hazards; erosion
hazards, coal mine hazards & seismic hazards.
Air & Water Quality CA-14-13 Promote air quality; implement Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan.
CA-16 Establish a technical committee for regulations,
policies and benchmarks.
I r
GMA Goal 11. Citizen Participation
Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process
& ensure coordination between communities & jurisdictions
to resolve conflicts.
No comparable policies contained in CPPs.
Refer to the Plan Introduction, page viii, "How Was The Public Involved"
Also see Chapter 16, all goals and policies- Roles and Responsibilities
Intergovernmental jurisdiction is mentioned in Chapter 7, Policies 7.1.4, 7.1.7,
and 7.I.8-Annexation.
Goal 12. Public Facilities & Services
Ensure that those public facilities & services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the
development at the time the development is available for
occupancy & use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards.
Contiguous & Orderly Development, & Provision of Urban Services FW-29-
31. CO-1-16 Identify the full range of urban services required to support
growth and how they will be provided.
Concurrency Requirements, Chapter 21.04, Section 21.04.032, of associated
implementing Development Regulations.
Facilities and services arc discussed in the Plan's Utilities, Transportation, and
Capital Facilities Elements (Chapters 13, 14, and 15, respectively).
Siting of Essential Public Facilities (RCW 3670A.200)
Each Counry's Comprehensive Plan shell include a processstatewide
for identifying & siting essential public facilities...(i.e.) those
that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state
education facilities...transportation, correctional...solid
waste...substance abuse...mental health and group homes...No
local comprehensive plan or development regulation may
preclude the siting ofessental public fadlides.
Siting Countywide or Statewide Capital Facilities FW-32; S-I Countywide or
capital facilities should be sited through a public process and should
support countywide land use patterns & economic activities, mitigate
environmental impacts, provide amenities and incentives, and minimize public
costs.
Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan eletnents and its associated development
regulations do not preclude the siting of public facilities within the City. The
City does support FW-32/S-1 and its stated objective of requiring a thorough
public process and regulatory action for such facilities.
Capital Facilities Plan Element Contents (RCW36670A.(3))
O inventory of existing capital facilities showing locations
and capacities;
O forecasts of future need;
O location/capacity of proposed new facilities;
0 6-year plan to finance needed facilities within projected
funding capacities, including sources of funds; and
0 requirement to reassess land use element if funding falls
short of projections.
See Utilities, Transportation, and Capital Facilities Elements (Chapters 13, 14,
and 15) and their associated Background Reports for inventories, assessed
needs, proposed locations/capacities, levels of service standards, and six -year
financing plan. The requirerent to reassess the land use element is incorporated
by reference through the adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies, as per .
page v of the Plan.
It should be noted that since the Capital Facilities Element must be updated
yearly, any current deficiencies can be remedied in subsequent updates of this
Plan element.
Utilities Element Contents (RCW 36.70A/070(3))
O general location and capacity of existing/proposed utilities
Chapter 13 and Background Report, all goals and policies- Utilities
DEIS, Utilities discussion
Goal 13. Historic Preservation
Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, &
structures that have historical or archaeological altesicertee.
Community Character & Open Space FW-24-FW-26
Historic Resources CC-1,2 Identify, evaluate and protect historic resources;
protecl/enhance historic resources through land use planning and regulations.
Urban Design C-3 Promote high quality design and site planning.
Human/CommunityServices CC-4,5 Essential community and human service
needs should be identified and included in land use, transportation & capital
improvement plans.
Chapter 1, Policies 1.2.1 to 1.2.5- Community Image (Historic Preservation)
Chapter 1, Policies 1.6.1 to 1.9.1- Community Image (Urban Design)
Chapter 4, Policy 4.6.1- Natural Environment (Historical significance)
Chapter 5, Policy 5.8.1- Shoreline (Ilistorical Resource Use)
Chapter 8, Policies 8.3.1 to 8.3.6- Residential Neighborhoods (Urban Design)
Chapter 9, Policies 9.2.710 9.2.9- Transportation Corridors (History)
Chapter 10, Policies 10.1.3 and 10.1.3.4- Tukwila South (Site Plan/Design)
Chapter 11, Policies 11.2.3 to 11.2.6- Tukwila Urban Center (Urban Design)
Chapter 11, Policy 11.2.9- Tukwila Urban Center (Human Services)
Chapter 16, all policies- Roles and Responsibilities (Human Services)
10
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
ONMENTAL ANALYSIS
City of .Tukwila Comprehensive Plan -Environmental Impact Statement
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Earth
Earth: Affected Environment
General Geology, Topography, and Soils
Tukwila has a land area of 8.6 square miles; it is approximately 7 miles from north to south, and
an average of 1.75 miles from east to west. Tukwila's geographic environment was largely
formed by glaciers and the Green River carving valleys and plateaus. Tukwila is generally
comprised of flat, sediment - filled river bottom land on the east, to steep glacier -carved hillsides,
and rising to a rolling upland plateau in areas to the west. The flat river bottom has an elevation
range of about 16 to 25 feet above sea level on its course through the City, while the upland
plateau area rises approximately 255 to 264 feet, to reach elevations of 280 feet above sea level.
Sandy, silty, and peaty sediments dominate the valley floor and underlay the predominately
impervious surfaces created by commercial and industrial development. The native soils are not
generally stable enough to directly bear strictures, due to their high silt and peat content. The
current built form has relied heavily on large amounts of fill to help provide structural stability
for buildings resting on the native unstable soils.
Hillside areas range from moderate slopes (15 to 40 percent) to nearly vertical valley walls
(shown in Figure 2, Plant and Animals section). The steeper hillsides generally lie to the south of
Interstate 405, where it is not unusual to find springs, slip - planes, and evidence of recent earth
movement. Hillside areas north of I-405 are similarly wet, but often less steep or high. Less steep
areas have been, or are in the process of being, developed largely as single- family residences.
The rolling upland plateau areas are characterized by sand -silt soils. They do not seem to present
unusual constraints to directly supporting light building foundations.
Geologic Hazards
Areas of potential geologic instability focus on those sites subject to potential landslides and/or
seismic instabilities. The City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) regulates slopes of 15 percent
gradient and greater, seismic areas with soft soils, loose sand, or a shallow ground water table.
While the point of regulation is the 15 percent slope threshold, the City's classification and
investigation requirements also reflect underlying soil conditions.
Landslide hazard areas in the City of Tukwila were inventoried and mapped in 1990, and are
based on soil and slope conditions. Landslide areas in Tukwila are characterized by a few feet of
relatively loose, surficial soil situated on slopes underlain by denser and typically less permeable
soil or bedrock. The catalyst for landslides is the addition of water. Tukwila's local geology
mostly consists of silts and clays with a significant occurrence of ground water seepage.
EARTH
11
rates.
Soil erosion significantly
contributes to the
degradation of surface and
groundwater resources and is
one of the leading sources of
non -point source water
pollution. Sedimentation .
changes the physical quality
of water resources by
TABLE 2
Sediment Yield from Development Sites
Land Use Type
Sediment Yield
(pounds /acre/year)
Rural/undeveloped
0.55
Low - density residential (0.2 to 1 unit/acre)
6.77
Medium - density residential (1-8 units/acre)
42.59
High - density residential (8 + units /acre)
260.57
12 EARTH
c
z
6
Uo
co
' co w
CO W
wo
ga
z ci
I- I.
Z �.
I- o'.
W
np
o (I).
,o I-
ww
o
w z,
U N.
0
z
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
increasing turbidity. Turbidity is caused by small particles suspended in water that gives water a
murky, or muddy, appearance. Turbidity in surface water reduces the amount of sunlight
penetration and affects the photosynthesis of aquatic plants and algae. Decreased aquatic oxygen
production reduces oxygen'intake by fish, and fish eggs suffocate during incubation.
Sedimentation also degrades the chemical quality of water by releasing into the water chemicals
such as nitrogen, phosphorus and organic compounds that had been bonded to soil particles. An
estimate of the quantity of sediment lost through erosion has been calculated by the Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). These numbers reflect sedimentation from urban watersheds,
and are based on rainfall statistics from Seattle, and Snoqualmie monitoring stations (Pelletier et.
al. 1984).
In Tukwila, the potential for erosion
is especially high while a site is being
developed. While a site is being
developed vegetation is largely
removed, and soil is exposed.
Therefore, current and future
development sites, regardless of the
type of development, present great
erosion risks. In addition,
considerable erosion occurs off of
already developed sites, especially
sites situated on steep slopes.
Tukwila has a number of stretches of
land with slopes of 15 percent or
greater, especially in corridors along
the Highway 99 and Interstate 5. Stormwater is discharged into the GreenlDuwamish River.
This, along with natural drainage directly into the river, presents the potential for great
sedimentation and pollution of the river resulting from erosion.
Erosion control measures on vacant site along I 54th Street
Within the current City boundaries, several areas have been identified as having high erosion
potential. These include the area between Southcenter Parkway and Interstate 5, south of
Strander Boulevard, and the area between Southcenter Parkway and Interstate 5, south of S.
180th Street. These areas are zoned for low- density residential, and medium - density residential
and commercial light industrial respectively. Erosion from future and current developments in
these areas can be expected to be great. In addition, the largely undeveloped proposed annexation
area south of Tukwila has been classified as having severe erosion hazards. This area has been
zoned for Medium Density Residential and Commercial/Light Industrial. Again, the potential
for erosion from sites in this area is extremely high during development, and will remain high
once developed.
EARTH
13
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
For developments proposed in an erosion prone area, disturbance of soils, slope and vegetation
should be minimized as much as possible to decrease the erosion hazard. Often, disturbance can
only be minimized through lower development densities, and/or stricter site coverage.
Sometimes, development can increase stability, but this often involves complex soils and
structural engineering and greatly increases the costs associated with development.
Landslide Impacts
Many areas of high erosion hazard
are also susceptible to landslides.
Landslide hazard areas typically
have very steep slopes with
vulnerable soil types that can be
saturated by water. The most severe
slides are associated with subsurface
layers such as clay /silts (slip planes)
which, when the overburden is
increased (e.g. development weight
is added), will suddenly "let go" and
result in large landslides. Clearing,
grading, and improper discharge of
stormwater in such areas can
increase landslide risks by exposing, loosening, and destabilizing soils; altering natural drainage
patterns; and allowing increased soil moisture content. The most common causes of landslides
are: 1) mechanical cut and fill in which slopes are reshaped by heavy equipment resulting in the
loss of equilibrium associated with natural conditions (common along major highways); 2)
deforestation due to urbanization which reduces soil stabilization and increases runoff; and 3)
improper siting and construction of buildings and related facilities which upsets slope
equilibrium.
Landslide hazard area along Interurban Avenue
Landslides in Tukwila usually involve a few feet of relatively loose, surficial soil situated on
slopes underlain by denser and typically less permeable soil or bedrock. Some of the landslides
in the area also involve failure of the deeper soil or bedrock. The surficial soils can originate by
weathering of the underlying soil or bedrock, by accumulation of material transported from
upslope, or as a result of site grading activities.
Tukwila has different classifications for landslide hazard areas. In Class I areas, landslide
potential is low with slopes below 15 percent. In Class II areas, landslide potential is moderate
with slopes of. 15 to 40 percent underlain by permeable soils. In Class III areas, landslide
potential is high, with slopes of 15 to 40 percent underlain by impermeable soils or by bedrock.
In Class IV areas, landslide potential is very high. These areas are characterized by sloping areas
with mappable groundwater seepage and landslide deposits.
14
:
EARTH
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Tukwila has several active landslide areas. The area on the West side of I -5, South of SR -518 is
characterized as an active area due to the presence of wet slip lanes. Another active area is along
the West Valley Wall, which lies between Southcenter Parkway and I -5 south of the I -405
interchange. Most of these areas are zoned for low- density residential usage in the Proposed
Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Map.
There are several other areas in Tukwila that have been classified as having slopes over 15
percent, and have soils which result in a high potential for landslide hazard One area lies along
the west side of Macadam/51 st Avenue S. between S. 130th St. and the I -5/1 -405 interchange.
Another area lies along the east and west sides of the I -5 corridor, south from the I -405
interchange to the current City limits. Another lies along the West side of Interurban Avenue S.
between the Foster Golf Links and I-405. Finally, the area north of 1 -5 along 51st Avenue S. has
slopes of 15 percent or greater. In response to the landslide potential for these areas, they have
largely been designated for very low- density residential use, with some medium - density
residential and commercial/light industrial interspersed. No development standards have been
proposed to limit vegetation disturbance or mitigate for such impacts. Any significant increases
in urbanization and vegetative cover removal will increase erosion and slide potential.
Similarly steep areas south of S. 180th Street have been designated Medium - Density Residential
and Commercial/Light Industrial from Low - Density Residential. Extensive mitigation during and
after construction will be needed to avoid significantly increased landslide hazards. In addition,
the area just south of the King County Transfer Station, within the proposed annexation area, has
been classified as having high landslide potential. The land use plan calls for this area to be
zoned for commercial/light industrial. At present, it is largely undeveloped.
Generally, if biological evidence and lack of obvious land movements indicates that a site is
relatively stable, development in Class I and II areas should be allowed to proceed. However,
any development in landslide hazard areas may require extensive soil and structural engineering.
This will greatly increase the costs of developing in these areas. In addition, measures should be
taken to ensure that runoff rates from development in landslide hazard areas are the same as
predevelopment runoff rates. Development in Class III and IV landslide areas should be
minimized.
Seismic Impacts
Soils in seismic hazard areas are subject to liquefaction or violent earthquake motion, putting
structures in those areas at risk of structural damage. Areas most susceptible to seismic hazards
are those underlain by soft soils or by loose sand, or those having a shallow groundwater table.
Seismic areas are typically located along valley floors and are underlain by alluvium.
Because much of Tukwila lies within a valley, and because development in the lowlands required
large amounts of fill due to the presence of wetlands and unstable soils, much of the City is
subject to potential seismic impacts which would affect current and future developments. In
EARTH
15
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
addition, all of the planned proposed annexation area (between the current City boundary and
South 204th Street) has been classified as a seismic hazard area. This area has been zoned for
commercial/light industrial and remains largely vacant. Therefore, any structures over light
(woodframe) construction should have significant engineered foundations such as reinforcement
pilings and/or structural slabs.
Soil Contamination Impacts
Tukwila has a high concentration of industrial land uses, where approximately 490 acres are
currently used for light industrial activities and approximately 870 acres for heavy industrial
activities: In addition, the City has approximately 87 acres of vacant land zoned as light
industrial and approximately 34 . acres for heavy industrial. Therefore, potential exists for soil
contamination from current and future industrial activities, as well as from contaminated off -site
runoff (e.g., from roads). Industrial contaminants are hazardous substances used in industrial
processes, or are the by- products of industrial processes. The handling, storage, and disposal of
the substances must be closely monitored. Other, non - industrial sources of soil contamination in
Tukwila include underground storage tanks, and spills resulting from accidents along
transportation corridors. Soil contamination poses a particular threat to surface and groundwater
sources. The condition also severely limits the development, or redevelopment, of contaminated
sites.
Mitigation Measures
The land use policies and the overall goals and objectives of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
promote areas to accommodate the City's anticipated population and employment growth. In
order to,minimi7e potential impacts that can result from site disturbance and construction, the
following mitigation measures are recommended:
• For all new development, construction will comply with the City's 1993 adopted Surface
Water Management Comprehensive Plan and the King County Surface Water Design
Manual. Piping, in conjunction with water quality facilities, may be necessary in a limited
number of areas with very steep, erosive slopes.
• The City should explore the potential for local congregate drainage facilities designed to
minimize the impacts of growth in sensitive areas. In addition to development on seismically
sensitive, erosive slopes, the City should investigate the possibility of making improvements
in areas with limited drainage resources and susceptible to flooding. To meet both GMA
concurrency requirements, as well as improve substandard facilities, the City may wish to
install necessary improvements and develop a mitigation fee payment for the facility as
development comes on line.
16
EARTH
z
w
JU
00
0
W=
I-
W o.
J
u.=
co
=W
z�
I_o
W
uj
0
O -
0 1-:
W uj
1--
O.
z
f==
O I-
z
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
• Maximize vegetative retention and minimize site disturbance on sites of high and very high
landslide potential; or recognize the high cost of structural mitigation for this disturbance.
• To minimize impact in some residential developments, the City should request creative
design solutions to protect sensitive or hazardous areas. Possible guidelines could include
clustered siting techniques, grading requirements, and a palette of plants for hillside
landscaping.
• Development of Class III and IV slopes should be minimized, or the need for significant
predevelopment site evaluation and possible extensive structural mitigation reorganized.
Both approaches are currently implemented by the City.
• Monitor and update the City's Sensitive Areas Map and classification system.
Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
Continued population and employment growth in the City of Tukwila will result in some degree
of erosion and sedimentation since sensitive areas have been designated for buildable land uses.
Increased growth also entails increases in the potential risk of damage to buildings and facilities
from landslides, earthquakes, and flooding. By continuing to implement existing regulatory
controls and promoting some of the recommended mitigation measures, environmental decline
will be less significant than created by development in the past.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative has about the same impacts as the proposed Comprehensive Plan as
the development potential is roughly equivalent to the Proposed Action. However, it envisions a
lower intensity of development on western hillsides, especially in the Tukwila Urban Center and
Tukwila South areas, than the Proposed Action. Extensive and costly structural mitigating
improvements will be needed to result in equivalent levels of erosion and seismic stability.
There is no significant difference in impacts between the two actions relative to soil
contamination.
Erosion
The Proposed Action would likely be more effective at regulating erosion impacts in Tukwila
than the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, erosion impacts would be
regulated to a certain degree through the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). One of the
SAO's purposes is to "prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the
removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover." However, the Proposed Action
incorporates many policies intended to reduce the impacts of erosion resulting from existing
EARTH
17
TUKIMLA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
development and sites in the process of being developed. These policies reduce erosion impacts
through stormwater regulations and land altering regulations, in addition to the SAO regulations.
Under the No Action Alternative, the area between Southcenter Parkway and the City boundary,
South of S. 180th St. would remain zoned for Low - Density Residential uses. The Proposed z
Action changes the zoning classification to Commercial/Light Industrial, medium - density x z'
Residential and Office uses. This area has been classified as having high erosion potential. w 2
Erosion impacts resulting from land usage associated with the Proposed Action would likely be g
J U
higher than the impacts resulting from the No Action Alternative's Rural designation. 0 O
CO al
Finally, the proposed annexation area South of the current City boundaries is currently largely
rural, but classified by King County as an urban area planned for residential growth. The w p
annexation of this area outlined in the Proposed Action would zone this area for 2
Commercial/Light Industrial and medium - density Residential uses. The erosion impacts : g a
resulting from the higher intensity land usage associated with the Proposed Action would be co a
greater than the impacts resulting from the County's planned usage under the No Action w
Alternative. z
I- o
z I-
Control over development in landslide and seismic hazard areas under the Proposed Action o �'
would be greater than under the No Action Alternative. Under both alternatives, geological w W
hazard areas would be regulated through the SAO. One of the SAO's policies is to "protect the I
public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations costs, and subsidy — IL z:.
cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding." However, the di co
Proposed Action contains additional policies and implementation measures directed explicitly at o m
"reducing potential impacts and liabilities associated with geologic hazard areas." The Proposed ; z
Action would require professional review and site plan review of development in geologic hazard .. ,
areas. The Proposed Action also requires slope stability measures and the retention of vegetation
in geologic hazard areas. :
Geologic Hazard Areas
Much of the land within the proposed annexation area south of the City has been classified as a
seismic area. This land has been classified by King County as being an Urban Area, and it is
planned for residential usage. Should the land be annexed, as outlined in the Proposed Action,
the land would be designated for CommerciallLight Industrial and medium - density Residential
uses. The greater intensity of land use under the Proposed Action could result in greater property
damage, should a seismic event occur, than the residential land usage planned under the No
Action Alternative.
18
.
Soil Contamination
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
For efforts to prevent soil contamination, the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action
would be commensurate. While under both alternatives the SAO would indirectly regulate soil
contamination through water quality protection policies, there is no language in the SAO that
explicitly regulates soil contamination. The Proposed Action contains no language that explicitly
concerns soil contamination.
Some of the land usage associated with the Proposed Action could pose a greater threat of soil
contamination than land usage under the No Action Policy. The Proposed Action changes the
zoning on the land between Southcenter Parkway and the City boundary, South of S. 180th St.
from agricultural to CommerciaULight Industrial and medium - density Residential uses.
Commercial/Light Industrial and Residential uses are higher in intensity than Agricultural uses
and present a greater threat of soil contamination.
In addition, the Proposed Action includes a proposed annexation of land south of the current City
limits. The land is currently classified by King County as an Urban Area and the area is planned
for residential, uses. The Proposed Action would change the zoning of this land to
Commercial/Light Industrial and medium - density Residential. This higher density land usage
associated by the Proposed Action would pose a greater threat of soil contamination than the
Residential usage of the No Action Alternative.
.
:
z
•
mow:
JU
UO
;. co ca;
•
w=
, J F-
N LL:
LUO _
g
J
N D,
a,
I•-' W.
I- 0`
z
Lu
•U 0.
oi
iO
•!LLJ U,
.I-
•
tl.• z
z
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Air Quality
Air Quality: Affected Environment
Sources of Air Pollutants
Given the predominately urban character of the area, the presence of major regional highways,
and the close proximity of uses such as Sea -Tac International Airport and manufacturing zones,
the City of Tukwila's planning area has several potential sources of air pollutants. In strong
likelihood, the primary sources point to aircraft and automobile traffic. Manufacturing and
industrial uses in the southern and northern parts of the City, as well as in adjacent communities,
add to the overall level of pollutants. At times, wood stoves and fireplaces in residential
neighborhoods can also be significant sources of emissions.
Because a large portion of the pollutants come from air and auto emissions, carbon monoxide
stands out as the pollutant emitted in the greatest quantity. The State Department of Ecology and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently declared the entire Everett- Seattle- Tacoma
metropolitan area as a "non- attainment" area for carbon monoxide. This does not suggest that
the entire areas suffers from excessive levels of the pollutant. Instead, the overall geographic
area in non - attainment reflects the growing presence of vehicular traffic, resulting in localized
high concentrations of carbon monoxide. Regional planning will be necessary to reduce the level
of carbon monoxide emissions.
Other pollutants generated by engine -based sources include particulate matter (PM10) and the
ozone precursors: hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur oxides and nitrogen dioxide are both
emitted by space heaters and motor vehicles, but concentrations of these pollutants are typically
only significant at local "hot- spots" near large industrial facilities.
Effects of Air Pollution
Usually very localized, concentrations of carbon monoxide occur near congested roadways and
intersections during periods of low temperature, mild winds, and stable atmospheric conditions.
Carbon monoxide is the pollutant that generates the greatest concern related to transportation
sources because it emits the greatest quantity of pollutants for which short-term health standards
exist. It binds with the hemoglobin in red blood cells, preventing those cells from carrying
oxygen to the body's tissues. At high concentrations, carbon monoxide can be a serious health
threat to those with heart disease, particularly angina and vascular disease.
Ozone also causes health problems because it breaks down biological tissues and cells. It is
highly reactive form of oxygen created by sunlight- induced chemical transformations of nitrogen
oxides and volatile organic compounds in the ambient air. Unlike carbon monoxide, ozone tends
to be regional in its influence because chemical reactions produce ozone in the atmosphere over a
20
AIR QUALITY
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
period of time. Well -known as the root of Southern California's air problems, ozone rarely
impacts the Puget Sound region. When it does occur, it can impact breathing and the lungs of
healthy adults and children. Even at reduce levels, ozone can still affect the overall environment
by impacting natural resources, agricultural lands, and some tree species.
Particulate matter pollution comes primarily from residential wood stoves, dusty roads, outdoor
burning, construction activity, and industry. The major health effects of PMio are irritation to the
throat and lungs, and aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. While this
form of pollution rarely exists at significant levels in the Puget Sound region, it can have major
health effects on the population when its reaches non - attainment levels. Some specific types of
particulate matter contain compounds which can be more harmful than dirt and dust. Unpaved
roadways have the potential to carry lead from vehicle exhaust. Smoke from wood stoves or
outdoor burning can contain various volatile organic compounds and polynuclear hyrdocarbons.
Wood stoves can also emit a variety of toxic chemical, including benzene, phenol cresol, and
methoxy- phenols.
Ambient Air Quality Regulations
For air quality, the Environmental Protection Agency sets national standards, the State
Department of Ecology sets state standards, and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) sets standards for the Puget Sound region. All three hold jurisdiction over Tukwila to
ensure attainment of ambient air quality standards. Table 3 below provides a summary of the
ambient air quality standards for each major pollutant.
TABLE 3
National, State, and Regional Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
National
(Primary)
National
• (Secondary)
Washington
State
Puget Sound
Region
TSPAnnual Geometric Mean (µg /m3)
60'
60'
TSP 24 -hour average (gg/m3)
150°
150°
PM,. Annual Arithmetic Mean (µg /m3)
50
50
50
50
Mu 24 -Hour average (gg/m3)
150`
150`
150`
150`
Sulfur Dioxide
• Annual Average (ppm)
0.03'
0.02'
0.02'
• 24 hour average (ppm)
0.14°
0.10°
0.10'
• 3-hour average (ppm)
0.500
• 1-hour average (ppm)
0.25°
0.25°
• 1-hour average (ppm
0.50°
0.40°
Carbon Monoxide
• 8-hour average (ppm)
9°
9°
9°
• 1 -hour average (ppm)
35°
350
35°
Ozone 1-hour average
0.12`
0.12`
0.12`
0.12`
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average (ppm)
0.05'
0.05'
0.05°
0.05'
Lead Quarterly Average (µg /m3)
1.5'
1.5'
1.5'
TSP: Total Suspended Particulate Matter, PMio: Inhalable Particulate Matter, (µg /m3): micrograms /cubic meter, ppm: parts per mil. .
' Never to be exceed.
b Not to be exceed more than once a year.
` Attained when expected number of days/year with maximum hourly average above this limit is equal to or less than one.
d Not to be exceeded more than twice in seven days.
' Not to be exceed more than one in eight hours.
AIR QUALITY
:` • ..
21
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Air Quality Impacts
Auto Emissions
Air quality is largely a regional
issue which can be affected by the
cumulative actions of individuals
and cities. As population in the
region continues to grow, so too will
the number of automobiles on the
area's streets and highways,
resultingin greater regional
automobile - caused air pollutants.
Air pollutants caused by
automobiles include carbon
monoxide emissions and particulate
matter from stirred up dust and exhaust emissions. In the Puget Sound region, annual vehicle
miles traveled in the region has grown at a faster rate than population and employment. Because
Tukwila contains a large number of freeways (including I -5, I-405, and Pacific Highway South),
minor and major arterials, and a commercial/industrial base which is strongly automobile -
dependent, local air quality is greatly affected by automobile emissions. Traffic congestion in
Tukwila results not only from travel by Tukwila residents, but by traffic commuting to Tukwila
from other jurisdictions. In 1990, Tukwila had a population of 11,874, but had 46,937 jobs
within the City's boundaries.
Traffic along the 1-5 and 1-405 Interchange
The Proposed Action would allow a 50 percent increase in residential units. This would increase
the number of residential units available, and may enable people who work in Tukwila to also
live in Tukwila.. Reducing commute trips will decrease congestion and associated air pollution.
The key'to reducing air quality impacts is capturing additional transit trips from this higher
density, more transit supportive environment (also see Transportation section). This.recognizes
that about 80 percent of auto work -trip pollutants are generated during the initial vehicle warm -
up period.
Commercial areas in Tukwila generate approximately 140,000 vehicle trips daily. Again, the
start up period, as employees and customers start their vehicles, is the highest pollution period of
operation. Further congestion in the future will increase this problem.
Improvements in mass transit, through implementation of a regional transportation plan would
reduce some regional automobile usage. This, in turn, would mean some reductions in
automobile emissions in the air surrounding Tukwila.
22 AIR QUALITY
•
z
z• �
E- w
6
o
UO
, �o
W
=`
1
LL
w O,
g<
- _.
z �.
HO
Z
~
o
U .N
O
o1
w'
IL. o.
uiz.
— • =.
O ~'
z
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Air Traffic Emissions
The close proximity of Sea -Tac Intemational Airport and the King County Airport presents
another large source of air emissions. Air traffic in the Puget Sound currently contributes 12,388
tons of carbon monoxide, 3,292 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 19,019 tons of volatile organic
compounds per year to the air. With the possible construction of a third runway at Sea -Tac, air
traffic at the facility will likely increase significantly as air traffic is stimulated, and lead to
further localized air traffic emissions.
Residential Sources
Residential wood burning is the single largest stationary, non - vehicular source of carbon
monoxide in the Puget Sound area. In 1990, wood burning stoves released 50,224 tons of carbon
monoxide into the region's air. Wood burning stoves installed after 1988 must be "clean
burning." Therefore, as new residential development occurs in Tukwila, the amount of carbon
monoxide released from residential wood burning stoves should not increase significantly. Older
homes, with stoves installed before 1988, will continue to present an air pollution problem.
The single largest non -road, mobile source of carbon monoxide in the Puget Sound area is lawn
and garden equipment, which released 64,375 tons of carbon monoxide into the region's air in
1990. This is over five times the 12,388 tons generated by aircraft operating at Sea -Tac
International Airport. As residential development increases in Tukwila, the amounts of carbon
monoxide being generated by lawn and garden equipment can be expected to increase.
Industrial/Commercial Sites
Industrial sources release carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
toxic air contaminants, and volatile organic compounds into the air. Tukwila already contains .
two large industrial sources of air pollution. The. Cello Bag Co. Inc. adds 65 tons of toxic air
contaminants and 65 tons of volatile organic compounds into the air each year. The Red Dot
Corp. adds 21 tons of toxic air contaminants and 21 tons of volatile organic compounds into the
air each year. Tukwila has many smaller air pollution contributors in its industrialized areas. As
industrial activities in Tukwila increase in the future, the amount of air pollutants generated by
industrial sources should also increase.
Odor are occasionally generated by an animal -based operation and Metro's Renton Sewage
Treatment Plan. Both operations are generally located in the Interurban Corridor, between
Interstates 5 and 405.
Construction Sites
Construction sites can increase the amount of particulate matter in the air by contributing dust
stirred up by land clearing and grading. Emissions from construction equipment can also
contribute carbon monoxide and other emissions to the air.
AIR QUALITY 23
..
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
If Tukwila is to continue to enjoy growth in population and employment, increased impacts upon
air quality are inevitable and largely unavoidable. Most of the adverse impacts will result from
increased transportation emissions, and increased industrial and residential emissions. Some Q
zei
negative impacts can be avoided by implementing existing State and Federal air quality W
cc
regulations, and by following the above mitigation measures. 6 U
U O:
.rn p
W=
No Action Alternative J 1.- u.
Ili O
Auto Emissions g
The amount of regional traffic on routes such as I -405 and I -90 would be comparable between z W
the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. Under both alternatives, the City z T'
would have to comply with air pollution control regulations enforced by the Puget Sound Air O
Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). Both alternatives would also use the City's Commute w w,
Reduction Program. The Proposed Action would have more of an impact on reducing auto n o
emissions from vehicles traveling to and from Tukwila than with the No Action Alternative. The 0 N;
Proposed Action contains a number of goals, policies and strategies designed to reduce the rate W '—
of single - occupancy vehicle travel. Some of these policies include: . r v
uF
— O:
• Recommend and pursue expanded bus service to Tukwila. Cu N
U
F- H
• Recommend and pursue the construction of a multimodal center. p
z
• Support, participate in, and encourage development and implementation of a high quality
regional transit system.
• Research and pursue a shopping circulator shuttle for the Southcenter business district.
• Expand dial -a -ride and fixed -route van service.
• Encourage non - motorized transportation such as walking and biking.
While many of the Proposed Action's goals, policies, and strategies would reduce auto
emissions, one of the Comprehensive Plan's four main objectives, developing a thriving Tukwila
Urban Center as a true regional concentration of employment and cultural and recreational
opportunities, will lead to a net increase in traffic making trips (given proposed densities) to and
from Tukwila over the No Action Alternative. However, this may be balanced by gaining high -
capacity transit access to the Tukwila Urban Center.
AIR QUALITY
25
TUKwILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Air Traffic Emissions
The No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action are equal in their ability to reduce traffic
emissions; neither alternative can significantly reduce air traffic emissions. The impacts of air a •
traffic are similar for both Alternatives. • x
Residential Sources - 6 v
00
0
Air emission impacts from wood burning stoves would be equal under the No Action and w
Proposed Action Alternatives. Under both Alternatives, emissions from residential wood , •
bunin stoves are regulated by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. uj 0
w o:
The Proposed Action's policies will create less air emissions from lawn and garden equipment g
than the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action promotes higher development density, N d
especially residential, which over time will reduce the amount of lawn area in the City. - T.
z
zt-:
0
0
= 0:
O
z
U
0
z
IndustriaUCommercial Sites
Air emissions from Industrial and Commercial . activities are regulated by state and federal
regulations under the Proposed Action and Non Action Alternative, and neither include any
language concerning air pollution from these sources. However, the Proposed Action increases
the amount of land available for industrial and commercial uses compared to the No Action
Alternative. Therefore, emissions associated with Industrial and Commercial uses might be
greater under the Proposed Action.
Construction Sites
Neither the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternatives contain any provisions to control air
emissions from construction sites. However, the Proposed Action increases the amount of land
in Tukwila available for development, or increases the development density allowable on some
land. Therefore, compared to the No Action Alternative, more construction activity will likely
result from the Proposed Action resulting in higher rates of air emissions from construction sites.
26
AIR QUALITY
.,
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT EIS
Water
Water: Affected Environment
The Clean Water Act of 1977, the Water Quality Act of 1987 (later amended to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act), and the Safe Drinking Water Act serve as the backbone for
protecting water quality. The goals of these laws aim to eliminate pollutant discharges into the
nation's navigable waters, including streams, lakes, creeks, and wetlands. The laws deal with
ensuring a safe drinking water supply. Implemented and enforced by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and certified state agencies such as the Washington State Departments
of Ecology and Health, federal water regulations address issues pertinent to maintaining high
quality for all bodies of water. While this topic's area of influence touches many concerns, the
following environmental discussion focuses on the issues of surface water, groundwater and
floodplains as they relate to the City of Tukwila and its drainage basins and water resources.
Surface Water
The City of Tukwila consists of several drainage basins. As depicted in Figure 1, they go by the
names of East Marginal, MLK/Bar, Allentown, Black River Junction and Foster Point to the
northeast of the Duwamish/Green River corridor; Pal Creek, Fostoria and Gilliam Creek in the
geographic center of Tukwila; Nelsen Pl., SE -CBD, and Mill Creek to the east of the Green
River from its point south of Interstate 405; and P -17 and Crestview in the southern portion of
the City.
Various streams, primarily on private property, within these basins flow to the Green/Duwamish
River, which drains the entire Tukwila area northward to Elliott Bay on Puget Sound. The Green
River has a Class AA water quality. while this drops to Class A along the Duwamish reach, near
the "turning basin" and the South 108th Street right -of -way alignment. Watercourse have been
located on Figure 2 (map appears in the following Plant and Animals section). Further
discussions on watercourse habitat value are presented in the Plant and Animals and categories of
the environment.
From a historical perspective, the vast majority of present day Tukwila possessed high quality
surface and groundwater resources that benefited the natural environment. Today, the existing
surface water system consists of drainage improvements and parts of the area's natural drainage
features. The most extensive of the improvements followed the construction of Interstate 5 in the
mid- 1960s. The man-made drainage system resulted in parallel 60 -inch culverts through the
Crestview Basin. The culverts traverse below Interstate 5 and transport the west valley wall's
runoff into a large pressurized pipeline which eventually discharges into the Green River. An
extensive network of pipes and roadside ditches gather and control runoff from adjacent hills and
embankments. The major Interstate 5 and 405 interchange includes several hundred feet of
pipeline that assists in the conveyance of Gilliam Creek.
WATER 27