HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L96-0071 - CITY OF TUKWILA - MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTL96 -0071
MIC PLANNED ACTION
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
To: Tukwila City Council Members
From: Mayor Rant
Date: October 30, 1998
RE: L96 -0071 -- Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
as Approved by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
The Tukwila City Council approved the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan after a public hearing on October 5th, and making several revisions. Staff
has amended the Plan to reflect the City Council's actions and recommended two clarifying
revisions in the adopted regulations. All changes are described below:
Summarized Change
Document Revision
Remove unincorporated areas from the Plan.
Map boundaries have been amended to reflect
the new Plan area and minor text changes have
been made..
Reflect the Council review process in the "MIC
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS" (Pg. 13)
The flow chart has been amended.
Revise the "Review Process for Simple
Permits" to reflect the minimum 3 week review
time (Pg. "23).
The chart has been amended.
Eliminate improving the existing truck route
along S. 124th Street as a viable option in
Table B, S. 124th St. access (Pg. 25).
The table has been amended.
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833
z
Z`
rew
QQ 2:
J V!.
00
0
co w
J1._
W
w 0;.
g Q.
Z
1-o'
F—.
2
U cri
13 1—r
w W,
z.
V.
O:
, z:
ALI 0:
F- _
City of Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
October 30, 1998
Page 2
Two administrative changes have been proposed as a result of ordinance drafting.
Pg. 22: Designation of a (SEPA) Planned
Action. This continues to be a SEPA decision
with adopting regulations located in TMC
21.04 (State Environmental Policy Act).
References to the Type 1, Zoning Code
decision process have been deleted to improve
clarity (Pg. 22).
Revised language is shown on Pg. 22,
"TMC 21.04.XXX(d)(2)" (SEPA):
- : -
0)(2) : - -
.. _ _
_ _ _ _ _
p.-
.. .. - • - - _ - • .
• • . • .
- _ _ _ - _ - _ . _
' • •
. - - - - - _ _ _ • - -
(TMC-- .04 50(a)).
This designation shall be final with no
administrative appeals.
Driveway Design and Bus Pullout
Requirements (Pg. 28) should be adopted in
TMC 16.36 (Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards), instead of TMC 16.34
(Road Bridge and Municipal Construction
Specifications).
TMC chapter reference has been changed to
reflect the different chapter in the Plan. The
ordinance adopts the design standards by
reference, as are all other design standards
adopted through this chapter, as follows:
The Public Works Director shall incorporate
the MIC/L and MIC/H Zone Driveway Design
and Bus Pullout Requirements," as presented
in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan (pages 28 and
29). into the City of Tukwila Infrastructure
Design and Construction Standards as adopted
in Ordinance 1783 and codified as TMC 16.36.
(Ord. Section 10)
This is a legislative review. Please feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu (206- 431 -3684) or Steve
Lancaster if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan (November 2, 1998)
B. Adopting Ordinance.
file: q \micip \cncl \ordmeml.doc
z
i~
J U;
U0,
CO CI
. W =`
1.
CO LL
w
g
_ _:
=d
- w
z�
I-0'
z
w w.
U 0;
;off':
W'
- U
LL- O
Z,
- .
H ~`
0
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan
November 1998
City of Tukwila Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 431 -3684
City of Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Strategic Implemtation Plan
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Plan is the work of many groups and
individuals. Grateful thanks are expressed to all those who have worked to bring this
Plan to .a successful conclusion.
1.
Tukwila
Manufacturing/Industrial
Center strategic
Implementation Plan
Area
j! "
n F: ysO�NQ. .7
^�flFlp
i
N
:„
jl ....w . ti.....:; :: +
I . `' ..r • % X
•
X.
0
City of Tukwila Planning Commission
Grant Neiss, Chair
Bill Arthur, Vice -Chair
David Livermore
Henry Marvin
George Malina
Vernon Merryhew
Kathryn Stetson
City of Tukwila Mayor's Office
John W. Rants, Mayor
John McFarland, City Administrator
City of Tukwila City Council
Pamela Linder, President
Pam Carter
Joe Duffle
David Fenton
Jim Haggerton
Joan Hernandez
Steve Mullet
Dept. of Community Development
Steve Lancaster, Director
Jack Pace, Planning Manager
Vernon Umetsu, Project Planner
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Table of Contents
November 2, 1998
Introduction Page 1
I. Background 4
Existing Conditions 4
Plan Development Process 12
MIC Prototype Analysis 14
II. Comprehensive Plan Vision 19
III. Implementing Actions 20
Permit Streamlining 20
Capital Improvements 24
Regulatory Amendments 26
Appendices
A. Selected Comprehensive Plan Policies for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center
:.:_:: �. . � ' :iv:; +1�; iii;;:: n: saiG�v'.:.:,7r.G3stner;�e:Ce '11r �: z` Kt" f..r Y, r15.�i�faw1,aS�.�lu.'S1�i " >?�i�u ' "aauiS.iti'a3: iiuLa •,•, �%- `s+�':.�.a;�
Tukwila Department of Community Development
YC22:4114,
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Table of Contents
November 2, 1998
Introduction
I. Background
Existing Conditions
Plan Development Process
MIC Prototype Analysis
II. Comprehensive Plan Vision
III. Implementing Actions
Permit Streamlining
Capital Improvements
Regulatory Amendments
Page 1 m ',.
4 00
to 0
4 .!.wWi
J. H
12 N u-t. •
`W 0! .
14
ga.
19 tL¢
:03...
• 20 •
20 ? ~
1= 0'
Z1-;
24 W W;..
26 v 0
io I—,
Appendices W vs
A. Selected Comprehensive Plan Policies for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center \,__, LL, 8_
ui Z�
oN '
z`
Tukwila Department of Community Development
'i.S].�F%R<xJ`.i ii(i:i 4✓d!5'.i?�+{4 :Fliv�.'+�nt�'n= •1?'.19�.ryr:YU` �..� !��
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Location Map Page 1
2 MIC Physical Environment 4
3 Existing MIC Land Uses 7
4 MIC Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Distribution 8
5 Functional Street Classification Map 9
6 Sewer Map 11
7 Water Map 11
8 MIC Implementation Plan Development Process 13
9 Location of Prototype Sites 14
10 Prototype Site 1 15
11 Prototype Site 2 16
12 Prototype Site 3 17
13 Review Process for Simple Permits 23
14 Access Point Spacing and Corner Clearances for Industrial Zones 29
LIST OF TABLES
A Land Use Distribution in the Tukwila MIC. Page 6
B Capital Improvement Plan Revisions 25
Appendices
A. Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation.
Tukwila Department of Community Development ii
L. z
w'i
W D.
UO
co op
J I
i-
w o`
co
H w;:
•
•
0
• W w
- 0i
uiZ; •
'U (n;
Z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Introduction
Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) is an important
regional center of industrial activity. It is one of only four such
centers designated in King County, and is well -served by the
regional transportation system and existing utility infrastructure. It
has a long history of manufacturing use, and is nearly fully
developed. The Tukwila MIC is located in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Location Map
City of Tukwila
Manufacturingllndustrial Center
MIC Strategic Implementation
Plan Boundary
- - - - -• City Limits
sao
•asac sr_. W, O
OK MONTT
= i
G� Sa, SEATTLE
PROJECT �.
LOCATION rl . !,
r •
.ti
:0 . TACOMA
`S
r \
• ; � iP \ may .. .
_. '
The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan MIC Element reaffirms the area's
role as a center of manufacturing and industrial activities. The City is
proposing the MIC Implementation Plan at this time, with an
emphasis on public sector actions to best achieve the vision of
responsible industrial development identified in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
1
w
IX m
J 0
Vo:
WI•
— E-
Wo
g Q
co D
F- _
Z�;.
Z
LLI
n.
D p;
Q N;
W
H • V'.
LL ~O
W
U N
o I—
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
This plan builds upon threeprevious City decisions:
1. the adopted policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan for
industrial area development,
2. the capital improvement standards and facility improvements
needed to support area development, and
3. the regulations and programs which have been recognized in the
Comprehensive Plan as implementation actions.
Building upon adopted policies and recognized implementation
actions means that the basic decisions for MIC development, the
alternatives analyses, and the impact evaluation associated with the 4
year Comprehensive Plan development process need not be repeated.
Instead, the plan will focus on to how to best implement the direction
provided by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Proposed
implementation measures include providing for the capital
improvements needed to support area build out and a package of
regulatory revisions to streamline permit review.
Considerable time and effort was focused on permit streamlining and
associated capital improvement and regulatory changes.. The
proposed regulatory structure does not increase or decrease the
substantive development standards which developments must now
satisfy. However, it does explicitly identify the requirements. This
explicit identification of standards, makes possible a streamlined
(shorter) permit review process by substituting an administrative
"planned action" option in place of formal environmental (SEPA)
review.
This plan is being developed simultaneously with other related
planning projects. These projects include updating the Tukwila
Shoreline Master Plan on a city -wide basis, coordinating annexation
boundaries and associated capital facilities with adjacent
jurisdictions, amendments to contaminated site clean -up standards
which reflect the industrial nature of uses, and improved access to the
railroad marshaling yard in Allentown. These actions will be
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
addressed in subsequent actions. All City actions are being
coordinated based on the policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive
Plan.
This implementation plan consists of the following three sections:
I. BACKGROUND -- A review of MIC conditions and the plan
development process,
II. VISION -- A review of adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies which are significant in guiding area development, and
III. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS -- Recommended amendments
which have resulted from this planning project. Implementing
actions include streamlined permit review, and supporting
revisions to the capital improvement plan and development
standards.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
3
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
I. l3n(•KGR()UNl)
This section provides a summary of environmental, land use,
transportation and utility systems in the MIC. More extensive
descriptions and analyses are presented in the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan Background Reports and the "Tukwila
Manufacturing Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement."
Existing Conditions
Physical Environment. The MIC's existing physical environment is
shown in Figure 2. It generally consists of the Duwamish River and
associated shoreline areas, and filled, flat upland areas which have
developed for industrial associated uses.
MIC Strategic Implementation Plan
Figure 2
MIC Physical Environment
Legend
.Y«YY Clty Umits
MIC Strategic Implementation
Plan Boundary
River Environment
000 O Natural Shoreline
000000 Rlprap Shoreline
•040 Sheet Piling
Mud Flats
•
\\ UPLAND ENVIRONMENT- -areas are flat, filled
\� \\\ to a 5tt to 10ft depth and 90%
impervious surface
_ \ \ `` \\\ \ \\ 4 knoll
\ :2• .19 .0 1 \-k-w' ', ,r ;�- 7x141
aoeaaoaoae 1..,. •., \
\\
4
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Q
J U'
U0:
CO 0°
LLI
J
1L 0
2
D. a
1 w`
z
H 0.
z
•0
O F-'
UJ
= U:
tL Z,
U J
H
0. ~:
z;....
_.1
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
The Duwamish River has been channelized and dredged for
navigation between Elliott Bay and the turning basin, although
extensive mudflats exists. Riverbanks along the navigable channel
are almost all faced with riprap or vertical bulkheads. This reflects
the heavy industrial nature of adjacent land uses. River banks
upstream of the turning basin are very steep and naturally
vegetated with grasses and shrubs. The River currently supports a
salmon fishery and various water dependent industrial uses.
All areas beyond the associated shorelines are generally flat. This
reflects the original topography of the alluvial plan and the 5 -10
feet of fill which was used to raise ground elevation. The
impervious surface coverage of upland areas is over 90 %.
Land Use. The Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center
comprises approximately 1,370 acres of land, as shown in the
Existing Land Use Map (Fig. 3).
The area is designated as one of four King County MIC's, in the
County -wide Planning Policies. This designation reflects the
corridor's long history of industrial uses and its current importance
in the regional economy. It stands as one of the few remaining
concentrations of manufacturing and industrial lands in urban
Puget Sound.
Tukwila Department of Community Development 5
z
a
.=1—
no. U1
QQ
J V;,
oO:.
10 0
F
W.o
m
= CJ:
_'
. :z:I:
:O
u= O:
ui zl
ar.
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
The MIC is almost entirely developed with industrial /distribution
uses. Land use is summarized in Table A. The Boeing Aircraft
Company is the major business in this area, as it owns or controls
47% (650 acres) of all lands. King County International Airport is
the second largest business with 24% (327 acres') of MIC land.
About 6% (80 acres)of all lands are vacant.
Table A
Land Use Distribution in the Tukwila MIC
Developed Land
erire� �'3 >i
843
Airport
327
24
Vacant land
80
6
Rights -of -way
16
1
Water (Duwamish River)
34
2
TOTAL MIC AREA2
1,370
100
The Duwamish River is small in area, but important as a State -
owned, navigable shipping route and fishery for the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe. Adjacent industrial upland uses and the river fishery
seem to have reached a dynamic, co- existence where regulations keep
uses from degrading each other.
Corridor employment has varied greatly over time. Current
employment levels are much less than have been historically
accommodated in the existing building square footage. Significant
employee densification potential could be supported by the existing
and planned area infrastructure.
!King County Intemational Airport land ownership has been adjusted downward
from the 594 acres which they actually own, to reflect the 45% of land leased to the
Boeing Aircraft Company (i.e., 594 ac. x 55% = 327 ac.). The Boeing leased lands
had been previously counted as lands under their control, to better reflect actual use.
2 Total area includes the Planned Annexation Area of 140 acres. This is an area
of unincorporated King County to the northwest of the City which was studied,
but not included in the adopted plan.
6
Tukwila Department of Community Development
139766/IEEE • City of Tukwila • Rgute 3.1.5.15 -97 • LW
MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIAL CENTER
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Public Recreation
1.1.111 Public Services
Quasi-Public
Wholesale Distribution
.11M Retail Distribution
MM. Commercial Services
Processing/industrial
Multi-Family
Single Family
Vacant
1 Water Areas
Mlscellaneous
Existing MIC Land Uses
Tukwila Department of Community Development
•
Page 7
fir
z
11-
z
w
0
Co In
W
....I
LL
uj 0
-71
U.. <
°
w
z
1.
co
z
0.
111
0
0 c-/2
a I-
w
wz
o
0 S/2
0 1-
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Land use regulation is based on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan,
as implemented by the Tukwila Zoning Code (Tukwila Municipal
Code Title 18), and the King County Shoreline Master Plan.
All lands in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code are
identically designated as either Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial
Center/Light (TMC 18.36) or Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial
Center/Heavy (TMC 18.38). Lands outside the existing city limits,
in the Tukwila Potential Annexation Area, are designated MIC/H
in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
Zone boundaries are shown in Figure 4. The purpose of land use
regulation in each zone is summarized below.
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Light (MIC/L) -- "This district ...is
intended to provide a major employment area containing distributive
light manufacturing and industrial uses and other uses that support those
industries. This district's uses.and standards are intended to enhance the
redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor." (TMC 18.36.010)
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Heavy (MIC/H) -- "This district
...is intended to provide a major employment area containing heavy or
bulk manufacturing and industrial uses, distributive and light
manufacturing and industrial uses, and other uses that support those
industries. The district's uses and standards are intended to enhance the
redevelopment of the Duwamish Corridor." (TMC 18.38.010)
Figure 4
MIC Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Distribution
Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
a •
_ •:
re w
u6D
UO
CO `
CO
CO
w O:
•
Iip.
N
O
D I—'
wul
HU
O
Z;
• H
O.
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
'YTy':1Al�3Y•4l'w ,Lf' �..i ° i47
The State designated the Duwamish River as a "Shoreline of
Statewide Significance." Uses within 200 ft. of the river are
subject to the King County Shoreline Master Plan of 1987 (KCC
Title 25). These provisions allow industrial uses, but permit fewer
development options between the river and the building, than the
Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan. Revision of the MIC Shoreline
Plan is scheduled in 1998, as part of the Citywide shoreline plan
update.
The MIC is well supported by existing and planned/budgeted
infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure systems are
summarized below.
Transportation: Regional road access to the MIC is provided by
I -5, SR -599, Pacific Hwy. South, and E. Marginal Way. The road
system is shown in Figure 5. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
establishes an "Average Level of Service of E" (ALOS -E) as the
minimum concurrency (operational) standard for MIC roads.
Commuting alternatives to single occupant vehicles are being
supported by the Tukwila Commuter Trip Reduction program
could help to reduce peak traffic generation through the use of car
and van pools. The bus alternative has become problematic as
service to the MIC reflects a trend of service hour reduction.
......... ,,,q r' :........,,,�� •
•°,"••
�,•r• • • :I.'
•
w
`s / 1
, ... 4-
♦ - • - 41
i SS'
• � • N % ••••C 1
♦1
I _ ♦♦
Figure 5
Functional Street Classification Map
LEGEND
Freeway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector Arterial
Signalized Intersection
Tukwila Department of Community Development
9
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Road improvements in the Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan
include replacement of the Pacific Hwy. S. bridge across the
Duwamish River, expansion of the Pacific Hwy. S. /SR -599
southbound on -ramp and associated intersection, and completion of
signal improvements and frontal road improvements along various
segments.
Several transportation issues are currently in the process of being
resolved:
1. Routing and facility location for the regional light rail system
which would enter the MIC along the Boeing Access Road
alignment. -- Tukwila and the Regional Transit Authority are
currently conducting independent analyses of routing alternatives,
2. Continuation of annual funding for the 16th Avenue Bridge
($500,000), near -term needed repairs ($10 million in the next 8
years) and longer -term replacement ($20 million)' -- Tukwila is
currently in formal mediation with Seattle and King County, and
3. Finding an alternative safe access to the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF) rail yard, other than S. 124th Street -- Tukwila
is currently conducting joint analyses with BNSF.
Existing analyses show that the neither regional light rail facilities
nor the 16th Avenue Bridge are necessary to support MIC buildout at
adopted infrastructure levels of service. Resolution of these issues is
not a precondition to continued area development. The BNSF use of
S. 124th does result in exceeding the adopted LOS -D threshold for
residential streets and the Comprehensive Plan policy to separate
functionally different traffic. Resolution of this issue must precede
any additional development of the rail yard.
Utilities. The MIC is served by water, sewer, and storm drainage
area - wide - systems which are sufficient to support buildout, except for
a 1,500 f1. long water line along S. 112th St. which is needed for
water quality purposes4. Maps of the sewer and water purveyors and
their mains, are shown in figures 6 and 7, respectively. Existing
concurrency regulations ensure adequate service and fair -share
participation by properties which had not previously supported the
area -wide system upon development.
3 Amounts are total costs. Tukwila and King County currently each pay half. The
capital costs ($30 mill.) may receive 80% grant funding, in which case the local
share would be $3 mill.).
4 Water quality is currently ensured by regular flushing of the affected, dead -end
main on Pacific Hwy. S., south of S. 112th Street.
10 Tukwila Department of Community Development
0'
U0:
UC
cn w
w=
J H
U LL;
w 0;.
gJ;
—0
I--w
I— O.'
Z
13 52'
oI-
=w
t—
LL '
—0-
U 52
c.
0
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
MIC Strategic
Imptementetion Plan
Sewer Mep
Legend
-- cM Limb
_•._
MC St•rpc rrctwn.x nv+
Per Barclay
van.. S. obrlct
O.nrary awned by t? Mee with
Como Mwae at corrections
werr.rrrower, Yang Carry (lumen/
METRO) etre Ines.
RrrnMrw+g Nye are aired by Cry of
TUres sewer balky.
45.
Kno Ford County
Make
20' (Seattle
48' (Seattle)
Dead End
10"
WD 125
�Rti1
r s
1/
CHI
Ctty of Tukwila
MIC
Strategic
Implementation
RIM
ace..
Morentber 2, 1925
MIC Strategic
Implementation Plan
Water Mep
Legend
ceyL
•••• Sto n*lo rls 4nlM.at
Plan Barwry
Wry owlet 125
Flernining Area are .erred by C.y d
Turelle weer telly.
The My oe Sawa protedw.tas* water for
NI re. 4r0Eteon Inn
Tukwila Department of Community Development
11
Z
W
00
.N 0:
z
W
-J
• u_
W0
u_
• a
• =w
l- _.
rn
W W':
H U`
Z:
W
J S
O ~:
Z ..
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Area -wide storm drainage is provided by the City of Tukwila, the
Washington State Dept. of Transportation, and King County Airport.
Numerous private systems involving multiple properties also drain
directly to the Duwamish River. All private property storm drainage
is regulated by the City of Tukwila.
Plan Development Process
The MIC plan development process is shown in Figure 8. It
incorporated specific notice to City property owners, businesses,
residents and multi jurisdictional regulators. Follow -up workshops
were held, including one with industrial development professionals.
These meetings helped to identify the area's opportunities and
constraints, as well as a preliminary list of regulatory gaps, overlaps,
and potential barriers to redevelopment.
Three hypothetical prototype developments were used to test and
improve the existing regulatory system. The resulting proposals were
reviewed in an environmental impact statement and further refined to
eliminate probable significant adverse impacts.
12 Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
_�
; z
re ..
uj D
U O;
.w =c
CO LL.
W O..
¢;.
c d'.
FZ- w
zt-.
LLJ
O N=
;0
ILI Id
- O: i
Z..
'F=
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
MIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Nov. 1996: Notice of Plan preparation and summary
goals sent to all residents businesses and property
owners in the City.
Feb.1997: Workshops with major property
owners, State and Federal rgulators, Muckleshoot
Tribe Fisheries, and industrial development
experts on MIC issues and opportunities.
AP-
Feb. 1997: Inventory existing policy
direction, development regulations,
development review process and other
technical studies.
Feb -Mar. 1997: Evaluate the interaction of identified issues, the land use regulatory system, and
MIC policy direction to validate and /or reivise the basic purpose and products of the MIC
Implementation Plan.
Mar. 1997: Use professional expertise to develop a representative range of proto - typical, market
driven developments, which are consistent with the MIC land use designations.
Mar.1997: Test prototype developments based on existing regulations and
identify issues.
Mar. 1997: Draft revised regulations to delete unnecessary regulations and add
regulations as needed to fill regulatory gaps created by early SEPA Planned
Action review.
i
May 1997: Issue Plan/DEIS.
June -Nov. 1997: Staff revises popose Plan.
Mar.1998: Planning Commission considers public hearing input,
and endorses the proposed Plan with few changes.
Oct. 1998: City Council considers public hearing
input and adopts rcommended Plan with few changes.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
13
2
Z:
�
W:
.J U
UO:
N0'
W'
WI
J I —:
u.
W O:
u-
= a'
1—W;
I— O
Z F-
W W;'
C.) • ;
�;
C
W'.
1- -•
111
• CP-
Z
_
o
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
MIC Prototype Analysis
Three prototype developments have been used to identify potential
gaps and overlaps in Tukwila's regulatory system, propose regulatory
revisions, and further test the revised system to ensure that potential
environmental impacts will be mitigated. The three prototype
developments are all located in the MIC/H zone, although they
incorporate uses also found in the MIC/L zone.
The prototypes are hypothetical, but are intended to cover a range of
permitted uses in the MIC, from warehouse and distribution, to
research and development, to manufacturing and laboratory. From
this review, recommendations were prepared to assure that
environmental safeguard's are in place within the city's codes and
development review procedures to address future development
proposal impacts.
Figure 9 shows the location of each prototype development site.
Figures 10, 11 and 12 present the three prototypes developed for this
project. Each site is described below.
Figure 9
Location of Prototype Sites
City of Tukwila
Manufacturingllndustrial Center
MIC Strategic Implementation
Plan Boundary
....._. :l t •...ct :J.r.c;
ary wrarra+—
\ ' :Prototype \ I�
t • _. \' SITE 1 ' 1 . :. «\` • '....J
...::::.:;.__ •
Prototype:' '.
. SITE 2
\ 1 ....
__.— \\ _.**-- - it C �.' I •
. - ._ VA • 7-"-••••••• .;` \`\ ' V \
, - -- ...1 l ` .\
\.....
1 '�
I.....<�...._ ‘,I I
14
Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
= 1-=;.
.... w
u�l D:
C.)
0
w,
w =;
J
u.,
w O`
g J.
u_?:
a
H
w
o.
z 1-
w
U • �i
O N!.
.0 I—
w
wz
O 52
0 I—,
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Centl. Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Prototype Site 1
Figure 10 illustrates Prototype Site 1, a site located at South 112th
Street and Pacific Highway South. The site has river frontage and is
assumed to be used for sale, distribution, and storage of industrial
supplies. The redevelopment shown in Figure 10 is for a research and
development facility with accessory office space. Issues that are
explored include access to Pacific Highway, driveway number and
location, and shoreline development issues.
Figure 10
Prototype Site 1
South 112th Street
PLAN VIEW
Site Data
Zoning MIC/H
Site Size 475,000 sf
Bldg Footprint 175,000 sf
Bldg Uses:
Office 35,000 sf
R & D 70,000 sf
Lab 70,000 sf
Bldg. Height 125 ft.
Site Coverage 100%
Driveways
Number 4
Curb cut length 100 ft.
Parking Proposed 525 spcs.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
15
{
z
w
U O'
u�//�o
t U) w;
w =;
w 0; ••
u-Q
tom.
Z0.
• � w
F— O! •
ww:.
11.1 w
• u: O'
••i ;
Z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementatic:, Plan
November 2, 1998
Site Data
Zoning MIC/H
Site Size 210,000 sf
Bldg Footprint 73,000 sf
Bldg Uses:
Office 15,000 sf
Warehse/Distribu. 58,500 sf
Bldg. Height 45 ft.
Site Coverage 100%
Driveways
Number 4
Curb cut length 240 ft.
Parking Proposed 135 spcs.
16
Prototype Site 2
Figure 11 shows Prototype Site 2. This site is located between Pacific
Highway South and East Marginal Way South at South 112t Street.
Current use is assumed to be auto sales and service. The
redevelopment shown in the prototype is for a warehouse and
distribution center. Issues that are explored are access to Pacific
Highway and East Marginal Way South, requirements for road
improvements, driveway standards, and roadway capacity.
Figure 11
Prototype Site 2
South 112th Street
Aoam. Seale In FM
0 103 zoo
PLAN VIEW
South „an Shoot
OBLIQUE VIEW
Tukwila Department of Community Development
:
z
"- w:
—J C.3
U CX
N
W= •
CO~
tL
wO
J!
w a:
= d: •
•w. •
I- 0
• W F-
W w;
H V`
lL �
-
O I-
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Prototype Site 3
Figure 12 presents Prototype Site 3. This site is at the northern end of
the MIC, bounded by Sixteenth Avenue South, East Marginal Way
South, and the Duwamish River. The site is actually Boeing's Plant 2
and is currently used for airplane manufacturing and assembly. While
not an actual proposal, the hypothetical redevelopment shown in
Figure 12 is a possible approach Boeing may consider for upgrading
the site's facilities. It raises a number of issues regarding including
large -scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development,
and redevelopment at the shoreline, including; replacement of over -
water structures.
Figure 12
Prototype Site 3
Existing
Corporate
Headquarters
m New
Hlgqh•Bay
S Building
(Same Footprint
as Existing 80'-
High Building)
GG�
y4
isy
S
Building
Fool print
Moo.. Sc.* in c«
I
0 rm 203303 m
_surnetne+euea,roMW
New Lab
Building
PLAN VIEW
200 New Parking Splices
and Driveway
45' Increased
Height within
Existing Footprint
H
Building
Envelope
BO' 125'
Replaced Pilings
New Riprap
OBLtOUE VIEW
Site Data
Zoning MIC/H
Site Size 50 Acres
Bldg Footprint 1,450,000 sf
Bldg Uses:
Highbay Manu. 750,000 sf
Lab 700,000 sf
Bldg. Height 125 ft.
Site Coverage 100 %'
Driveways
Number 2
Curb cut 80 ft.
length
Parking Proposed On site 600
Off site
900+
Tukwila Department of Community Development
17
z
<z
w:
JU;
UO
W
.w=
LL,;
w O
g J:
wQ
I- id
Z
I- O
Z I-.
LL! uj
Uen
O�
O H.
'w w.
— O:
LLi
U N.
O.1•-
Z ..
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
The following conclusions were drawn from the prototype analysis:
1. The higher intensity prototype developments were consistent
with, or less than, the zoning buildout parameters used in the City
transportation, sewer, water and storm drain plans, which
identified the capital improvements needed to support area land
use development,
2. the area -wide system of transportation and utilities is generally
sufficient to support buildout,
3. a streamlined permit review system could be implemented in this
industrial area, with the adoption of additional provisions for
driveway design, adequate lighting, and protection of
archaeological data. These provisions are now administratively
administered through the SEPA process (which would be
replaced) and
4. a streamlined permit review system could reduce development
review time by 3 -4 weeks, while continuing to implement the
land use, infrastructure and environmental policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISION
The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan envisions the MIC as the
focus of significant industrial activity. This is state in Goal 11.1 and
its associated policies.
Goal 11.1 (MANUFACTURING /INDUSTRIAL
CENTER):
Support for existing industrial activities in the
Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of new
industrial activity in order to maximize the employment
and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the
region, while minimizing impacts on residential
neighborhoods.
More specifically than this general vision, Comprehensive Plan
policies call for various implementing actions (see Appendix A for
the implementation of Comprehensive Plan policies). This plan
addresses the direction to remove the unnecessary regulatory barriers
to development and ensuring that developments incorporate adequate
environmental protection and infrastructure support into the project
design.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
r eAti:62Y1.taa :ta.ba![iliALt
•
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
I11. II\'1I'LENIENTING ACTIONS
The primary implementation plan focus is on responsibly
streamlining the development review process by eliminating
unnecessary regulatory barriers and providing predictable review
standards. This focus is directly achievable using a newly authorized
"planned action" review process. The planned action option uses
predictable standards instead of the individual impact
analysis /mitigating actions used in the existing SEPA environmental
review process. The planned action process and supporting capital
improvement and regulatory revisions are presented below.
Planned Action Permit Streamlining
In general, the State has allowed cities and counties to adopt a
"planned action" ordinance to streamline environmental review (State
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)), pursuant to RCW
43.21C.031. A planned action ordinance is required to:
1. identify specific types of developments called "planned actions ",
2. evaluate the impacts of planned actions as part of a subarea plan
environmental impact statement,
3. provide for full impact mitigation through adopted standards and
a consistency check when individual development applications
are made and
4. recognize the combined subarea plan EIS and impact mitigating
mearsures (e.g., regulations) as satisfying the case -by -case formal
SEPA provisions which would otherwise be required for each
building permit, subject to an administrative consistency check to
ensure full impact mitigation.
The proposed Tukwila "planned action" review system is a voluntary
program where case -by -case, formal SEPA review for specific types
of development actions, is replaced by an integrated MIC subarea
plan/environmental impact statement and the specific requirements of
a planned action review process. The planned action review process
to be embodied in a Tukwila "planned action ordinance" is discussed
below.
20
Tukwila Department of Community Development
JC/�J.VF�.FV1MY!�.i•
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Adopt a new TMC 21.04.XXX (State Environmental Policy Act)
This new TMC section establishes a new "planned action" option to
normal SEPA review. The following four sections would be
contained within this new TMC section.
ent fie < 'lann Aet onsz» armed a t r s are s ec f call
t erltt c: s :eve10 m
x;tenas.i.:_:::..:::::.
............ .
nsisterir:.j.c1iL,Y',�,1�3
. 4 0 Ita 1Y itl>a#
emPnstra
......................
sSO.11 1 1
11L ?:'!a
st......
:re 1 exist.
assn
x> c s oris about tih° I.
;ent o rdis ,. it on' v
€> r7d'efrnativi
et pent i.,
adif cat on ate and of th e o cdu a y hi
5 N2te to Reviewers: Such uses are more complex and require case by case review
and approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council respectively. No
time savings in permit review would result from designating them a planned action
and their greater potential for significant adverse impacts make such a designation
inappropriate at this time.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
s 44ft .rap.t4wr! .tron.rrsrm^Mr. +
21
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
.onistene.
141 n c
„.. .
n .an
the dv1apment • •
acis pursuant to the environment •
id planncd action ordinance, .. and IS consistent -
eti (RCW 4321 C 030(2)
. .
19.1):10.0.(4
nunity
Se
to.OKnon adt.
Tukwila
:.• •••••••••
.onzed to •••••• designatc a specific • p. MC ..........
iich was eligible to be a .........
planned ... '4 •
• cotnprehenswe
.................
..........
.........
.........
al threshald detennrnation,
tom ofitia.
22
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
°. r"£ 1.r.'f'�:•'ros:_`.K6 #�;>_:_.6roa � '�Y'f ?�'yc$�1�.3ni:�'SiL,°:'!�a
►rpim re ''ermits $
.:K...�.Ji:3invinii�HT }:• }} . •: }).�i`In .
2
3
4
5
6
7
Typical SEPA Process
w/o Shoreline Permit Assume
500 + Yards of Excavation
Complete Application Received
Post Site and Mail notice of
application. Assume 3 wks.
SEPA review period
Issue DNS
Begin 15 day comment period
Finalize DNS.
Assume no MDNS so no 14 day
appeal period
Planning SEPA Review done.
Time = 6 weeks
Typical Planned Action Process
w/o Shoreline Permit. Assume
500 Yards of Excavation
Complete Application Received
No posting or mailing. Assume
3 wks. for planned action
"Consistently Checked"
Planned action complete
Time = 3 weeks
:z;r.•�aax
Difference
Pre & Final DNS
* Reduce Posted & Mailed
Notice from 1 to 0
* Administrative Decision
* No review by other agencies
with jurisdiction (they rely on
regs. only, not SEPA)
Potential 3 wk time saved.
No practical time savings are
anticipated as building permit
review time now exceeds
6 wks.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
23
z
z.
it 2 j
6
J U.
U O'•
N
.(AW;
w=
W0.
g
J:
N d
= W"
I.
Z�
I•- O.
Z
U 0;
Ofr.;
0 H'
al
U N'
O ~!
Z'
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Capital Improvements
Capital improvements to support the level of development identified
in the Comprehensive Plan were identified and incorporated into the
Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Further detailed analysis
with updated data was done for this implementation plan to ensure
adequate infrastructure support of the MIC buildout condition.
The implementation plan analysis has identified four capital
improvements to support MIC buildout. These improvements have
been shown in Table B on the following page. Capital improvements
which are not needed to support area buildout to adopted level of
service standards (such as resolution of RTA facility location and the
16th Avenue Bridge's future status) have not been listed although
they have been discussed in the "Background" section.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
z.
a: w
-J 2,
U O h.
U) o: :
N w;;
w•=
J I- .
:Cw::
wo
2
•
I— w
?fit
0i
Z
p;
i0 —;
(
'w w.
1--V
Z'.
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
April 10, 1998
Table B
Capital Improvement Plan Revisions
System Deficiency
Proposed Facility
Development Impact
Mitigating Action
KOAUS
S. 112th St. intersection with
Pacific Hwy. S. will operate at
LOS F at buildout based on
updated traffic data.
An upgraded signal controller at the Pacific
Hwy. intersection will upgrade operation to
LOS B or C and support the corridor
.ALOS -E.
Amend the Concurrency Ordinance to
incorporate this improvement to provide
for fair -share mitigation payments from
applicable future developments. State
funding support of the controller
installation is anticipated. Installation is
anticipated prior to the corridor ALOS -E
threshold being exceeded.
Pacific Hwy. S., south of
Boeing Access Road
resurfacing and frontal
improvements. Not required to
provide the minimum ALOS -E
capacity .
Resurface with some widening, and frontal
improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
utilities, etc.).
The City has already installed the conduit to
allow coordinated phasing of signals with
adjacent intersections.
No private contribution for road
improvements. (New projects.and re-
developments are responsible for frontal
improvements per existing TMC 16.36.).
The S. 124th St. access to the
existing Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad yard will
exceed the LOS -D threshold
for this residential arterial in
the immediate future and does
not provide for functional
separation of traffic (pols.
13.3.1 & 13.2.1).
Design options to resolve capacity and
safety issues are being developed at this
time. Major options include a new bridge
to the southern rail yard areas and a new
north access road.
The City's goal at this time is to secure
BNSF participation in identifying the
best solution and its implementation.
State and federal funding support will be
crucial to any solution. Receiving such
support must await the resolution of
design issues. Applying proposed
regulatory streamlining provisions and
approving further facility expansion will
be problematic until these traffic
concurrency and Comprehensive Plan
consistency issues are resolved.
UTILITIES
Build a new water line on S.
112th Street to loop the system
for water quality purposes.
Looping became needed when
an intertie with the City of
Seattle water system was
closed off by Seattle, after
water system deficiencies were
identified in the
Comprehensive Plan process.
The 1,500 ft. long, 12" line would cost
about $140,000 with all hydrants and
connections.
Fair share payments from benefiting
properties (e.g., on Pacific. Hwy., south
of S. 112th Street).
Tukwila Department of Community Development
25
z
W
D:
U0
N t]
uj
W }O.
u-
co d
W
Z
.Z
j;
U
,O �z
W W.
- O:
, z
U N•
H =:
Z ~;
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Regulatory Amendments
Regulatory amendments are needed to replace the substantive review
standards which are currently applied using SEPA. Since the SEPA
process would be eliminated from project review, the regulations
become necessary. These regulations do not increase the substantive
standards which are currently applied. Other SEPA areas of concern
are adequately addressed by existing regulations.
Amend TMC 18.38.020(xx) (Zoning Code MIC/H Permitted
Uses)
Policy 11.1.5 provides for locating uses commonly associated with
manufacturing and industrial uses in the MIC. "Manufacturing,
processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products,
such as cosmetics and drugs" would satisfy this intent. These uses
are already allowed in the MIC /L zone as a permitted use (TMC
18.36.020(20).
:'•:iii..
..�. ?`k:i ?ii: iii?}* iiiisi;::':%:'• ii: ii:: iifi% ;i$.'•:3;:i;Siciii:;;::::fi; %`�c ;iii:::;:: ?i:SYi:`•i'iS::i:;: iii
arnlaceu
Amend TMC 18.50.XXX (Zoning Code Supplemental
Development Regulations)
Policy 15.1.5 provides for incorporating design for crime prevention
lighting while avoiding glare: The following provisions would
incorporate State and federal crime prevention light levels and apply
the standards normally supported by the Board of Architectural
review to avoid glare.
"[tuts Stac
le velop is ? t
:a±tlg_lc
rgtlmmm
e'
..........:.......:......
nmun.
r risidera to
Tukwila Department of Community Development
26
z
r W.
0
co
LIJ
J
H
CO u_
wO
u- Q,
N a.
w
H =.
Z
1— O.
Z H.
ill
n
O �.
O 1-•
w w`
H
11O
tii z
-'
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Amend TMC 18.50.XXX (Zoning Code Supplemental
Development Regulations)
Per Policy 4.6.1 provides for preserving paleontological and
archaeological information. This policy is similar to State statutes
which establishes archaeological and historical buildings as valuable
and subject to regulation by all jurisdictions, requires local
jurisdictions to regulate activities which could damage such
resources, and specifies measures to be take when such resources are
encountered.
SAX
oL0g#
nutaetur
0.
#t re y °zeasc t tai <b J1ev °e taro acc la
#;a t tur f; r so rrres ssossmerit$h
• :: : :ti::;. i :i} S: :::i: :: :::i::i:::' i::i: >:v:::i::ii:::: :::::i:.' i ':!:i::i::i:} :::i::i ::i' ::':: "�- ..::::'.
—a�x an ar i aevt • t r .. • Flan::
avat on> ai«itoriit
lX ss he oxr v.r.4.
�n�ucfed;
: > .rdf sslonal> ct sae tlo: > l<sl
o strucu • The:assessm : t:should<:: >: >:
f signif eance of arc aeologtval re aria s
structures on the Stare> r Fed i t<:#� stQrtc<re 'asters
•
leont l a< e r s
r r tratidn le t t
aredetermination study by •
ote htlica nvestination
t tt CQ'o.
of sstonal archaealog std ing
1e, to d ter t r><e site rc aeologteal
ogical,r+ sources:
>r cavatiohs into h s>orica�
situ >t e s are t at`all t t
coo • ser at cr /pre>.: n
erstatt.: n ...._:._:.
r f a> itten c?omra tmen
ehaeotol'
arns'?
mss: r.; rdi arcaotogza
implemented he app t: rtt<s€t
t to stct;`< w rk:> m a ia. t'.:u one
«st tc PreservatiQ .. ?A P; ;.:
elop ppro late t rent ne ititeosor
the
• e vatson; >wtt •::ne urtt el"_ •
at a
fsaat
.....................
atsshalrno�tt tsttttk tat
or A
i <l TVec aS lathvnxeG€ fit,
eon uct studies:>to eptra op.
•
r haeQtogtcal /paleo�tcaltr�l:cal porentta�, .
<<�a..:?�.::: �>'..m:fihe app�3 az�t,su h• . :nt'artnafi�onas<a.:;;r?�::'.:. ::aka`:;:.;
:.:.::::; ...........:.
<raea11 �etermrr�at�otls to 1m� #etnent these prav�s�a�ns and
Tukwila Department of Community Development
27
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
sut sec:an:t
>haeo1o: ;:lei]:€
I1strng> n:the'i at
observable p;.....:.
> aGtiox1s rnclud
intent
iscave unials)
no probable significant tml
... stzizzcslesQrcesfilt aYglle
keolntologr
>a ecavari
en
ex; les> teitit stu
aeolo is
�l;C>Eitl'3't
Ietcrxni native .
Ontblo
Amend TMC 16.36.XXX (Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards)
Policies 2.1.13, 13.3.2, and 13.3.4, ensure maintenance of area -wide
roadway capacity and safety: The following road standards are
needed to maintain corridor road capacity and safety.
yl' IS: LY1 tEUiacti�tfl' n l l.Uus
t brit:: {I t i t <; fex
: w es gn a d J 0 ti
sa�tiaf
abs.._..
an
sat?
S riay
Tukwila Department of Community Development 28
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Figure 14
Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Access Spacing and Corner Clearances
1 -5 -6.7
MINIMUM ACCESS POINT SPACING WHEN DIRECTLY OPPOSING DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT POSSIBLE
z
Street
Speed 2
(mph)
DIMENSIONS
A 3
B 4
C 4
25
105
105
105
30
125
125
125
35
150
150
150
40
185
185
185
45
230
230
230
4-- G
1
t--Cum line (tjp.)
A
MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR STOP SIGN INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET)
DIM
OPERATION SPEED
30
35
40
45
A
115
135
150
180
B
85
105
120
140
C
115
135
160
180
D
115
135
160
180
E
105/0
135/0
160/0
1 80/0
ACCESS POINT
ACCESS POINT'
A
6 -7
f
Street =
c
1
0 1 E
MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET) 6 - 7
DIM
OPERATION SPEED
30
35
40
45
A
230
275
320
365
B
115
135
160
180
C
230
275
320
365
D
230
275
320
365
E
115/0
135/0
160/0
180/0
ACCESS POINT
rT
A
in I 9
Street sraurl11(
c
oaz
d
LLI
Curb Line (rYDd
0 o E
NOTES
1. Access point spacing only for public streets. This shall be a guideline for private streets.
2. Refers to posted speed or operating speed, whichever is greatest.
3. Between the nearest edges of two -way access points. Distances between adjacent, one -way access points (with the inbound
access upstream) can be one -half the distances
4. Access points directly opposite from each other when possible. Where it is not possible, these dimensions will apply.
5. Where access points are to be signalized, a minimum spacing of 600 feet to any other signalized intersection should be
maintained.
6. Access points near stop or signal controlled intersections should be checked to determine whether stopping queues will
block the access point.
7. In cases where access spacing is not attainable because existing frontages are narrow or have physical constraints, access
points should be located as close to the tabulated values shown above as possible. The City Engineer may require
investigations to determine what turning controls are appropriate at the access point. The City Engineer shall base all such
decisions on maintaining needed corridor capacity and safety.
Tukwila Departinent of Community Development
29
z
•�
W
Wn: •
4U;
U O;
w D;
W= •
J 1_,
•uj
J
= W
Z_�
I- O
Z
i0 NLL,
rl'
= W.
1-
— Off:
111 Z'
H =;.
H,
Z
Introduction
APPENDIX A
MIC IMPLENTATION PLAN z
Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation D
-J C.)
U O;
November 2, 1998 cow
J
CO LL
ui O
g
J
LL.a
The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan has articulated a vision for the Manufacturing Industrial O.
Center in Goal 11.1: w
Z
Goal 11.1(MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER) 0:,
z
Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center 'ILI w`
and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the v
employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the region, ;O N;
1--,
while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. w w'
1— -.
Realization of this goal is supported by numerous policies. The most directly related policies, u_ 0
existing development standards and proposed capital and regulatory implementing revisions are iii z
summarized below. U N'
O
This network of development standards works toward assuring development consistency with the z
Comprehensive Plan and demonstrates the mitigation of environmental impacts. With this network
of development standards, the proposed "planned action" approach to permit streamlining becomes
valid.
It must be emphasized that the proposed development standards are currently applied through the
SEPA process. They do not increase the amount of regulation, but do provide increased
predictability. Similarly, the permit streamlining which replaces project SEPA with a shorter
administrative consistency check, does not reduce the substantive development requirements..
MIC Comprehensive Plan Policies and Implementing Actions
Comprehensive Plan policies are too numerous to fully list and retain a readable document. A
selection of MIC oriented policies have been presented below. The reviewer is referred to the City
of Tukwila "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" (12/4/95) for a complete inventory of policies.
Two types of Comprehensive Plan policies should be noted: policies which are adopted on a city-
wide basis and those which are contained within the MIC Element. Implementation of both types of
policies have been evaluated with respect to existing regulations /programs, integration of the
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
proposed capital improvement program and regulatory amendments, and future work direction
provided by adopted policies. Policies are presented in numerical order.
Policies implementation
Economic Development Element
i
2.1.3 Include standards in the development
regulations for industrial uses which
adequately mitigate potential adverse
impacts on surrounding properties and public
facilities and services.
Development impacts are adequately mitigated
based on existing and proposed regulations as more
specifically discussed below. Existing and
proposed development standards for mitigating
environmental impacts are summarized in the
project environmental impact statement by
"Element of the Environment."
2.1.4 Budget for public infrastructure (for
example, roads, sewers, curbs, lighting,
parks, open space). Use some capital
improvement funds to encourage in -fill, land
assembly, redevelopment, and land
conversion for family -wage jobs, but only if
concurrent with substantial private actions.
Infrastructure needed to support area buildout has
been previously identified in the infrastructure
comprehensive plans for transportation, sewers,
water, and storm drainage. All facilities have either
been:
• built (e.g., E. Marginal Way reconstruction and
utility improvements),
• are fully funded and scheduled for construction
within six years (e.g., Pacific. Hwy. /SR -599
interchange expansion and Pacific. Hwy. Bridge
reconstruction and widening) or
o recommended herein for incorporation into the
Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (e.g., S.
112th/Pacific. Hwy. intersection signal
improvement) or otherwise resolve (e.g., access to
the BNSF railroad yard) -- see Transportation and
Utilities capital improvements..
2.1.6 Consider nonfinancial ways (such as
brokering and interlocal agreements) to assist
industrial land owners with state and federal
government environmental remediation
actions.
Tukwila is a financial participant and steering
committee member, along with State and Federal
representatives, to revise the standards for
contaminated site cleanup to reflect future
industrial uses instead of assumed agricultural or
residential uses.
Natural Environment Element
4.6.1 Inventory sites and adopt measures to
ensure that paleontological and
archaeological materials and site details are
preserved for posterity.
Regulations to identify and protect paleontological
and archaeological information is proposed herein.
This would not preclude development or require
site investigations of historic resources which are
not affected by development.
A -2
Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
w:
D:
D
• 00
W
= •
-J1-•
w.
w O:
g Q`
co
f- =
Z �.
I- -O
• Z
ILI mil'
U�
0 -
w`
12-- O
wz
U N`
O
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Shoreline Element
5.6.9 For MIC properties included in the
King County Green River Trail Master Plan,
require shoreline development to provide a
trail for public access along the river.
Board of Architectural Review approval is required
for projects which require a shoreline permit (TMC
18.60). This process is use to ensure that project
design provides for locating the trail over the site,
design is harmonious with the shoreline
environment and specific Comprehensive Plan
design mandates are satisfied.
5.6.10 (For MIC properties) Where
shoreline public access is provided, ensure
that it is designed to be safe and convenient
and includes access amenities such as
benches, drinking fountains, public parking
areas, handicapped access and appropriate
lighting, consistent with the river access
guidelines.
See implementation of Policy 5.6.9.
5.6.11 For MIC properties not included in
the King County Green River Trail Plan,
require shoreline development to provide
public access or a private natural area in lieu
of public access, or otherwise mitigate the
loss of public access.
See implementation of Policy 5.6.9.
Manufacturing /Industrial Center Element
11.1.1 Support the efforts of existing
industries to expand and new industrial
businesses to develop in the
Manufacturing /Industrial Center by
providing them with economic data,
information on available development sites,
help in understanding and getting through the
permit processes, and other appropriate
assistance.
An existing land use map is periodically updated
for the entire City. Staff is always available to
review development site options and City
regulatory requirements. Assistance is provided
informally or at a no cost predevelopment meeting
with all regulatory department representatives.
11.1.2 Assist landowners in remediating site
problems caused by contaminated soil.
See implementation of Policy 2.1.6.
11.1.3 Develop appropriate permit
processes that minimize lengthy public
review and simplify the development permit
process, while providing meaningful
opportunities for citizen input and protecting
the environment.
The proposed "planned action" permit streamlining
option implements this policy. General SEPA
review is replaced by a comprehensive network of
regulations and a consistency check at the time of
building permit application. This reduces the
permit review time without reducing the level of
substantive development standards.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
A -3
z
�t
J U'
UO
rn0.
wz
J H
CO O
w
2
LLQ
co
1 w'
z�
�o
Z t-
ww
U
O N.
ww:
f-
u. O
tii z
N.
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
11.1.4 Tailor Manufacturing /Industrial
Center shoreline requirements to achieve
consistency between Shoreline and MIC
element goals and policies.
Draft shoreline revisions have been developed
pursuant to this policy. They will be presented for
review as part of a City -wide shoreline master plan
revision.
11.1.5 Allow uses that are commonly
associated with manufacturing and industry,
including those directly supporting such
activity, such as offices and laboratories,
while prohibiting unrelated uses.
Uses within the MIC/L and MIC/H zones were
identified pursuant to this policy during the overall
Zoning Code revision to implement the
Comprehensive Plan. Additional changes to the
permitted uses are proposed to prohibit hotels and
motels, and allow pharmaceutical manufacture in
the MIC/H zone.
11.1.6 Develop and designate appropriate
zoning, buffers, mitigation and access
opportunities where manufacturing zoning
directly abuts or impacts residential zoning
so that MIC uses may operate without
significant degradation of the residential
environment.
Allowed uses and development standards were
established during the overall Zoning Code revision
to implement the Comprehensive Plan (see Pol
2.1.3). This includes requiring uses within 300 ft.
of a residential zone to receive Board of
Architectural Review design approval. No changes
are proposed.
11.1.7 Support the Duwamish River
becoming a natural feature amenity in the
MIC
Existing shoreline regulations require a 50 ft. wide,
vegetative corridor along the river. This regulation
is largely moot as over 80% of MIC shoreline areas
above the top of bank are paved. Existing
regulations work to maintain remaining natural
bank faces and vegetated areas within the 50 ft.
corridor. This will be further addressed in later
revisions to the shoreline plan.
11.1.8 Improve public access and use of the
west side of the river, protecting owner's
rights to reasonable use and enjoyment,
improve employee access to the east side of
the river, and emphasize restoration on both
sides of the river.
See implementation of Policy 5.6.9.
11.1.9 Reduce reliance on the single-
occupancy- vehicle for transportation of
employees in and out of the MIC.
Commuter use of car and van pools are supported
by the Tukwila Commuter Trip Reduction program.
The bus alternative has become problematic as
service to the MIC reflects a trend of service hour
reduction.
A -4
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
Utilities Element
12.1.15 Approve development only if
adequate utilities are available when a need
is created for those facilities, or within a
reasonable period as approved by the City.
Existing regulations require adequate service with
water (TMC 14.36.010), sewer (TMC 14.36.020)
and storm water (Ord. 1755) systems. Each utility
system has been comprehensively designed in
individual functional plans to serve the buildout
level of development. The area requires only a
1,500 ft. water line for water quality, to serve
planned buildout. A fair share developer's
agreement could be required per TMC 14.36 upon
redevelopment.
Transportation Element
13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to
guide City improvement and development
approval decisions:
— The East Marginal industrial and
manufacturing corridor LOS average is not
to exceed E.
— The Pacific Highway corridor LOS
average is not to exceed E.
These standards have been adopted in TMC 9.48
and are considered in preparing the City Capital
Improvement Program.
13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in
(transportation) planning, development, and
improvement decisions.
See implementation of Policy 13.3.1. Driveway
location and design standards have also been
proposed to maintain corridor capacity.
13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or
trip reduction measures so that the average
LOS is not exceeded.
See implementation of Policy 13.3.1.
13.3.4 When reviewing private development
proposals, use an expanded LOS to
determine SEPA mitigations that will
provide capacity or traffic generation
control.
See implementation of Policy 13.3.1.
13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in
principal and minor arterial improvements as
well as in commercial areas.
This is adopted in TMC 16.34, which adopts the
City of Tukwila "Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards."
Tukwila Department of Community Development
A -5
z
w
00:
w 0:
0w
w =:
0wi
w 0..
gQ
co D
.
w.
z o;.
U 0,
11.1 111
ON.
O i-
'= w
F.. 0.
U.
O to
f= _
O E
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
November 2, 1998
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.
The City is a participant on the King County
International Airport master plan advisory
committee.
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
— 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.
City of Tukwila functional plans for infrastructure
identify the required improvements to support
Comprehensive Plan buildout. The implementation
or concurrency ordinances for transportation,
sewer, water and storm drainage provide for the fair
share participation of new developments in needed
system improvements. See Table B for capital
improvements needed to support MIC buildout.
Roles and Responsibilities Element
15.1.5 Foster an environment of safety and
security for those who live in, work in, and
visit Tukwila, through long -term
partnerships between residents, businesses,
schools, Tukwila Police Department, and
other City staff in crime intervention and
safety enhancement programs.
Proposed light and glare control standards would
provide minimum 1 ft. /candle lighting on
developed grounds and prohibit direct off -site
illumination or 2 ft. /candles at the property line.
A -6
Tukwila Department of Community Development
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE TUKWILA MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE TUKWILA
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN; ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS; AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF
TITLES 16,18, AND 21; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center is one of four Manufacturing
Industrial Centers designated in the King County Comprehensive Planning Policies, pursuant to
the State Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS City staff developed a Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan and implementing regulations as directed in the City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS extensive opportunities for public participation in developing the plan and
its regulations were made available; and
WHEREAS an environmental impact statement on the plan and regulations was
circulated for public review and finalized after public comment; and
WHEREAS the environmental impact statement on the plan and regulations evaluated
the impacts of certain "planned actions" per WAC 194 -11 -164 and 168, and found no significant
adverse impacts per WAC 197 -11 -172; and
WHEREAS a copy of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Community Trade
and Economic Development for review per State statute with the State's comments being
presented at the City Council public hearing, and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on the plan
and regulations; and
z
w'
re 2
U
es;
J
U O'
CO Cr
w;
w=
J H
CO I,
w0;
ag�
¢
512 a
- w
Z
0.
z�-:
• 1:3.
,O N
• I-
WI W U'
I- F-
11.
0
uiz
O (..2.
H
0
z
WHEREAS the City Council considered all comments and materials during its
deliberations including the Environmental Impact Statement and the Planning Commission
recommendation, and made revisions as a result of further staff analysis and public input; and
WHEREAS the Plan area boundary and its associated provisions have been limited to
areas within the City of Tukwila in order to address concerns raised by the City of Seattle and :;s
King County administrations; and • w
2
WHEREAS the City will monitor MIC development and performance of this Plan
through regional Growth Management Act Benchmarks Program currently administered by the w 0
Puget Sound Regional Council; w 6
CO LL'
w0
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: a.
=• d;
Section 1. Findings. The analyses and conclusions in the "Tukwila I- _.
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan," the associated environmental 1- ~O'
impact statement, and the staff responses to comments on the plan and draft environmental w w;
impact statement are supported. These documents are incorporated herein as if fully stated and o!
are on file at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. 8 cn
o
Section 2. Adoption of Plan. The "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic ( = v`
Implementation Plan" is incorporated herein as if fully stated and adopted as a subarea plan of
the "City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan" pursuant to the State Growth Management z
Act. Implementing regulations within the Plan are adopted by this ordinance. v
o'-
Section 3. Ordinance No. 1758 as codified in TMC 18.38.020. is amended to allow a Z
new class of permitted use in the MIC/H zone as follows: "Manufacturing, processing and/or
packaging pharmaceuticals and related products, such as cosmetics and drugs ".
Section 4. A new TMC section 18.50.100, MIC/L and MIC/H Site Lighting Standards, is
hereby created as follows:.
1. The following site lighting standards shall apply to portions of developments within 100 feet
of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center boundary as defined in the 1995
Comprehensive Plan:
a. the minimum light levels in parking areas, paths between the building and street or
parking areas shall be 1 ft. /candle,
b. the maximum ratio of average:minimum light level shall be 4:1 for illuminated grounds,
c. maximum illumination at the property line shall be 2 ft. /candles,
d. lights shall be shielded to eliminate direct off -site illumination, and
e. general grounds need not be lighted.
2. Variation from these standards may be granted by the Director of the Department of
Community Development based on technical unfeasibility or safety considerations.
Section 5. A new TMC section 18.50.110. MIC/L and MIC/H Zone Archaeological/
Paleontological Information Preservation Requirements, is hereby created as follows :. The
following provisions shall apply in the MIC/L and MIC/H zones:
1. If there is reason to believe that archaeological resources will be disturbed, a cultural
resources assessment shall be conducted and, if warranted, an archaeological response plan
and provisions for excavation monitoring by a professional archaeologist shall be made prior
to beginning construction. The assessment should address the existence and significance of
archaeological remains, buildings and structures on the State or Federal historic registers,
observable paleontological deposits and may include review by the State Archaeologist.
2. It is recommended that the applicant coordinate a predetermination study by a professional
archaeologist during the geotechnical investigation phase, to determine site archaeological
potential and the likelihood of disturbing archaeological resources
3. Excavations into historically native soil, when in an area of archaeological potential, shall
have a professional archaeologist on site to ensure that all State statutes regarding
archaeological conservation/preservation are implemented. The applicant shall provide a
written commitment to stop work immediately upon discovery of archaeological remains and
to consult with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) to assess
the remains and develop appropriate treatment measures. These may include refilling the
excavation with no further responsibility.
4. An applicant who encounters Indian burials shall not disturb them and shall consult with
OAHP and affected tribal organizations pursuant to State statutes.
5. The Director is authorized to:
a. conduct studies to generally identify areas of archaeological/paleontological potential,
b. determinations to implement these provisions and
c. waive any and all the above requirements, except for subsection "4" (reporting of
discovered Indian burials), if the proposed action will have no probable significant
impact on archaeological or historical resources that are eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places, or on observable paleontological resources.
Examples of such actions include excavation of fill materials, disturbance of less than
10,000 s.f. of native soils to a depth of 12 inches, penetration of native soils with pilings
over a maximum 8% of the building footprint, and paving over native soils in a manner
which does not damage cultural resources. The above examples are illustrative and not
determinative. A case -by -case evaluation of archaeological/ paleontological potential
value and proposed disturbance must be made.
Section 6. A new TMC Section 21.04.152, Planned Actions Identified. is hereby created
as follows: Planned actions are specifically identified as developments which satisfy all of the
following characteristics:
1. is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and M1C/H (TMC
18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively).
"Conditional" and "unclassified" uses are not planned actions; and
2. satisfies the consistency checklist which demonstrates that all impacts have been mitigated;
and
3. is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan per RCW 43.21C.031(2); and
4. is ►t any of the following:
a. an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200, per RCW 43.21C.031(2);
b. an action which is not consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as adopted per
RCW 36.70A (consistency required per RCW 43.21.;031(2));
c. a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H zones;
d. a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or commuter rail
system;
e. any decisions about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would
normally require a SEPA threshold determination; or
f. a development any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
Section 7. A new TMC section 21.04.154, Consistency Check, is hereby created as
follows:
1. Having identified the developments which are a potential "planned action ", the development
must demonstrate that it has mitigated all of its impacts pursuant to the environmental impact
statement and planned action ordinance, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan
(RCW 43.21C.030(2).
2. A consistency checklist will be provided by the Director of the Department of Community
Development. The criteria for Comprehensive Plan consistency are as presented in the
"Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila
Manufacturing Industrial Center."
Section 8. A new TMC section 21.04.156, Designating a Development as a Planned
Action, is hereby created as follows:
1. The Director of the Department of Community Development shall be authorized to designate
a specific development proposal which is eligible to be a planned action, has mitigated all of
its significant adverse impacts, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as a planned
action.
2. This designation shall be final, with no administrative appeals.
Section 9. A new TMC section21.04.158, Planned Action Development Review
Process, is hereby created as follows: Designation of a planned action would relieve the
application from any SEPA review including a threshold determination, any final threshold
determination, public notice of SEPA action, and any administrative appeals. A notice of
complete application would NOT be sent for Type 1 applications which choose the planned
action option.
Requirements. The Public Works Director shall incorporate the MIC/L and MIC/H Zone
Driveway Design and Bus Pullout Requirements," as presented in the Tukwila Manufacturing
Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan (pages 28 and 29), into the City of Tukwila
Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards as adopted in Ordinance 1783 and codified as
TMC 16.36.
�!n.P'd�a"caru �tuaC!,�r;Sz' ;. VA,. *a3Ru
z
u�o
0 0,
:w o
cnIII;
W =°
J H
W w:
w O:.
ga
V)o
=3/
z
za
• N• ,A'
O ;
.o I-:
= U:
1-7 IL. 1.
O.
w z.
O I—
z •
Section 11. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre - empted by state
or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre - emption shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after
passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
regular meeting thereof this day of 1991.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk
John W. Rants, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
ATTACHMENTS
A. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan, November 2, 1998
(File No. L96- 0071).
B. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement, March 12, 1998 (File No. E96- 0034).
file q:\micip \cncl \ord.doc
fh +•:aAY{:a'�iN..3i �fii�iu3L°9L+d�. <A'.
Z
z.
_l
J U
U 0:
W Z:
w • 0.
u-
co a'
o;
. 2 D;
o;
:
.•
.
ATTACHMENTS
for
Tukwila City Council Review
of the
Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
List of Attachments
A. Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation
Plan, April 10,1998
B. Public Hearing Comments and Staff Responses
C. Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
D. Revisions to the Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan of 11/12/97
ATTACHMENT A
Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
April 10, 1998
See attached Plan document.
_....'.xS:r ^,..T::.� s.:...,.�.:;s�J ti�i. iSa. raxsGi,' a, Y.::. �;:: srcik.: i�w�.8e::r.�ecnisutX:e'w:;:!1 -. ,..: �rx� *u= �:.•a- .�a'.icuau:raea,+zeaai . «. .. «. .e,ti:� - .,...i �xmr�aew;a
;.%•• ;•••, • " — " • ' " • • —
• tiAR -12 -98 THU 04:09 PM FAX NO.
1•1)City of Seattle
Paul Schell, Mayor
P. 02
Executive Department - Strategic Planning Office
Lizanne Lyons, Director
March 12, 1998
Tukwila Planning Commission Members
c/o City of Tukwila Planning Division Office
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Or: • i iv•l'.%
RE: Planning Commission Workshop Session on the City of Tukwila's Draft Manufacturing
Industrial CenterPlan
ATTIC• Steve Lancaster and Vernon Umetsu
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We were notified last night by Tukwila's Department of Community Development of the workshop
session you are having tonight to discuss the Tukwila. Manufacturing Industrial (MIC) Center Plan.
We request consideration of two specific items in your deliberations:
I. Exclude the Potential Annexation Area from the Plan. The Plan could acknowledge that the area
is under mediation because both Tukwila and the City of Seattle have designated the area as a
Potential Annexation Area in their comprehensive plans. The mediation process should conclude
in April. Once this is completed, both cities may amend their comprehensive plans accordingly.
2. • The 16th Avenue South Bridge should be included in the Plan. The bridge is an integral part of
the Duwamish area, is located inside the designated MIC, and the City of Tukwila is responsible
for its maintenance and operation. Regardless of the IeveI of impact on the bridge, the facility is
needed for business operations within the area, including businesses such as Boeing which the
Plan directly addresses.
We regret that we are unable to attend the meeting due to the short notice. As Elsie Crossman
indicated this morning to Vernon Umetsu from the Department of Community Development, we will
respond to the Department's response to our DEIS co n rents once we receive the FL -IS.
1 appreciate your attention to this matter. 1 am available to answer any questions of the Commission.
My telephone number is 233 -7809. You may also call Elsie Crossman at 684 -8364.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Ousley
Assistant Director, SPO
cc: Lizanne Lyons, SPO Director
Jack Johnson, Law Department
Sandy Watson, Law Department
Cliff Traisman, OIR Director
Gerald Cormick, the CSE Group
Chuck Mize, King County Executive Office
Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98104 -1826
.tagatvaziii sdkd'mu"ie .d1,91t12U0.11;
• "0 , 4 .1 in. 9 _q t t • (in.. �±z ;.rns;
Irti9AtAiL7ti�terfr i, , YR7&b. s.keZeltsft„a::r.
z
H
ce
w.
JU.
• 0:
V) 0
w:
Ill 2;
H(
CO LL;
w0
cn
LL Q'
— a:
."
21
zf-1
F- 0':
Z t-
U 0
10 i
w W'
H
—• O
w • z;
0'
z
City of Tukwila
John W Rants, May.
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
AGENDA
MARCH 12, 1998
6:00 P.M.
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
CALL TO ORDER
II. ATTENDANCE
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 19, 1998
IV. CITIZEN COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items which are NOT
included on the agenda.
CASE NUMBER: L96 -0071
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Adopt a subarea implementation plan for the Tukwila MIC.
Includes streamlining permit review, capital improvements and regulatory
revisions.
LOCATION: All properties north of the 126th right of way alignment northward to the
City limits and its potential annexation area, but excluding the Allentown
residential neighborhood.
ADJOURN
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEEDINGS.
rNt +'70=7,• 4 5 721471:4 A„ Y': ;A41�}Lti l M, %Y} d>[ h' Y+.q 31. 1 ."[i73,1,,"G,Totui4,Zt„ttAi;i •
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
MEMORANDUNI
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Jack Pace, Planning Mgr. and Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
Date: March 5, 1998
RE: L96 -0071 -- MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Workshop.
John W. Rants, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
At this work session, the Planning Commission needs to complete its review of the proposed
regulatory revisions in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan and prepare a recommendation to
the City Council.
Background: The Comprehensive Plan's.Manufacturing Industrial Center policies call for
facilitating area improvement (11.1.1), streamlining the permit review process while providing
meaningful opportunities for citizen input and environmental protection (11.1.3), and updating
the MIC shoreline master plan for consistency with the City -wide shoreline plan (11.1.4).
The City of Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan was issued as an
integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement on May 20,
1997.
A joint briefing of the City Council and Planning Commission was held on the integrated plan.
Approval was given to separate the MIC shoreline plan update from the remaining MIC Plan
elements. The proposed MIC shoreline provisions would be reviewed as a component of the
City -wide shoreline master plan update. to maximize coordination.
The remaining plan elements were issued as a draft MIC Strategic Implementation Plan
(11/12/97). This plan provided improved clarity on the specific codified proposals contained in
the Plan/DEIS. The Commission was given an introductory briefing on December 11, 1997 and
a public hearing was held later that night.
Two parties spoke at the public hearing, after a brief presentation by the Planning Staff. Both the
Boeing Aircraft Company and the City of Seattle submitted written testimony, which was
summarized in a verbal presentation. The Planning Commission concurred that staff would
respond in writing to the submitted testimony.
Please feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu (206 -431 -3684) or Jack Pace if we can be of further
help.
FILE: MIICIP \PC \\VKSPNIE,M.DOC
z
W;
CC 2:
J0
U O
CO 0
WI
J 1-
w0
N D
d:
• •
z
f-a
w~
U
p
O m. ='.
0
= w..
0'
U. O:
Z:
• iii
O 17
z
ATTACHMENT A
Summarized Public Hearing Testimony and Planning Division Response
The numerous continents by each party related primarily to the clarity and adequacy of the
environmental analysis. Staff has summarized the comments related to the proposed plan
proposals below. A complete list of comments and responses is also attached.
The comments are referenced to the "Complete List of Comments and Responses" in Attachment
B. Comments referenced first by page location, then by the individual identifier.
'rY} vr.I:{nY •`✓'r ,. �. � �:./ • '� i i4/. :),..:;:,Z . / }'4: }:n /: �r � f.4 £w { }r{{• }`, Y /,.. + /,.•},p�
`' x'''''' . r:, :.{ { +<k•..{' r.. +yo-. }r ^•.w. ..: l / .}.. •£.��},h
A.; }Y4:t`S:.nin i�'Yi':rr),��.G '£ {1 .Ma
`�� .�v:{r.`., ✓.h:�.i {y :•.v.$.y::•vr.{
:: l�' ti:!'•rr ��Y. •}.�� U•f,/S n'v :\ \q.,.i.�•:'{n:Wi4v
M4.{%•'l }: n: }i ':.: }..it v Y ` {:i.::'• / ,, f. {.:.i:j•
. r4 .l :.Gj:b. , {. }2r #. r':�. �' Y .:. v�R: �• 9v7{rid�i$uv >`i��.t:: } }\:•. %i�ilr }}.; itU.
i
}{ LniS.{' n.}? r�% is�+`•' rriv :':,}.•.G.{(` /,. {;i %��•,.•�.. V n :... Yr ...
eatt'e
�� ..1�nUi'..2C/.!!. f. {:;Y:J�{ 'h .0' }:il 'ii /,'j{t 'ii• r:{•.`!•'v'% •. J! »�:: i• %}:.: {:iQ.r}y:n
SS �. } �,.
y�y ±M1 +. ■,yy, �A!w�.rliv {..Y n
.:0. i�s!K..4. v`{' {•�.} 'S.0
hqi. .�
{ (. .t•..• {£r{r.L`S l:ri{ iJ£, \ }fS:v iC}•'r:{`i:y
�ry
tip,}.•... � j {` A`�jf' � i� �$r. �{ � 4 {{ F
�./ {{/{' �:`° �T}•l./!{.::::: r` �`. � �' s',}{}rc'{ F{ nl';. C� T::i::�r %:`}: { {:e�i:;{! \ \:�.vn'
1.
Pg. 19, Comment A: Change MIC Plan
boundaries to exclude areas to the west of
the Duwamish River, which are claimed as
potential annexation areas by both the cities
of Seattle and Tukwila; until completing a
conflict resolution process.
Include the areas in the Plan, as they are
designated as in the Tukwila MIC by the
Comprehensive Plan.
2.
Pg. 14, Comment 20.. The MIC Plan must
be consistent with the land use plans of
adjacent jurisdictions (King Co. and the City
of Seattle) and the - Countywide Planning
Policies.
The proposed MIC implementation plan is
consistent with the identified plans. They all
designate this Duwamish River valley area as
a manufacturing industrial center.
3.
Pg. 10, Comment 7. Coordinate Tukwila
MIC planning with Seattle MIC planning.
',
The Seattle process is at a very early stage. A
Seattle planning advisory committee co -chair
recommended waiting until the project was
further along. A Planner is on the project
mailing list, met with Seattle representatives
as part of an interjurisdictional committee and
has recognized Seattle development
regulations in its planning work.
4.
Pg. 20, Comment D. Include MIC shoreline
plan provisions in this review.
Review draft shoreline provisions as part of
the City -wide shoreline plan per City Council
direction.
1 The decision about the clarity and adequacy of environmental analysis is an administrative decision to
be made by the DCD Director. Further clarification and explanation which has been made is attached.
L96 -0071 MIC STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEMO OF MARCH 5, 1998
5. Pg. 7, Comment 2 & Pg. 19, Comment C.
Include the 16th Avenue South Bridge in the
plan and provide for its continued use.
Do not include the Bridge as it is not needed
to support MIC buildout at the established
level of service. Continue to recognize the
Bridge as an element in the regional road
system which is important to accessing Seattle
areas, and participate in solving this regional
issue in a regional manner.
6. Pg. 13, Comment 12. Consider protecting
views across shoreline properties as is done
in Seattle.
The City of Tukwila does not regulate for
view protection in the MIC shoreline.
7. Pg. 12, Comment 9. Consider prohibiting
redevelopment of over water buildings for
non -water dependent uses..
This is a policy decision since there are no
significant adverse impacts to the proposed
redevelopment provisions. Allow
redevelopment of over -water buildings.
8. •Pg. 15, Comment 25. What is the status of
the Boeing Duwamish Corridor
Redevelopment EIS Mitigation Agreement?
.. This is an agreement between the Boeing
Co., King County, Seattle, and Tukwila.
All provisions continue to apply as the
Agreement is mitigation for past Boeing
projects in other jurisdictions.
..e s .:e: Boe1n Aircraft Com .::....:.:...... ; ........ .
9. Comments 2 (Pg. 28), 9 (Pg. 29), 11 (Pg.
29), 14 (Pg. 30), & H (Pg. 35). The
proposed action should be more clearly
described than in the integrated Plan/DEIS.
• This was done in the MIC Strategic
Implementation Plan.
10. Pg. 28, Comment 6. Maximize consistency .
with the Seattle MIC planning project.
See response to Seattle Comment No. 3 in this
table.
-11: Pg. 34, Comment D. Allow projects within
. the Duwamish River to be planned actions.
The complexity of required analyses and the
multiple agency reviews which would
eliminate the City's streamlining effects, show
this to be an ineffective use of City resources.
12. Pg. '31, Comment 18. Reduce the shoreline
setback from 60 ft. to 40 ft. for non -water
dependent uses.
Staff concurs. This has been proposed in the
MIC Plan now being reviewed.
13. Pg. 31, Comment 21. Consider not
requiring habitat restoration for new
shoreline bulkheads.
Habitat restoration continues to be proposed.
This loss of shoreline habitat at the river's
edge is a significant adverse impact which
must be mitigated, pursuant to Comprehensive
Page A -2
z
mow`
00
en
w w
U :
w 0
ga
wa
=• w
z ,
z o.
w
U 0.
O N'.
I-
w W;
z
a. O.
Z.
• rn;
O
z
L96 -0071 MIC STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEMO OF MARCH 5, 1998
z
;�Z
CC 61'1
J U.
U 0:
s U J=
N O
g
LL.'.
• a
= w
F-=
z�.
F- 0:
z uj
tit 0 N,
0 H..
ww
1-
u. 0
U co
O H.
z
Plan Shoreline policies.
. 14. Pg. 31, Comment 23. Is the Model Habitat
Restoration Ordinance to be adopted as a
separate, duplicative review process in
addition to shoreline regulations?
They are guidelines which are envisioned to
be adopted within the shoreline master plan.
15. Pg. 31, Comment 20. Are the shoreline
profiles a required design?
They are guidelines which would be
incorporated into the shoreline master plan..
16. Pg. 30, Comment 16. Is public access
required only along the Green River Trail?
Yes.
17. Pg. 31, Comment 19. Can the trail be
developed within the river environment
setback?
Yes.
18. Pg. 30, Comment 17. Clarify the shoreline
design guidelines.
This is a notation of future work to be done.
They are not part of the proposed action.
19. Pg. 29, Comment 13. 'Why is there a special
system to notify developers of building
height limits?
This refers to FAA height limits around the
King County International Airport, which are
significantly less than allowed by Zoning.
20. Pg. 34, Comment F. What is the basis for a
cultural resources assessment, especially for
structures over 50 years old ?.
Various State statutes declare a State interest
in archaeological and paleontological
resources (RCW 27.53.010 & 040), requires
developing a system to identify the resources
(RCW 36.70A.020), establishes a permit
system (RCW 27.53.060), and identifies the
resources as elements of the environment to
be protected from adverse impacts (WAC
197 -11 -960). Only structures on the State or
Federal historic registers would be subject to
the cultural assessment.
21. Pg. 34, Comment B. The planned action
consistency checklist should be provided for
public review.
This is a routinely prepared application form
whose contents (e.g., defining planned
actions, need for Comprehensive Plan
consistency, and a SEPA environmental
checklist) are identified in State statute and
this Plan.
22. Pg. 34, Comment A. What is the status of
the. Boeing Duwamish Corridor
Redevelopment EIS Mitigation Agreement?
See' response to Seattle Comment No. 8 in this
table.
z
;�Z
CC 61'1
J U.
U 0:
s U J=
N O
g
LL.'.
• a
= w
F-=
z�.
F- 0:
z uj
tit 0 N,
0 H..
ww
1-
u. 0
U co
O H.
z
ATTACHMENT B
Complete List of Comments and Responses to
The Integrated MIC Implementation Plan and Draft EIS
Table of Contents
Pg. No.
City of Seattle Comments on the Draft EIS B- 2
Responses to Seattle DEIS Comments B- 7
City of Seattle Public Hearing Comments on the MIC Strategic B -16
Implementation Plan
Responses to Seattle Public Hearing Comments B -19
Perkins Coie Comments on the Draft EIS B -22
Responses to the Perkins Coie DEIS Comments B -28
Perkins -Coie Public Hearing Comments on the MIC Strategic Implementation B -32
Plan
Responses to Perkins -Coie Hearing Comments
z
2 H'
Di
UO!
CO I1J:
w =;
..WO,
3
LL <
=
~ _t:
Z
Z
w of
0t
;O N:
w;
ci
LL
w z`
F= _!
Off;
City of Seattle
Norman B. Rice, Mayor
Executive Department - Office of Management and Planning
Judy Bunnell, Director zz
_�
6 5
JU
U O;
June 19, 1997
," cow.
Steve Lancaster, Director w 0;..
Department of Community Development 2
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 g Q`
Tukwila, WA 98188 u) a`
= w•
RE: Comments on the City of Tukwila's Draft Environmental Impact z
Statement for the Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan f- 0
z E--; al
ATTN.: Vernon Unzetsu j o
0 ° CO
Dear Mr. Lancaster: w
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
u.
(DEIS) for the Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan. Seattle also has — 0,
received a state grant from the same PERF fund as Tukwila to help demonstrate the value 'v
of combining SEPA with plan preparation, and we appreciate the complexity and difficulty I I
of this effort. Still, after reviewing the document we find that the level of the impact z.....
analysis does not correspond with the scope of the proposed action. In particular, the
DEIS does not adequately disclose the impacts associated with changes to the shoreline
master program or the impacts to the adjacent areas in Seattle and unincorporated King
County.
Project Description. The purpose of the project is to "maximize the vitality of the
industrial uses in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center" (p. 2 -1). However,
Figure 2 -1 includes land in unincorporated King County which is not subject to Tukwila's
Comprehensive Plan, and the prototype analysis of Site 3 includes land within Seattle's
jurisdiction. This could mislead the reader and decision makers into thinking that the
proposal will apply to areas outside Tukwila's jurisdiction.
Actions Outside the Scope of this Plan. The DEIS lists actions outside the scope of the
implementation plan and planned action. The list includes past and on -going plans as well
as a specific facility - the 16th Avenue South Bridge. It is inappropriate to list the 16th
Avenue South Bridge as an "action" outside the scope of the proposal. Regardless of
what jurisdiction has responsibility for a facility, the DEIS should disclose the impacts-on: ry y
Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1826
Tel: (206) 684 -8080, TDD (206) 684 -8118, FAX: (206) 233 -0085 _
t•. a cc 'c a to er. Accammcdcricns For people with disabilities provided on request.
i
\,-
Steve Lancaster
• June 19, 1997
Page 2
the bridge. If no analysis is provided on these facilities, future projects in the MIC should
be subject to SEPA to review transportation impacts. This should be stated in the
document. Our concern is that the document indicates that no further SEPA review will
be necessary for projects "consistent with the plan"; although the plan does not address
the impacts of the proposed action on key facilities.
We also question the effectiveness of this EIS in meeting the intend of HB 1724 for
planned actions if no analysis is provided of alternatives dealing with the future
development pattern envisioned by the plan or "full built out ", or the applicability of the
earlier master plan for the Duwamish Corridor.
Pages 2 -13, 3rd paragraph - redevelopment is assumed to have no new impacts, and as
such will not be subject to SEPA review even though they can increase impacts and the
EIS has not disclosed the impacts. The FEIS should disclose impacts of redevelopment as
well as of new projects and at least in a general manner for the entire area, not only the
prototype sites.
Materials Incorporated by Reference. The materials referenced in the Fact Sheet are
documents prepared to support the Comprehensive Plan from 1991 to 1995, and the
Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS published in 1992. We question the
applicability of these documents for disclosing the impacts of the proposed action given
that 1) the proposal includes significant 'changes to the shoreline program from what was
in place at the time those documents were prepared; 2) the statement on page 2 -13 saying
that "Recent corporate mergers and acquisitions have resulted in a degree of uncertainty
about applicability of the earlier master plan and the ultimate role of the Duwamish
Corridor. as an employment and manufacturing center for Boeing. "; and 3) uncertainty
about the Boeing Duwamish Corridor and the corresponding mitigating measures
previously approved, but not necessarily implemented. The Final EIS, if it continues to
rely on those previous documents, should detail the portions of those documents that are
still valid and those that are not.
Alternatives. The DEIS discussion of the No Action Alternative under Direct Land Use
Impacts (p 3 -11 to 3 -14) provides no clear comparison of the changes that the alternatives
would produce throughout the MIC. In addition, no alternatives are presented for the
policies and regulatory changes to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The changes to
the SMP are not merely implementing measures, but are a part of the proposal. The 1-EIS
should include alternatives that modify the SMP in different ways. Coordination of
improvements and regulatory process in the two Duwamish Manufacturing Centers in
Seattle and Tukwila could be a guiding principle that helps shape one such alternative.
Prototype Analysis. Using prototypes to conduct analysis that would lead to the
designation of "planned actions" seems like a good approach. In a complicated
environment, such as the Tukwila MIC, however, it raises a number of questions about 1)
the reasonableness of generalizing to other sites in the area from the conclusions about the
prototype sites, 2) the adequacy of the description of impacts on the prototype sites.
1
1
1
1
z
z.
w
UO
■ t°O
WI
cn~
wo
g5
w<
co
=w
z 1.„
I-- O
z i-
w uj
2o
U
O c12
'.
=a
U- O!
ui z
U ('
O ~
z
Steve Lancaster
June 19, 1997
Page 3
Decision makers should be cautious in generalizing from the prototype sites to other
potential development sites in the area. Because sites in the area display a variety of
characteristics, it may be difficult to capture all of the existing conditions and potential
developments and their impacts by examining closely only three sites. For instance, no
prototype on the west side of the river was examined. But it is obvious that projects on the
west side would cause traffic impacts on different streets than those affected by the
prototypes. It also seems likely that sites on the west side contain different shoreline and
habitat conditions than those described for the prototype sites. Contaminated soils could
also vary substantially from site to site, depending on previous uses.
It would be helpful for the Final EIS to contain sufficient information about the prototype
sites to enable reviewers to determine whether those sites are similar to, and representative
of the remaining sites within the MIC area. For instance, the F±IS should compare sites
within the i1AIIC area relative to the following factors: size of site, developed/vacant,
shoreline or not, current and past use, proposed use, location, applicable regulations. This
could help demonstrate the validity of using the selected prototypes as surrogates for
analyzing every site in the area individually.
Regarding the adequacy of analysis on the prototype sites, it appears that significant
impacts to at least three of the elements of the environment are not adequately described:
Habitat.
• References to the habitat impacts at Site 3 do not mention the fact that these impacts
are avoidable, since "redevelopment" of the existing structure implies a possibility to
locate the future building so that it no longer covers the water. This is of particular
interest, since a portion of this structure lies within the City of Seattle. Given that the
use is not water - dependent, there is no need to permit construction of a new building
over the water, giving up an opportunity to improve habitat conditions along the site's
shoreline.
• The description of habitat impacts associated with a higher height on this site says that
the shading of the river caused by a taller building would be less than the impact of an
increased over -water building footprint. This is a non - sequitur. Is the implication that
without a higher height limit, the owner of the proposed structure would require more
water coverage? This section of the EIS needs to describe the impact of increased
river shading on habitat; if there are trade -offs, they can also be described, but the
impacts must be disclosed.
• Related to the subject of habitat impacts, Appendix B -2 "cumulative impacts" section
says that "...construction of new or redeveloped water dependent use facilities should
have minimal impact under the new policies set forth in the revised SMP. These
revised policies provide for riverine habitat restoration, mitigation, and/or
enhancement to the extent that on -site habitat improvements are possible, and where
off-site mitigation is necessary." Since the DEIS does not analyze a prototype that
includes a water dependent use, it is difficult to see the basis for the conclusion about
the impacts of such a use. Also, since (according to p. 4 -20) habitat restoration is
i
Co tst T.
i
z
a i Ti—.
re w
JU
O 0
CO C.
CO Lu
J=
W o�
w
U. <
• a
w
z'
F- O
zI-
0
O -
I-
1
1J w.
1--
u_ c—; z
U co'
O
z
Steve Lancaster
• June 19, 1997
Page 4
voluntary under the proposed regulations, it is not logical to rely on that restoration to
conclude that the proposal will result in minimal impacts.
View Corridor.
• There is no discussion in the EIS of the impacts to shoreline view corridors that would
be caused by the proposed increase in building heights in this area, particularly at
prototype Site 3. Nor is there any discussion of how the proposed height limit relates
to the Shoreline Management Act. While the discussion of Land Use impacts suggests
that desiga review will mitigate the visual impacts of buildings on the prototype sites,
that conclusion does not seem justified in light of the fact that the design guidelines
that would be used in the review have not been developed yet. For development of
prototype Site 3, there is potential for significant view corridor impact that is not
consistent with regulations within the City of Seattle, where a portion of that building
would be located.
Hazardous Materials.
• While it is true that federal and state authorities have primary responsibility for
regulating the use and disposal of hazardous materials, it is the lead agency's
responsibility to ensure that impacts associated with these materials have been
adequately disclosed through environmental review prior to issuance of development
approvals.
• The brief "hazardous waste" section in the DEIS does not describe the nature of
contaminants known, or likely to be found, on the prototype sites. Nor does it explain
the potential impacts of developing contaminated sites and ways to mitigate those
impacts. By not addressing the potentially significant impacts of hazardous materials
and contaminated soils on the prototype sites, the DEIS ignores a fundamental
principle of the planned action concept — that waiving of future project- specific
environmental review is contingent on adequately analyzing the planned action's
impacts as part of the area -wide EIS.
Power Load.
• No data have been provided on Seattle City Light's portion of the IvfC load, nor are
any projections of new MIC load given. It would be useful to obtain estimates of new
MIC load to be served so that the utility can determine the need for expanded
substation capacity and new feeders.
• There is an error in the last line on page 6 -6. It says that industrial customers in the
Duwamish consume 1,500,000 MW (megawatts) annually. This figure should be
1,500,000 Mwh (megawatt hours).
Public Access Requirements.
• Clarification: p.4 -20: What is "employee public access "? Is it the same as
"public/private" access" found on the last page of Appendix B?
i
1
z
w.
6
-J C.)
0 0
J =
F-
CO IL
w O'
�d
D. 0.
- _:
Z �.
I- O
Z • w'
2
U0
O ST
o 1-
=w..
•
tin z .
O F-
z
Steve Lancaster
June 19, 1997
Page 5
• Figure 2 is unclear as to how the public may access the deck of a "redeveloped
building.
Other Issues that should be addressed in the J ELS:
• Analysis of cumulative impacts.
• Proposal's consistency with comprehensive plans, shoreline programs and regulations
of the State, King County, Seattle or other adjacent jurisdictions, as well as the
Countywide Planning Policies,.
• Fiscal and service impacts to surrouunding unincorporated areas, particularly the
isolated area north of the proposed annexation area between the City of Seattle and the
Duwamish river.
• Land use impacts on surrounding industrial areas and the Duwamish Manufacturing
Industrial Center in Seattle, King County and other jurisdictions.
• Housing demand due to increased employment activity, and provision of affordable
housing by City of Tukwila, as defined in the Countywide Planning Policies for King
County.
• Specific impacts to the Seattle City Light property.
• Duwamish Corridor negotiated mitigation agreement.
I appreciate your attention and cooperation on this project. Please call me at 233 -7809, or
Elsie G. Crossman at 684 -8364 if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Nancy Ousl } y
Assistant Director, OMP
cc: Judy Bunnell, OMP Director
Elsie G. Crossman, OMP
Stephen Hagen, Seattle City Light
Rebecca Herzfeld, DCLU
Rick Krochalis, DCLU
Ethan Melone, OMP
Sandy Watson, Law Department
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Responses to City of Seattle Office of Management and Planning
1. Tukwila acknowledges that it has no direct land use jurisdiction beyond its corporate
limits. The MIC boundaries shown in Figure 2 -1 are those designated in the City's
adopted 1995 Comprehensive Plan and contain small areas within unincorporated King
County. These lands were included in the implementation planning area because they
are within the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's designated MIC subarea, are contiguous
with the MIC, contain compatible uses, and are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as
a "Potential Boundary Adjustment and Annexation Area" may be considered for
annexation by the City of Tukwila at some time in the future. The decision to plan for
the area in a comprehensive mariner with the remainder of the designated MIC, is both
an accepted professional planning practice and strongly encouraged by the Growth
Management Act.
As noted in the DEIS, page 2 -13, annexations or boundary adjustments with adjacent
jurisdictions are not proposed as part of the MIC implementation and are being pursued
independently. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was recently signed by
Tukwila, Seattle, and King County to resolve potential annexation and other issues in
this South Park area. Planning for the area does not conflict with the spirit or letter of
this agreement.
Using Boeing Plant 2 as Prototype Site 3, which lies partially within the City of Seattle,
was intended to test certain provisions of the Tukwila MIC zoning code and is not
intended to represent an actual development proposal. Tukwila recognizes that any
development proposal by the Boeing Company to redevelop its properties within Seattle
city limits would require obtaining Seattle permits, as appropriate.
2. The discussion of the 16th Avenue South bridge in Chapter 2 refers to future actions that
might be taken to maintain, replace or close the bridge, to the extent that such actions
are subject to SEPA review. Such actions involve uncertainties in design and timing
that are beyond the scope of the MIC EIS to address. The City acknowledges that
independent environmental documentation are likely to be required when bridge
alternatives are evaluated in the future. Interjurisdictional issues regarding
responsibility for 16th Avenue South bridge improvements are being addressed in the
MOU described in the response to comment 1 above.
Existing traffic volumes are shown in DEIS pages 5 -2 and 5-3. No concurrency level of
service standard is established for the 16th Avenue Bridge by the City of Tukwila or
King County who control the bridge structure, or by the City of Seattle who controls the
bridge landings, associated approach intersections and adjacent lands.
Overall, the prototypes would contribute 3 to 4 percent of total traffic volumes on the
bridge in future peak hours. This increase must be considered in the context of the
bridge's role in the regional transportation system and recognizing the overwhelming
majority of bridge traffic is not moving toward Tukwila. The MOU reflects a King
County /Seattle /Tukwila cooperative approach to resolving this issue. A more detailed
response is presented below.
Additional analysis of impacts to the 16th Avenue South bridge has been conducted for
this FEIS. These impacts are summarized in Table 4 -1 for each peak period in 2010.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -7
req,'.�,.•'igr�Tir,.•7, -. ?:'S.�.. •.4 "1 .. Cr "r'i�•L: , <.... -, .._. ',5fi6i�:.'x... [',%'.''SI',"'p`d"S"L?.� s _ ..,.. '_s_z ,... < .,.mi
z
z
iw.
00
o
w=
J
w 0'
id
I-- _
z�
1— 0.
Z I— uj
0-
oE-
T '8
z
LLI
U N;
O
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Between 1997 and 2010, traffic volumes on the bridge will increase 14 percent for the 5
to 6 p.m. peak hour and 13 percent in the 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. peak hour. These increases
reflect the cumulative growth associated with through traffic, background increases,
and the impacts of the prototype projects. Most traffic using the 16th Avenue South
bridge connects to the north along East Marginal Way. Existing intersection traffic
counts indicate that less than 15 to 19 percent of bridge traffic connects to and from the
south of East Marginal Way. For prototype site 3, about 10 percent of project traffic
would use the 16th Avenue South bridge. No traffic from prototype sites 1 or 2 is
projected to use the bridge.
For the transportation analysis, the cumulative impacts of growth through traffic,
increases in background traffic, and added project traffic were addressed. These
analyses consider a buildout condition within the MIC. Other impacts of full buildout to
levels allowed under the MIC zoning code are discussed qualitatively in the Land Use,
Shoreline Use, and Other Elements of the Environment chapters, recognizing that a
wide variety of actual development outcomes is possible within the limitations of the
code.
Table 4.1
Year 2010 Traffic Impacts on 16th Avenue South Bridge
Time Period
Prototype Sites
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Background
Site 3
Background
Total
Total Site Trips
n/a
Site Trips on Bridge
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Percent of Total
Notes:
For 5:00 -6:00 p.m. peak, traffic growth from 1997 -2010 is estimated at 14 percent; 85 percent is attributed to East Marginal Way northbound and 15
percent to East Marginal Way southbound.
For 2:30 -3:30 peak, traffic growth on the bridge from 1997 -2010 is estimated at 13 percent; 81 percent is attributed to East Marginal Way northbound and
19 percent to East Marginal Way southbound.
3. Alternative full buildout scenarios were developed for the MIC subarea while
developing the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Analyses at that time showed
adequate infrastructure support for the full buildout scenarios. This analysis was
updated in the DEIS, where adequate infrastructure support was determined to be
available for full buildout.
4. Increased shoreline impacts are not foreseen when replacing existing rip -rap or other
bank stabilizing structures in like kind, where work is located landward of the water
line. This determination is supported by the more liberal exemption of actions which
maintain or replace bank stabilizing structures in or out of the water, from the need for a
shoreline substantial development permit. The impacts of shoreline redevelopment
proposals are discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, both on a site specific and corridor -
wide basis.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B$
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
The foreseeable impacts of this and the more extensive shoreline development proposals
represented in prototypes 1 and 3 have been identified and mitigated by the regulations
proposed in the DEIS and further landscaping mitigation for water dependent
developments in the river environment (FEIS Table 34, "Landscaping "). A planned
action (SEPA) checklist would also be administratively reviewed to ensure no
significant adverse impacts occur per RCW 43.21C.031, and specifically discussed in the
Appendix D (MIC Plan, page 21(b)(2)). Redevelopment of shoreline areas continue to
be subject to all applicable permit requirements.
5. Documents referenced in the fact sheet are incorporated by reference to the extent they
are applicable. For instance, all findings of fact and conclusions in the 1992 "Boeing
Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS," would be applicable (e.g., the need for road
improvements along E. Marginal Way). However some conclusions and
recommendations may have been superseded (e.g., the identified E. Marginal Way road
improvements have been completed, more specific policies on levels of service were
adopted in the 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and road design specifications have
been adopted in TMC 16.34 and 16.36). Alternatively, other provisions such as trail
access which is mitigation for developments in King County and the City of Seattle,
would still apply as part of a regional mitigation agreement. Collectively, these
documents represent the initial planning data base for the ILIC, which the planned
action EIS updated as needed.
As noted in Chapter 2 of this FEIS, impacts of proposed revisions to the City's shoreline
master plan for the MIC area are evaluated in this document, and they will be subject to
further environmental review during the shoreline master plan adoption process. The
DEIS provided an update of infrastructure capacities and of relevant current conditions
that have changed since previous analysis was incorporated by reference (for example, a
new discussion of existing traffic volumes in the MIC was prepared).
The DEIS statement concerning "uncertainties" related to activities by the Boeing
Company in the Duwamish Corridor referred to potential reductions in Boeing's work
force in the area. The employment levels analyzed in the 1992 EIS remain the worst -case
scenario for the Boeing properties and are assumed as part of buildout conditions for
this analysis. As mitigation for traffic impacts identified in the 1992 EIS, Boeing has
'provided $3.5 million for improvements along East Marginal Way, which meets all City
of Tukwila concurrency requirements for Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Master Plan.
These dollars, along with local, State and federal funds have provided sufficient overall
infrastructure capacity to support the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan vision for MIC
development.
Uncertainty about the nature of the Boeing Company's full buildout quoted in the
comment has been acknowledged. However it is important to continue the paragraph
to its conclusion which reads: "The City's intent in pursuing the MIC implementation
plan is less to provide a specific physical plan for the MIC than to help facilitate its
vision of the corridor as a world -class industrial center, capitalizing on the availability
of its infrastructure and incorporating environmental protection into development
standards for the variety of uses that together make this subarea such an important
regional resource." (DEIS, p. 2 -13) •
Please also see response to Comment 3.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998 p�
, 3.`. NFl7I3gN1kM1 ..7:n'a'P:YJ�;h'=.e'itgv,yr M #S'Pif.` Y:�S!i'Pt;'! wri 'k' a+)34RVrzih', tea' r, F,,. m' i; ur+. lr., e,!,'' P4ro :F.w,\,'i:F*?+r:(S^:;M'.thin;S A,vrrxm!`r '•rvrr7r a4:xn,, ....._�JY{
PAGE B -9
z •
~w
r4 2
-J C.)
00
uJ
J
w0
u.¢
=d
� w
z �.
z
• p:
o�
.0 H1
=w
-
w
U=
OF
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
6. As noted on page 3 -13, "...impacts of the No Action alternative would generally be as
described for the implementation plan."
7. The alternatives analysis for a shoreline master plan was done within the
Comprehensive Plan development process. The proposed shoreline master plan
policies are those adopted in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for shoreline regulation.
Use of these policies reflects the subordinate nature of this subarea plan to the City -wide
Comprehensive Plan and the State requirement that shoreline master plans be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. FEIS Chapter 3 ( "Recommended Regulatory
Revisions ") discusses the City's process for amending the shoreline master plan.
8. The prototype approach was used to: test the existing regulatory system's ability to
mitigate all significant adverse impacts, identify possible permit streamlining
opportunities, and test the viability of resulting regulatory proposals. The three
prototype developments were created based on the criteria that they must reflect
realistic future expectations of MIC development and be broadly applicable to future
Iv1IC development proposals. Broad applicability is achieved by having the prototypes
include the breadth of MIC "permitted" uses and provide the depth of detail to
represent the range of foreseeable MIC regulatory issues.
The appropriate breadth of uses is achieved by having the prototypes represent
industrial office support (Prototype Site 1), warehouse /distribution (Prototype Site 2)
and manufacturing /research (Prototype Site 3) developments. This is the range of uses
envisioned in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and allowed as "permitted uses" in the
MIC /L and MIC /H zones of the Tukwila Zoning Code. The realistic nature of this
range of uses is demonstrated in the "Existing Land Uses" map (DEIS, Fig. 3 -1), which
shows them as the, overwhelming majority of current subarea uses.
The appropriate depth of detail is achieved by using prototype development scenarios
which reflect a realistic market response to the successful implementation of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan policies for economic development. Scenario definition
emphasized maximizing industrial oriented employment and facility investment to
simulate the higher probable development levels which might be proposed.1 The
prototype developments are described at a level of detail which allow evaluating
foreseeable project impacts, the regulatory system which mitigates these impacts with
adopted development standards and mitigation, and identifying further required
mitigating measures. This maximized realistic market response and impact analysis
allows the prototypes to be considered as probable "worst case" situations for SEPA
purposes. Prototype use to satisfy the linked purposes of regulatory analysis and SEPA
impact analysis was discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS.
The SEPA impact analysis based on the prototypes is determined to be applicable to
other "permitted uses" in the MIC /L and MIC /H zones for the purposes of
environmental impact evaluation and mitigation. This determination is made based on
similarity of project characteristics, geographic proximity, similar environment within
1 See Appendix A of the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan for a list of MIC goals and policies.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
x a'
PAGE B -10
z
~w
re 2
00
No:
wW
No
u.¢
d
I- al
Z'
Z 1-
I- O
Z~
w
U0
O�
0I—'
w w_
U
H-
-O
Z.
— D.
O~
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
which the actions occur and impact similarity which may vary in degree, but not range
(see WAC 197 -11 -060).
It should be noted that the commentator's assertions that the MIC presents a
"complicated environment" is not supported by a field survey of the MIC. The subarea z
is a former river delta which has been extensively filled to its current flat topography. x z
Essentially all upland areas have been subject to human mechanical manipulation from
agriculture to current industrial uses. The riverine /wetland environment is composed 6 v'
of the channelized Duwamish River and several well defined, remnant streams /and c.) Oo
sloughs. Infrastructure systems (transportation, sewer, water, storm drainage and co W
power have been extensively analyzed in the recent past and shown to be sufficient to
support MIC buildout (DEIS, chapters 5 and 6). It is difficult to imagine a more straight co u-
forward planning environment where the existing environment is more clearly defined. 2
g Q
The commentators concern over a lack of prototype sites to the west of the Duwamish
River is understandable. However, a careful review of the existing prototype = d
evaluations shows that they include the environmental conditions present on the west I" _
of the Duwamish River and reflect the regulatory issues to be dealt with on the west Z h-
side.. This is especially the case of Prototype Site 2 which includes an undeveloped
z O
bank, a slough which is a potential habitat restoration site, and an undeveloped "river 2 D
environment" area. Impact analyses of development on this type of site (DEIS Chapters 0 N
3 -6) are determined to be applicable to the western areas. o
w
Responses to other comments on prototype sites are presented below: 1_- v
Site area is shown as "Site Data" below each prototype diagram (e.g., DEIS Pgs. 2 -8 - O
through 2 -10.
w co
The shoreline status at each prototype site has been extensively discussed in DEIS H ~'.
Chapter 3 (Shoreline Impacts), pages 4 -19 through 4 -22. z
The existing land use on each site is identified in the DEIS Chapter 3: "Land Use At
Prototype Sites" (DEIS, Pg. 3 -3).
The regulations regarding the prototype sites have been presented in DEIS Chapter 2.
The impacts of development and the effectiveness of the existing regulatory structure to
adequately mitigate all significant adverse impacts have been presented in the
respective impact sections for each prototype site.
The City of Tukwila shares the commentator's concern that prototype impact analysis
be adequate, especially in light of the proposed "planned action" approach which
eliminates a SEPA threshold determination at the project level. The City is confident
that the proposed regulatory provisions, combined with State and federal statutes, will
mitigate all significant adverse impacts. For example, contaminated sites proposed for
development would be subject to the standards of the Washington State Model Toxics
Control Act as described in DEIS page 6 -12; proposals in the shoreline management area
must satisfy the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit, and
Tukwila's concurrency ordinances require a demonstration of adequate road, sewer,
water, storm drainage system capacity.
A further administrative verification would be provided by a "consistency checklist and
review" in which a project is reviewed under the substantive aspects of SEPA and the
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE 8.11
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
City Comprehensive Plan, to determine that all significant adverse impact have been
mitigated (MIC Plan, Pg. 22 (c) "Consistency Check "). Projects which could not
demonstrate consistency would be denied planned action status and required to
proceed through normal SEPA review (ibid.).
9. The habitat impacts of redevelopment at Prototype Site 3 are negligible since the
building's over -water footprint would not be increased, and the north -south river
orientation makes any shadow impacts insignificant. This determination has been
confirmed by the Tukwila staff Urban Environmentalist, the independent fisheries
biologist retained to evaluate the proposed shoreline plan, and during informal
discussions with State and County, shoreline /habitat management staff.
The decision to allow reconstruction within the existing building footprint is a policy
decision to be evaluated by the Tukwila City Council. The Council will also be apprised
of the policy option to pull back the building approximately 100 feet, to eliminate
building areas over the water and within the existing river environment area (where no
new construction is allowed) which would potentially enhance site habitat.
The portion of Prototype Site 3 within the City of Seattle lies outside the 200- foot -wide
shoreline zone.
10. Tukwila staff concurs that the statement is a non - sequitur. It is herewith withdrawn.
Please see the response to comment 9 for a discussion on over -water coverage and
shadow impacts.
11. The analysis of water - dependent uses assumed full paving within the 40 -60 foot area
(where most habitat impacts would occur) immediately adjacent to the river.
Additional river environment landscaping has been incorporated for water dependent
uses to avoid loss of vegetated areas and habitat value (see FEIS, Table 3 -1,
"Landscaping "). Envisioning the physical characteristics of this situation was not
difficult given the general experience of the fisheries biologist (Partee), his ongoing
experience with fisheries enhancement projects in this immediate river area, and the
numerous examples of paving to the top of bank as represented by shorelines with sheet
piling, pier aprons, and many rip - rapped banks as shown in Figure 4 -1 of the DEIS.
Habitat areas next to the river are largely characterized by dense blackberry thickets
(DEIS, page 4 -4). These areas have marginal habitat value. Their loss, even on an
extreme basis where the bank of the entire navigable channel is paved (such as along the
Duwamish River mouth is improbable, largely due to shoreline master plan provisions
to maintain or replace vegetated areas adjacent to the river and severely limiting new
development in the river environment. The probable scenario of mixed, water -
dependent, water- related, and non - water- related uses would result in the following
probable impacts:
• The loss of some stretches of blackberry thickets and
• Net improved habitat value due to replacement of blackberry thickets with dense
trees (35 -ft on center) and shrubs
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -12
z
~ W
6
J0.
UO.
LU
J IH
u 0
u. ?.
co
w
Z �.
I- 0
Z rr-
111 uj
U
O N.
0 H
wW
U-
O
U N
O-
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Significant large trees provide usable habitat in other areas (DEIS, page 4 -5). These areas
are associated with non -water dependent uses and are expected to remain stable for the
foreseeable future.
The most important habitat is the river itself, as a corridor for salmonids (DEIS, page 4- Q
5). Please note that developments which involve construction waterward of the z
ordinary high water mark are excluded from being planned actions (DEIS page 2 -13, c4 2
paragraph 3). Maintenance, repair, and like replacement are identified as exempt from _l e
shoreline permits, but would be subject to normal environmental review, as applicable. co 0.
co w
12. The City of Tukwila does not regulate for the preservation of view corridors City of ILI
private property, nor are there residences in the immediate area, except a few along the co u.'
river (DEIS, Fig. 3 -1), where a 35 -ft building height limitation by the state Shoreline W O
Management Program might be of concern. The state shoreline master plan allows
using the underlying zone height standards in cases such as the Tukwila MIC. u. <`
The City of Tukwila recognizes that: W
• a portion of Prototype Site 3 (Boeing Corporate Offices), out side of the shoreline z 1— o
0
zone, is in the City of Seattle, w ui
• all improvements in Seattle are subject to Seattle development standards, including D 0
any view protection provisions and ;0 N,
0 H
• splitting the site with portions in Tukwila and Seattle will make redevelopment w w
more complex. 1-H.
Discussions with Seattle DCLU show that both cities allow office and industrial uses, O'
z
and that the Seattle 85 -ft building height limit contrasts with the Tukwila 125 -ft height v D
limit. I= H
O
z
Tukwila acknowledges that future design review guidelines specific to the shoreline
area are not presented in this document. Any and all analyses based on these future •
shoreline guidelines are herewith withdrawn. Such shoreline guidelines are currently
being developed and will be evaluated in a separate environmental process.
The visual impacts of all developments requiring a shoreline substantial development
permit are currently addressed by the existing Board of Architectural Review process
(Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60). This process has been used for all such developments
in the City of Tukwila. The scope of Tukwila design review includes detailed site
planning, building design, and landscape design.
13. The City's responsibility to disclose impacts adequately is most appropriately satisfied
by ensuring compliance with state and federal standards, as administered by the agency
staff with the technical expertise in this field. Tukwila will include a hazardous
materials section in the consistency checklist submitted for each project to validate its
status as a planned action. Please see response to comment 8.
14. Chapter 2 of the DEIS and the response to comment 8 above describe the nature of the
prototype sites, which are not intended to represent actual development proposals. As
described on page 6 -12 of the DEIS, the Model Toxics Control Act would require the
assessment of soil quality on sites proposed for development in the MIC, including the
need for removal, treatment, or disposal of contaminated soils. The quality of
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE 8 -13
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
groundwater on a site or the presence of subsurface objects, such as undocumented
underground storage tanks or utility pipelines, must also be assessed.
If contamination is found, Ecology must be notified and a cleanup plan developed.
Compliance with these requirements would be ascertained as part of the planned action
permit process to be adopted with the MIC implementation plan. Future project - specific
environmental review is thus not waived and will be accomplished without duplication
under regulations specifically designed to address the impacts of developing
contaminated sites.
Please note that the planned action approach does not require a project by project SEPA
threshold determination. Substantive environmental review is still required through the
planned action consistency checklist, which must be substantially equivalent to the
substantive SEPA analysis done for a threshold determination. The no significant
impact determination made in the planned action EIS must be administratively
validated in this consistency check process.
FEIS Chapter 3.2 provides more detailed discussion and a flow charted comparison
between the standard SEPA threshold determination and a planned action processes.
This material is also presented in the associated MIC Strategic Implementation Plan
(Nov. 1997) on pages 21 -23.
15. Industrial development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code will
be permitted in the MIC. The EIS assumes that Seattle City Light will continue to
coordinate with Tukwila to phase in infrastructure improvements as needed to
accommodate growth. Estimates were not prepared for growth in demand for
electricity in the MIC based on the City Light assertions that they are a demand driven
utility which, in general, will provide the electricity demanded; and the Comprehensive
Plan EIS (1996) documented plans to double distribution capacity in this area (ibid.,
DEIS pg. 95 -96).
16. Comment acknowledged. The figure should be changed to read "1,500,000 Mwh."
17. Employee access is the same as private access. The general public need not be allowed
in such areas. Provision for public access is only required to accommodate the
Duwamish /Green River Trail.
18. Figure 2B in Appendix B -2 of the DEIS is a cross - section of an over water building
which presents redevelopment options, including:
• Converting a portion of the building area to a public or private access walkway (as
shown in the 1992 Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS) and
• Not providing the walkway, but incorporating that area of the old building within
the new building's envelope.
Access to the potential walkway could be physically accommodated along the south
perimeter and thence along the water to the walkway (see Figure 2A, Appendix B -2 for
an orienting site plan) or directly from within the building if it was employee access.
19. Infrastructure capacities, nature resources and development review processes were
reviewed in the EIS. Impacts related to these issues will occur individually and
cumulatively over time. The EIS reviewed both types of impacts.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -14
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
20. The MIC Implementation Plan is consistent with, and reaffirms, Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan policies for the MIC subarea. No changes are proposed that woulc:
affect MIC policy consistency with other plans. The relationship between the proposed
regulatory structure and adopted Comprehensive Plan policies is presented in FEIS
Appendix E. It is also shown in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan, Appendix A.
21. No annexation is proposed as part of the MIC implementation plan. No fiscal or service
impacts are expected that differ from impacts related to the MIC's long- established
industrial designation.
22. Adjacent areas (in King County and the City of Seattle) are part of the Duwamish
Manufacturing Industrial Center designated in the Countywide Planning Policies. No
change in the existing industrial land use designations of the Tukwila Comprehensive
Plan or Zoning Code has been proposed. Therefore, no direct land use impacts are
anticipated.
Indirect land use impacts on surrounding industrial areas will be those related to the
implementation plan's success in facilitating MIC development as a manufacturing and
industrial center. Area improvement would tend to encourage industrial oriented
development as envisioned by Seattle and the Countywide Planning Policies.
23. There are few housing units in the MIC, as shown in Fig. 3 -1 (Pg. 3 -2). No displacement
is proposed or likely as a result of the MIC implementation plan. The City of Tukwila
will fulfill its responsibility for housing as established in the Countywide Planning
Policies, just as it is herewith fulfilling its mandate to streamline regulations and
facilitate development in the MIC.'
24. Specific impacts to the Seattle City Light property are the same as for other properties in
the MIC. These impacts are discussed throughout the EIS. The proposal would not
prohibit site use for habitat restoration or for power generation and distribution as
discussed with City Light representatives, or for other light and heavy industrial uses as
identified in the Tukwila Zoning Code.
25. As a result of the 1992 "Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIS ", Boeing King
County, Seattle and Tukwila negotiated an agreement to mitigate development impacts.
This document does not affect the Mitigation Agreement, as Tukwila is but one of four
signatories. See response to comment 16 of the Perkins Coie letter.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PUN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE 8 -15
City of Seattle
Norman B. Rice, Mayor
Executive Department Office of Management and Planning
Judy Bunnell, Director
December 11, 1997
Tukwila Planning Commission Members
c/o City of Tukwila Planning Division Office
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Comments on the City of Tukwila's Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan
ATTN: Steve Lancaster
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The City of Seattle presents comments to the Planning Commission concerning the
boundaries of the area proposed to be included in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial
(MIC) Strategic Implementation Plan, and the content of the Plan. We comment as a
concerned neighboring jurisdiction and a partner in the mediation process over proposed
potential annexation areas.
Plan Boundaries. We request the Planning Commission to change the boundaries of the
Strategic Plan so that it excludes the area outside of Tukwila which is subject to
negotiation under a recent Memorandum of Understanding signed by the our respective
Mayors and the King County Executive. The Strategic Plan should only include
properties where the City of Tukwila has authority to enforce regulations and make
capital investments.
Both Seattle and Tukwila designated in our respective comprehensive plans the South
Park area as a Potential Annexation Area. In July, Tukwila, Seattle and King County
signed an agreement to negotiate a solution regarding the conflicting designation of the
Potential Annexation Area and we jointly hired Mr. Gerald Cormick as a mediator to
facilitate our discussions. By including the disputed area in the proposed Strategic
Implementation Plan, the City of Tukwila is assuming a particular outcome of and
disregarding the mediation process. We urge the Planning Commission to make this
change to allow a productive negotiation process as envisioned in the Memorandum of
Understanding.
Plan Content. We applaud the intent of the Strategic Plan to streamline the permit
process by pre - determining impacts of new development and including mitigating
measures as part of the City's regulations and capital facilities planning. However, the
Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1826
Tel: (206) 684 -8080, TDD (206) 684 -81 18, FAX: (206) 233 -0085
An equal - employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on request.
•••••Y^...r.e+^ ,. •., ,]rtiY: ,h 41.4 i*.if• td ? ,ffiRfi
A
z
.
w
it g.
6n
00
N
w =`
w0
= 0.
F- w
I- O.
Z 1-,
u); ;O '
}-;,
••W
H U:
U to ,
0H
z...
draft Plan does not provide adequate level of analysis for decision makers to reach
conclusions that the Plan will in fact mitigate future development in the area. We raise
the following issues: .
• Three prototypes are developed to identify potential impacts and mitigation
measures. The prototypes only consider office, research and development; and
laboratory uses. The allowable list of uses in a manufacturing zone is considerably
broader. Under the identification of planned action (page 21), all "permitted uses"
should be subject to the mitigating measures and exempt from further
environmental analysis. Either the analysis should be broader to include a good
sample of "permitted uses" or the proposed action should only apply to the three
uses. Limiting the applicability of the proposed action to only these three uses,
which do not even include manufacturing or industrial uses, would be inconsistent
with the Countywide Planning Policies' emphasis on manufacturing, industrial and
advanced technology uses as the preferred activities in Manufacturing Industrial'
Centers.
• Under the same provision in page 21, item (b) (4) (v), a development associated
with the 16th Avenue South Bridge is not subject to the planned action. This seems
inconsistent with the statement that the existing analysis shows the bridge is
adequate to support full buildout in the MIC. If the analysis clearly shows that any •
development in the MIC will not create significant impacts on the bridge, this •
provision should not apply. On the other hand, if the provision is in response to
lack.of capacity or structural deficiencies of the bridge, no project should be exempt
from, a determination of impacts on the bridge. If this provision remains, the
planned action would not apply to the Prototype III site since it is adjacent to the
16th Avenue South Bridge.
• The City of Tukwila shares responsibility with the County for maintenance and
operation of the 16th Avenue South Bridge. The bridge is a deficient facility in
need of replacement according to King County. The Strategic Plan must include
this facility and provide for its maintenance and improvement to serve the MIC.
Again, we request to disclose the analysis demonstrating that the bridge is adequate
to support MIC buildout before the Plan is adopted.
• The Strategic Implementation Plan does not include the proposed changes to the
Shoreline Master Program that were included in the earlier draft. We believe this is
a great omission, as the planned action will affect a major portion of Tukwila's
shorelines. In fact, 2 of the 3 prototypes involved development on the shoreline.
Furthermore, the planned action is contingent on establishing standards as
mitigating measures to exempt projects from further environmental analysis. That
cannot be done adequately in this document without knowing and planning for the
outcome of the proposed changes to the Shoreline program. The description of
Prototype Site 3 (page 17) "raises a number of issues regarding including (sic)
large -scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development, and
redevelopment of the shoreline, including replacement of over -water
tia! ri' cSr C3a�: 4ip1Qip7�iget5 "P'gt or:M IC
c
D
z
JU
00
JCO C. I.
uj
CO w..
w °:
2
gQ
a
w
�
z�
1- o
z/-
w uj
0 H.
ww
wz
=.
O~
z
structures" (emphasis added). It appears to propose actions that are in direct
conflict with the State Shoreline Management Act such as development that builds
over water. Again, we believe reconciling this action with the State Management
•
Act is essential before the Plan can move forward.
• The Existing MIC Land Uses Map (page 7) is inaccurate; it shows Seattle's utility's
properties as quasi - public. Those properties should be classified as public services.
Also, the legend shows the same color (blank) for agriculture, vacant and
miscellaneous.
Enclosed is a copy of the comment letter we sent to the Department of Community
Development on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in June. We continue to have
the same concerns, as the proposal you are reviewing does riot include any significant
new information regarding the issues raised in our letter. We urge the Planning
Commission to wait until changes to the shoreline regulations are adopted and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement is published before approving the Plan. These •
documents are needed for you to make an informed decision.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. I am available to answer any questions of the
Commission and to work with the planning staff on this project. My telephone number is
233 -7809. You may also call Elsie G. Crossman at 684 -8364.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Ousley
Assistant Director, OMP
Enclosure.
cc: The Honorable John W. Rants, Mayor, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive
The Honorable Norm Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle
Seattle City Councilmembers
Paul Schell, Mayor -Elect
Judy Bunnell, OMP Director
Jack Johnson, Law Department
Tom Tierney, OIR Director
Ytt■LCakdttft- -t2.C.^:iNa 'vi+AlotUts13TOrs9.1.-" :. t45rr •c ?'41 aA+trlv'adufm•,"—++`:,, – i••y::CKSYdrib6e,t5a6c • a:l•:•,i'z_.3•:. a•w,u:M.tt• ++'�c M.vveYw
z •
w
U0:
o
CO I11:
.,w
1.-: •
n U.;
w0•
-J
=d
•
•
I-w
_. .
.1 0:
.z�;.
D
.11111J;
U N.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
RESPONSES TO CITY OF SEATTLE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
A. See response to City of Seattle DEIS Comment 1. The City of Tukwila is not in violation of any
Memorandum of Understanding provisions. The City's MIC planning activities predate this
Memorandum and City staff made it very clear that MIC planning would continue to completion.
The City of Tukwila will continue its good faith efforts to successfully complete the joint
negotiations on interjurisdictional annexation and infrastructure issues.
B. The MIC Strategic Implementation Plan contained an error is the "Site Data" associated with
each prototype graphic where the data of Site 1 was used for all prototypes. Correct site data is
entered for each prototype on DEIS pages 2 -8, 2 -9 and 2 -10. The Planning Division apologizes
for any resulting confusion.
A review of the correct prototypes in the DEIS and FEIS (pgs. 2 -4, 2 -5 and 2 -6), shows that a
they represent the full range of uses permitted in the MIC. Prototype Site 3 is described on DEIS
pages 2 -6 and 2 -10, with land use impacts being discussed on pages 3 -12 to 3 -13. The Site 3
description includes "housing 750,000 square feet of high -bay manufacturing space" (DEIS, pg.
3 -12) in a new building whose height has been increased from 80 ft. to 125 feet. The Site 1
office use, Site 2 warehouse distribution use and the Site 3 manufacturing and research and
development use reflect the full range of "permitted uses" and development intensities allowed
in the NIIC/L and MIC/H zoning districts. Please note that office uses are allowed only if they
are "...associated with another permitted use, e.g., administrative offices for a manufacturing
company present in the IvfC) (TMC 18.36.020.24 in the MIC/L zone and TMC 18.38.020.25 in
the MIC/H zone).
The range of permitted uses in the MIC/L and MIC/H zones are consistent with the Countywide
Planning Policies which emphasize manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses.
These prototype analyses are at a level of detail to allow evaluating the foreseeable impacts and
required mitigating measures. The prototype impact analyses are applicable to similar actions
for the purposes of environmental impact evaluation and mitigation due to similar substantive
aspects, geographic proximity, similar environment within which the actions occur, and impact
similarity which varies in degree, but not range (WAC 197 -11 -060).
C. The intent was that any decisions about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition,
which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination, would not be a planned action.
The item on page 21 section (b)(4)(v) is recommended to be revised to read as follows to better
implement the intent:
"a development associated with the 16th vcnuc Bridge any decisions about the
16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally require a
SEPA threshold determination,"
The MIC Plan has provided for the transportation system needed to serve the Tukwila MIC at the
levels of service established in the Comprehensive Plan and pursuant to City infrastructure
improvement ordinances. The 16th Avenue Bridge is not required to support Tukwila MIC
development pursuant to City standards. Analyses show that traffic volumes geherated from the
MIC are very low and that alternative routes to the bridge provide more than sufficient capacity
with no significant delay (DEIS Chapter 5 and response to comments 2 and 3).
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE 8 -19
z
rely
~ w`
6 0
JU
UO
W
=.
F-
O
w
2
g
u- ?.
I- ILI
Z F.
F- O.
Z 1-
11.1 uj
O N,
;DF-.
w w.
u- O:
wz
O.
Z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
The regional role of the 16th Avenue Bridge in serving City of Seattle businesses, which begin
immediately adjacent to both bridge landings, is recognized. The City of Tukwila supports a
regional approach to improving and maintaining the bridge's regional role. Negotiations
between the King County, the City of Seattle and the City of Tukwila are being held to provide
further resolution to this matter.
D. Response to this comment on the status of proposed shoreline plan revisions and
associated impact analyses, requires recognizing three characteristics:
• Proposed substantive shoreline plan update provisions
• SEPA review status and
• Public review status.
Proposed substantive shoreline plan update provisions. Proposed shoreline plan
update provisions have been developed and incorporated as part of the "Proposed
Action ". Initial proposals are presented in DEIS Chapter 2, revisions based on DEIS
comments to require replacement of lost vegetated area and habitat value in the "river
environment" are presented in FEIS Chapter 1, and the cumulative update provisions of
the proposed action are presented in FEIS Chapter 3.
The MIC shoreline master program update has been developed separately from the
citywide shoreline master plan update, which is still being prepared. The two
documents will be combined into one document for the public review process. The MIC
provisions will be a component of the citywide shoreline master plan. This approach
has been endorsed by the City Council.
The separate preparation of the MIC shoreline master plan was done in recognition of
the following elements:
• Both the MIC shoreline master plan and the City -wide master plan will take overall
policy direction from the Comprehensive Plan and should have a generally high
level of coordination,
• The Comprehensive Plan recognized the MIC as a regional industrial area, which has
a different balance of habitat /recreation /aesthetic /economic development priorities
from the City as a whole (see DEIS Appendix B -2) and is appropriately a separate,
but subordinate, component of the citywide shoreline master plan,
• Maximum integration with the implementing regulations of this subarea plan make
it appropriate to develop the MIC shoreline master plan now, even though it is ahead
of the overall citywide shoreline master plan, and
• Conflicts between the MIC shoreline master plan and the citywide master plan are
best resolved during that future planning project.
The current proposed "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan" relies on the existing King
County "Shoreline Master Plan." The impacts of this regulatory option have been
reasonably disclosed in the DEIS. The FEIS has specifically evaluated the proposed
regulations with respect to implementation with the existing shoreline master plan and
found no significant adverse impacts. Any conflicts between the proposed GMA
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
�*'�Frsrac�.nmmo�m•: ,c+�..�.�o�.,�,ac�. �v..,..,�,..M.....�.r..»,..
PAGE B -20
• :u:..• • 4,.4� 1`y
z•
=I--
ul D
UO: •
co o •
w:
J H.
o.
W
g Q.
Z �.
I- O.
Z�-
Dp
U •
O52
= w.
HV.
- O:
tli Z
UN
'O ~
'Z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
implementation plan regulations and the existing shoreline plan would be resolved in
favor of the more restrictive regulation. No such conflicts have be identified.
SEPA review status. SEPA review of the MIC portion of both the existing and the
proposed shoreline master plan is presented in this document, as part of an integrated
GMA subarea plan, shoreline master plan, and environmental review process. SEPA
review of the GMA subarea plan and the shoreline master plan will be completed with
this FEIS.2
Further SEPA review of the MIC shoreline master plan will be done as needed when the
City -wide shoreline master plan undergoes SEPA review (see below). This SEPA
analysis is anticipated to be incorporated by reference into the environmental review for
the City -wide shoreline plan.
Public review status. Public review of the MIC shoreline plan will be postponed until it
can be evaluated as a component of the citywide shoreline master plan. This review
will include a future public participation program, and public hearings before the
Tukwila Planning Commission and City Council. The "MIC Strategic Implementation
Plan" now before the City Planning Commission incorporates proposed regulatory
revisions, capital improvement revisions, and the existing King County Shoreline
Master Plan.
The specific regulatory concern of allowing shoreline redevelopment and reconstruction
of overwater buildings have been evaluated (see response to Comment 4). Earlier
discussions with State Department of Ecology, Shorelines Division staff provided the
City with assurances that shoreline redevelopment proposals for sites and buildings
were not in conflict with the State Shoreline Management regulations.
2 Integration of these planning documents is encouraged by the State. Grant funding was made available for Tukwila to facilitate a
prototype application of this plan development process. The option to simplify the SEPA analysis by deleting the shoreline component is
not possible due to grant contractual obligations. Separating the proposed MIC shoreline plan from the GMA subarea plan components
for public review purposes is allowed and has been done after discussion with the City Council and Planning Commission.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
r. di it w ;i 4,61AValScd
PAGE B -21
z
w,
J U�
U O!
U)w
W =:
N LL
w O:'
• a°
co D.
= a
w
O:
Z I,
U ca'
W;
l— V.
O;
ul Z-
z
.SENT BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6 -19 -97 ; 1 :43PM ;PERKINS 46 RECEPTION 2864313666 ;T 2/ 8
PERKINS COIE
• A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.3099
TELEPHONE 206 583 -8888 • FACSIMILE: 206 5d3 -8500
June 19, 1997
VIA FACSIM LE
Steve Lancaster
Director
Tukwila Dept. of Community Dvt.
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 93133
Re: Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental
Statements
Dear Mr: Lancaster:
As you know, we represent the.Boeing Company. Along with Boeing, we have
reviewed the City's Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement ( "Plan/DEIS "), dated May 20, 1997 and rnet with members of your
staff (Jack Pace and Vernon Umetsu) on May 29, 1977 to discuss it. As we told Jack
and Vernon at the May 29 meeting, we commend the City for its progressive role in
developing a planned action subarea for the City's MIC and are generally supportive
of the P1an/DEIS as proposed. In short, Boeing greatly appreciate the City's efforts to
streamline the regulatory process in the MIC. We do, however, have the following
comments:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Clarify Function of Prototypes
The function of the three MIC prototypes is confusing and should be clarified.
Are the prototypes intended to represent a worst case scenario for all environmental
impacts in the MIC or only for transportation impacts? The transportation chapter
(page 5 -12) suggests that the prototypes (in combination ?) represent worst case, but .
the general prototype description on page 2 -6 does not. If the prototypes represent
worst case impacts, would projects that exceed the "umbrella" of impacts created by
combination of the three prototypes require individual SEPA review? The role of the
prototypes in the DEIS/Plan should be clarified and described in greater detail in
Chapter 2.
[O30a3 -014 /SD971iSi.175]
i
z
= —
w
no W�
0 0:
N0_
' NW
z:
J I•-:
w O:
g a,
D,
= a.
I- al
_.
Z
1- 0
z,-
.
D 0.
:0 �.
w w
:H U:
0;
z;
0I
z
• SEAT .BY :PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6 -19 -97 ; 1 :43PM ;PERKINS 46 RECEPTION
June 19, 1997
Page 2
2064313665 ;g 3/ 8
2. Plan Appendix
As we understand it, the Plan and the DEIS were combined for purposes of
drafting efficiency. However, combination of the two documents tends to obscure and
confuse the Plan's components. It would be very helpful if an appendix were created
setting forth the Plan independent of the DEIS analysis (especially the Plan's
regulatory components), or if the Planned Action Ordinance adopting the Plan were to
include the Plan as a stand alone document. Is public review of the Plan limited to
review of the DEIS/Plan?
3. Final Plan
The DEIS/Plan often describes the Plan component as "proposed." See, e.g.,
page 2-6; page 2 -12; and Table 2 -2 (title). For clarity, we assume that the term
"proposed" will be dropped from the document after the DEIS is finalized and the
Plan is approved.
4. Mitigation Credits
The section describing assessment of concurrency on page 5 -23 should clarify
that prior SEPA transportation mitigation payments made by Boeing (and others, if
applicable) will be credited against any GMA mitigation payments that may be
required under the City's transportation concurrency ordinance.
5. Consistent'Terininology
The DEIS /Plan describes its Plan component variously as the "subarea plan"
.-(e.g., page 3-6); the "MIC implementation plan" (e.g., page 3 -6); and the
"implementation plan" (e.g., page 3 -7).. For clarity, the Plan should be consistently
described.
6. Consistency With Seattle Neighborhood Plan
As you probably know, the City of Seattle is beginning an effort to create a
neighborhood plan for the Seattle portion of the Duwamish corridor. It would be
helpful to property owners along the Tukwila/Seattle boundary if the MIC Plan and
Seattle's neighborhood plan were coordinated and consistent.
(03003.0143/SB911 550.1751
6/19/97
i
i
.SENT BY= PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6 -19 -97 ; 1 :44PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION -, 2064313665;g 4/ 8
June 19, 1997
Page 3 .
PLANNED ACTION/DEIS COMMENTS
1. Page 2 -2
The second paragraph states that the MIC subarea "has few remaining
undisturbed natural resources (with the exception of the Duwamish River)." This
sentence implies that the Duwamish is an undisturbed natural resource and that the
MIC subarea contains undisturbed natural resources other than the Duwamish. The
sentence should probably be clarified to state that portions of the Duwamish River
represent the few remaining undisturbed natural resources in the MIC subarea.
2. Page 2 -2
The last paragraph states that Boeing owns "about 6.50 acres" in the IvM1C
subarea. Page 3 -1, however, states that Boeing owns approximately 750 acres of land
within the subarea. These estimates conflict and should be made consistent. As noted
in the 1991 -92 Boeing EIS, Boeing owns or leases approximately 650 acres in the
MIC.
3. Page 2 -4
The fourth paragraph of the section entitled "MIC Implementation Plan
Development" mentions a "new planned action permit process." The Plan/DEIS
should set forth the proposed permit process.
4. Table 2 -2
Page 2 -15 states that the MIC Implementation Plan would "allow
administrative design review based on clear design guidelines, for projects within the
Shoreline Overlay District, when design review would not otherwise be required."
The meaning of this sentence is confusing and should be clarified.
Page 2 -15 states that guidelines for site specific studies are proposed to be
included in construction design standards for the MIC implementation plan. The
construction design standards for the Plan should be set forth in the Plan/DEIS.
5. Figure 3 -1
The legend for Figure 3 -1 is difficult to read. "Wholesale distribution" and
"retail distribution" are separate line items in the legend but cannot be.distinguished
[03003-0143/S13971530.175] 6/19697
i
1
1
1
z
�w
Jv
U O'
u) 0
CO W.
J
w O;
u.¢'
co
a
w
z
2 M.
U0
i0 th;.
0 1--`
w W`.
lL
w z�
U -:
O
z
SEAT BY :PERKINS COIE SEATTLE 6 -19 -97 ; 1 :44PM ;PERKINS 46 RECEPTION-, 2064313663 ;T 6/ 8
June 19, 1997
Page 4
on the basis of color; similarly, "vacant areas," "water areas," "agriculture" and
"miscellaneous" areas are separate line items but cannot be distinguished.
6. Page 3 -14
Why is a "system to notify developers concerning height limitations"
necessary? Won't zoning regulations establish height limitations within the MIC
subarea?
7. Page4-16
This page states that "habitat restoration may be provided in lieu of City -
required public or employee access to mitigate increases in impervious surface area,
or for projects not driven by City requirements." The meaning of "projects not driven
by City requirements" is confusing and should be clarified.
SMP/DEJS COMMENTS
1. SMP Status in the MIC Subarea
The status of the Shoreline Master Program ( "SMP ") component of the
P1anfDEIS for purposes of SEPA review and otherwise is unclear. An argument could
probably be made that the City has effectively segmented environmental review of the
SMP for the MIC from the comprehensive, City -wide SMP review scheduled to take
place later this year. Does the City intend that review and appeal of the MIC portion
of the SMP will be limited to appeal of the DEIS/Plan?
2. Shoreline Access
There are multiple and somewhat confusing references to shoreline access
requirements. Is "public" shoreline access only required along the Green River Trail?
If so, is it only required where public shoreline access is part of.the Green River Trail
Plan? Is employee shoreline access the only type of shoreline access required along
the east side of the river? If so, we assume that this would supersede prior access
plans, such as the public access plan contained in the 1991 -92 Boeing EIS.
3. Page 443
Can the MIC portion of the proposed SMP be meaningfully evaluated without
the proposed guidelines which, according to page 4 -13, have not yet been developed?
[03003-01 s3/3B9113 30.1731 6/19/97
SENT.BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE 6 -19 -97 ; 1 :45PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION -, 2064313665;g 6/ 8
June 19, 1997
Page 5
• :
z
4. Appendix B, Table 2, Proposed Shoreline Setback for Non- w
Water Uses
6
...I C.)
U O
The proposed setback for non water related uses is 60 feet, while the proposed ' w w
setback for water dependent and related uses is 40 feet. The additional 20 foot _II._
setback non water related uses does not make sense from the standpoint of improving 18 .w 0
riparian habitat. The ability to restore the shoreline environment is much greater with 2
a non water related use, than with a water dependent or related use, and offsets the g
need for additional setback. Further, non water related uses along the Tukwila = a
shorelines outside the MIC are currently not required to set back farther than 40 feet. 1- x
z ~
5. Appendix B, Page 28, Table 2; Impervious Surface 1-
1z LLJ
Other EIS sections indicate that an impervious shoreline trail/path would be D 0
allowed in the setback area, but it is not indicated in this section, which specifically o �'
.19 ,
deal with the issue. Would an impervious shoreline trail/employee pathway be ,w Ill
permitted in the setback area? a. I
-0
z
6. Appendix B, Figure 3, Shoreline Profiles for Improved v u)
p _,
z
Habitat
The range of potential shoreline profiles should allow for enough rock to
ensure bank stability. Are the profiles intended to be prescriptive or merely guidelines
for enhancing the shoreline bank environment? Shoreline bank structures are
typically designed and warranted by structural engineers. Will the proposed profiles
give engineers adequate flexibility to design systems they are wiIIing to warrant
-.against possible failure?'
1 At the urging of local government and the State Department of Fisheries, Boeing constructed
a new shoreline bank of the Duwamish Office Tower site similar to that depicted in Figure 3. The
system failed, was washed away and resulted in significant new bank erosion. The replacement
shoreline structure had to be designed with a much greater amount of rock riprap. This agency
experiment was costly for Boeing and illustrates that the desire for habitat restoration needs to be
balanced with nerd to design a system strong enough to resist the potentially high erosion forces that
can exist in the Duwamish Waterway.
03003 -01 43/58971550.173) 6/19:97
i
^!d7F!rnn4 tVM ;4 i',' .9WtsMt t G 'o(« 'sr IC. evoRTeFi» S.+ Sias e t9` F'.+. dtrLM.`PrIt.ftd,t! f"stPlr,,vJl!e!S!R'y! .
.SENT BY :PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 6 -19 -97 ; 1:45PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION -+
June 19, 1997
Page 6
2064313665;# 7/ 8
7. Appendix B, Policy 5.9.3 and Appendix B -2, Policy 5.9.3
These sections refer to mitigating habitat loss at a ratio of 2:1 when
unavoidable disturbances of significant vegetation occur. These requirements seem to
imply that the habitat restoration requirement is separate and distinct from the
shoreline bank standards relating to the proposed use. For example, could the
construction of a vertical bulkhead accessory to a water - dependent use trigger a need
for habitat restoration or replacement elsewhere? Related questions: Are the habitat
restorations suggested by the Tanner Report required? What if they conflict with
proposed site use, such water dependent development? How will the restorations be
funded - by adjacent project applicants as conditions of their Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits, or by public money?
8. Appendix B, Policy 5.1.2
Section 5. I.2 states the first priority for the MIC Shoreline Environment is
"Redevelopment of under - utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and
industrial activities." However, other than the reference in Goal 5.3 to "economic
vitality," the Goals and Policies do not support the priority for industrial development
within the MIC referenced above. Goals and Policies supporting industrial
development and redevelopment should be added to Section 5.
9. Relationship of Duwarnish Coalition Model Ordinance for
Habitat Restoration (Appendix A) to Proposed SMP
(Appendix B)
Is it the City's intent to adopt the Model Ordinance as a separate shoreline
Ordinance in addition to the Shoreline Master Program? Would the ordinance create
any new or duplicative procedures?
103003 -01 43!58971550.1751
k%dit'vv'f%;sd c:n ";cis': Nu t -' 44g4t490,:; ,�;' 't:4rs31u(N.40 vk,e4.4.1 2.2 at;
o/19t97
1
i
ry e1 044rsnu«.a....
z
6
U O;
U
r U)W
W=
CO
w O.
u-a
CO
d.
I- O:.
Z
W W:.
U�
o CO
o F;
W W
�. U;
LLi
U -;
o F'
z
GENT•3Y:PERKINS COLE SEATTLE ; 6 -19 -97 ; 1 :46PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPTION-. 20643136654 8/ 8
June 19, 1997
Page 7
Boeing appreciates and applauds the City's effort to create the Plan/DEIS and
hope that these comments are useful to you in the revision process. Boeing looks
forward to working with the City further on this effort and would be available to offer
any appropriate assistance as the City works to finalize the Plan.
Very truly yours,
Laura N. Whitaker
LNW:ce
cc: Elizabeth Warman
John Crull
Gerry Bresslour
Jeff Zahir
Allan Day
Larry A.Ilen
Dick hicCann
(03003- 0143/SB971530.175]
Wiz!
6
U;.
U.0
N0
u)w:•.
.w•='
• g�
Jj
u.
•zd
•m •
z�{
of
• :w
� o
•
1 0;
.z; .
iu
z. •
6/19'97
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Responses to Perkins Coie/The Boeing Company
1. Please see the response to comment 8 by the City of Seattle.
2. The MIC implementation plan is neither a physical plan nor a new comprehensive plan
designation for the MIC. Rather, it is a plan to more effectively implement previous
policy direction. The specific proposed regulatory changes have been more clearly
identified and grouped in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan and FEIS Chapter 3.
Also, see response to City of Seattle Public Hearing Comment D.
3. The term "proposed" refers to the fact that the MIC implementation plan has not been
adopted by the Tukwila City Council and will be dropped after plan adoption.
4. Prior mitigation payments were made by the Boeing Aircraft Company to mitigate the
impacts of previous development. No additional SEPA payments would be required to
the extent that no increase in the modeled level of development is exceeded. This
would apply to new developments and redevelopments. Prior SEPA mitigation
payments made by Boeing and others will be credited against any GMA mitigation
payments that may be required under the City's transportation concurrency ordinance,
to the extent that such payments would be duplicative of said impact mitigating
measures.
All developments would be subject to site specific mitigation, such as turning
movement improvements needed to maintain corridor capacity and other access
regulations. The nature of future site - specific traffic mitigation will be determined
following City review of a proposal's traffic study.
5 Comment acknowledged. The correct term is "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan,"
sometimes referred to for brevity simply as the "implementation plan."
6. Comment acknowledged. Tukwila looks forward to coordinating with the City of
Seattle during development of a neighborhood.plan for the Seattle portion of the
Duwamish Corridor. Coordination at this time is problematic as Seattle is in the process
of selecting a consultant to begin assisting in neighborhood plan development, while
the City of Tukwila adopted a detailed plan and implementing regulations for the MIC
subarea during the GMA comprehensive planning process, and has begun public
review of these further implementing regulations.
Coordination with the Seattle planning process to date has included:
• telephone discussions with the contact member of the advisory committee and an
interim, consultant staff member,
• a joint staff meeting with King County and the City of Seattle on coordinated
Duwamish restoration policies,
• ensuring compatible industrial /office land uses; water, sewer and road system
development; and
• initiating work on coordinated capital improvements and annexation boundaries
between King County, Seattle and Tukwila.
7. The text in question is revised to read as follows:
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
' fi= �1Y97'^ �. 1Y' 3, R1�i1� *fh`SE�SY45kIP3�iT.�1P�2A'�MYO
PAGE 8 -28
z
Z
re 11
U O
cnw;
J =.
• LL:
w0
u.
j.
a.
�•
w
Z 1—.
HO •
• zt—
U 0.
❑H •
w w'
ui Z.
U c'
O
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
"The Duwamish River, although confined within a channel, is a valuable '
habitat for the salmon fishery and other species. Its bottom is a relatively
natural mud /silt, and water quality has been rated as "A" by the State of 4,
Washington.
River banks in the MIC are highly altered, with most navigable channel
banks being clad in a combination of riprap, pier, and vertical bulkheads
(Fig. 4 -1). There are few places where banks have the natural vegetation and
gentle slopes conducive to fisheries habitat enhancement. Bank treatment
and potential habitat restoration sites have been shown in Figure 4-1."
8. Comment acknowledged. Further analysis shows the area to be about 1,370 acres, of
which the Boeing Aircraft Company owns or controls 650 acres or 47 %. A corrected
land use table is shown in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Table A (pg. 6). A
textual discussion is presented in FEIS Chapter 2 (pg. 2 -1).
9. The new planned action permit process is was summarized on page 2 -4 of the DEIS. A
more detailed description has been provided in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan
and FEIS Chapter 3.
10. Administrative design review is identified as a direction for future work, but is not
presented here as a substantive regulation or product. The future design guidelines and
administrative process are currently being prepared. They will be reviewed as a
separate set of regulatory revisions with a separate SEPA process.
11. Guidelines for site - specific traffic studies will not be incorporated into this planned
action process due to the wide variability of impacts and road situations within which
those impacts may occur and the great latitude given the City Engineer in defining
traffic study parameters in the traffic concurrency ordinance superseding any planned
action provisions which might be adopted. Traffic studies now broadly include items
described on DEIS page 5 -22: a site plan, traffic counts at the closest arterial
intersection(s), trip generation and distribution estimates, traffic assignments,
intersection capacity analysis, and discussion of site access and frontage improvement
needs.
The planned action forms would assist the development community by identifying
adopted Tukwila construction standards (TMC 16.34) and specifically identify driveway
design standards (DEIS Fig. 5 -12). Development standards are shown as part of the
proposed action and as mitigating actions /standards throughout the document. They
are anticipated to be administratively collected in an information summary for future
developers.
12. Comment acknowledged. For purposes of clarification, there are no "Agriculture"
areas, over 99% of "Miscellaneous" areas are road right of ways, and the MIC "Water"
area is the Duwamish River. Future maps will use shading to further distinguish
between "Wholesale Distribution" and "Retail Distribution."
13. As described on pages 3 -10 and 3 -11 of the DEIS, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) imposes height restrictions in height above sea level, on buildings within certain
distances of airport takeoff and landing approach pathways. The Zoning Code
measures height from finished grade, regardless of the site's elevation above sea level.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
A' KIN.- ...Xd:' .:'.kTet' ". 4 .,. ri9tfii%3iYKCa YL. '
• iZ?'£R'V1, 5Si�FP 4!"I t., n4St', T'. a F137447,,Ya+'3.1,78{a•tv,0: u+sinks!ova+.m•n.+n ntiftw....nwur.+acp{0119r,..„
PAGE B•29
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Sites nearer the runway ends will have dramatically lower allowed structure heights
than the 125 ft. Zoning Code limit. The mitigation measure on page 3 -14 refers to these
FAA regulations, rather than the height restrictions established in the MIC zoning
regulations.
14. This sentence in Paragraph 2 is merely intended to note a few of the situations where
habitat restoration may be undertaken. The situation of: "... projects not driven by
City requirements" would include philanthropic projects and restoration resulting from
a regional legal consent decree, outside the City of Tukwila's purview. This sentence
has been reworded to reflect new landscaping requirements in the "river environment"
in Table 3 -1 and more clearly implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.6.93.
15. See response to City of Seattle Public Hearing Comment D.
This EIS is envisioned to be incorporated by reference into the SEPA review for the City-
wide Shoreline Master Plan. SEPA review and appeal of the MIC portion of the
Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan for specific MIC impacts would be done in this process`.
Reviewers should expect that incorporation of this document into the programmatic
SEPA review for the City -wide Shoreline Master Plan would effectively complete site
specific impact analyses, although cumulative impact analysis would be further
evaluated. A similar process and set of considerations would be applied to the
incorporation of the MIC shoreline master plan provisions into the City -wide shoreline
master plan revisions.
16. The proposed MIC shoreline master plan provisions require public access only along the
Green River Trail without exception. Required shoreline access along other areas (e.g.,
almost all of the east side of the river) is limited to private /employee access. Either.
river access and /or habitat restoration may be provided at the property owner's option
if not on the Green River Trail.
The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS (1992) is an interjurisdictional
document between the Boeing Aircraft Company and the City of Tukwila, the City of
Seattle, and King County for previous construction in the three jurisdictions. Tukwila
was given the role of /SEPA lead agency for the EIS.
Mitigation Agreement access provisions which are solely a result of Tukwila
requirements would be superseded. However, trail provisions also reflect the
requirements resulting from the other jurisdictions, including but not limited to the City
of Seattle and King County. Access on the east side of the river must be provided
pursuant to the Mitigation Agreement.
Superseding of the Mitigation Agreement shoreline access provisions with the Tukwila
MIC shoreline provisions may only be done with all parties amending the Agreement.
Such a revision may be proposed by Boeing to all parties.
17. See the response to Comment 10 above.
3 This policy requires providing for public access along the river where designated on the King County Green River Trail Master Plan.
4 Incorporating the public review of MIC shoreline provisions with the City -wide Shoreline Master Plan revision, to be done later in 1998,
would not affect the validity of this SEPA impact analysis. Staff recognizes the added dimension of potential cumulative (City -wide)
impacts.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
�tL' �ltMts. LTC��teaewzrrrxyt' A: a�nwa�!. var�yssrmrmeasM. wxwisa' �: M! µz, nm« �xss *.�!wm+c.*c�rm.z7�nvr,..crwcRV=
:ew
PAGE 9 -30
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
18. Staff understands the comment that developments which make higher use of the river
and having greater impacts, seem to be providing lower levels of impact mitigation in
the DEIS. The proposed shoreline master plan has been revised to reflect 40 ft. setbacks
for both water related and non -water related uses and greater landscape /habitat Z
requirements for water dependent and water related uses in the river environment to = F:
avoid significant adverse impacts. This is shown in Table 3 -1, "Landscaping ". w
19. Trails are specifically allowed as a footnote under the "Impervious Surface" column. 6 v
U O'
20. The bank treatments are guidelines. Revised bank treatment figures (FEIS figures 1C, w
2C, 3B , 4B and 5B) , are based on bank treatments in the immediate area. They also note UJ
the need for engineering and consistency with various agency requirements. co w
w O;.
21. See new landscaping requirements in the river environment in FEIS Table 3 -1. The new
provisions would require replacement habitat for bulkhead construction.
Q
co
= d:
I— _
Z
I- O:
Z
UJ
2p
U
O N.
I-
on a strictly voluntary basis. w ~
= W,
Restoration sites do not enjoy added regulation. They might be developed as part a ~
-O
water dependent use's pier apron (subject to normal replacement with an. equivalent Z
habitat value per Table 3 -1), left as part of a water related use's undeveloped river v w
environment, or developed as part of an off -site habitat mitigation program with the 0
property owner's permission. The costs of habitat restoration would be borne by the Z
impacting developer or other party, including the public, as appropriate.
22. Appendix B -1 of the DEIS is a draft shoreline master plan for the MIC. As such, most
policies are oriented toward the need for responsible shoreline development. Policies
about general MIC development are found in the "Manufacturing /Industrial Center"
Comprehensive Plan Element, policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.11.
The proposed regulations for redeveloping properties in FEIS Table 3 -1 allow a dramatic
increase in building replacement, expansion and site improvements than now allowed.
It also represents the permissive approach to redevelopment possible and still be
consistent with Tukwila Comprehensive Plan environmental policies.
23. The model ordinance for habitat restoration (Appendix B -1 of the DEIS) provides
criteria for developing a restoration plan. It does not specify plan goals or performance
standards. A version of this model ordinance is envisioned to be adopted with the
citywide and MIC shoreline master plan as it will likely be used by funding and permit
issuing agencies in their evaluation of restoration projects. This and other shoreline
master plan components would be reviewed in the consolidated, citywide shoreline
master plan update.
The habitat restoration sites are not required uses or a use overlay zone. They are
merely potential sites for habitat restoration which are part of a recognized restoration
State program, making restoration actions generally exempt from a shoreline substantial
development permit (specific restoration design is subject to administrative approval).
Developers who are required to provide habitat replacement will be encouraged to
participate in improving an identified restoration site. However, participation will be
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B•31
PERKINS COIE
A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -3099
TELEPHONE: 206 583 -8888 • FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
z
December 10, 1997 _
�w
rte:
U0
W=
Steve Lancaster w o
Director
Tukwila Dept. of Community Dirt. g
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 = d:
Tukwila, WA 98188 w
z�
►= o
z�-
Dear Mr. Lancaster: 0
,o
We have reviewed the draft Tukwila Manufacturing //Industrial Center Strategic =
Implementation Plan, dated November, 1997. As we understand it, this draft is an
o
executive summary of the Plan, which will be fully set forth in the FEIS. z
U N:
o H, .
Re: Tukwila lYIIC /Strategic Implementation Plan, November, 1997
We look forward to reviewing and commenting on the FEIS when it is issued.
At this stage of the process we continue to have many of the same comments that we
expressed in our earlier comment letter to you on the DEIS and have a number of new
comments as well. Accordingly, we list below our new comments, followed by a
reiteration of those earlier comments on the DEIS that do not appear to be addressed
by the November, 1997 draft.
- A. Comments on November, 1997 Draft Plan
1. It is not clear how the Plan relates to the Boeing Duwamish Corridor
Redevelopment Plan/EIS and Mitigation Agreement. Will the Plan and implementing
regulations take precedence over the Boeing EIS documents and related agreements
when the two are in conflict (i.e., shoreline access requirements; design standards)?
2. Page 21 (2): The consistency checklist is not included with this draft
and must be reviewed before we can fully comment on the planned action criteria and
review procedures.
(03003 -0143 /SB973390.239]
ANCHORAGE. BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES OL\%IPIA PORTLAND SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON. D.C.
4i:.`F •ro:p'.Y. - ... ...1YM!'Fd117! TIP' 1' liA% K-'J RM§ 71iYM' JM.(! C9TIyC• ilttpNi •MYi.:1R.no.am�mw.imw.vw.•n.
A
B
December 10, 1997
Page 2
3. Page 21 (4)(iii): The meaning of this provision is unclear.
4. Page 21 (iv): This provision states that " ... the following will not be
considered planned actions ...: a development any portion of which includes
shoreline modifications waterward or the ordinary high water mark." As written, this
provision could be used to deny planned action status to any project that involves
riprap replacement or any other shoreline bank work. We request the City to consider
amending the planned action criteria to include these types of projects.
5. Page 22 (c) and (d): If a project is a planned action (i.e., consistent with
applicable plans, policies and regulations), how will it have "significant adverse
impacts" in need of mitigation under SEPA? This aspect of planned action status
should be clarified.
6. Page 27(1.): This provision appears to require a "cultural resources
assessment" to be performed when modifying buildings or structures over 50 years of
age. Please inform us of the basis for this requirement, especially with respect to
buildings and structures.
7. Page A -6 (13.7.2): The City proposes and "environmental mitigation
system" that includes "fair- share" mitigation assessments to IvIIC applicants to fund
traffic improvement costs. A similar funding mechanism will be used for a water line
upgrade on S. 112th Street, which is adjacent to the Duwamish• Office Site. There is
no formula, however, to determine what one's fair share of traffic mitigation costs
could be. If possible, the City needs to specify potential mitigation costs as part of the
Plan.
8. Please clarify what the Plan will look like in final form. Will it be a
stand alone document, a compilation of multiple documents, or fully embodied in the
FEIS?
i
i
1
i
B. Comments From Previous DEIS Comment Letter — s gecPoi‘tSe'S z-o
1)67S CoMM E.( rS r
1. Clarify Function of Prototypes
The function of the three MIC prototypes is confusing and should be clarified.
Are the prototypes intended to represent a worst case scenario for all environmental
impacts in the vIIC or only for transportation impacts? The transportation chapter
(page 5 -12) suggests that the prototypes (in combination ?) represent worst case, but
(03003.0 14 3 /S B 973 3 90.3 5 9 j
12/10/97
CI
D
E
F
G
H
•z
W` •
J U'
Uo
W
co w.
w =-
ci)o
w
ga
=
w,
1- o
z�
.0 N.
0
w :
1- U,
wz
I.
0
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Responses to Perkins Coie Public Hearing Comments
A. The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Mitigation Agreement would remain
as a set of additional requirements pursuant to the agreement between Boeing, King
County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila. Please see response to Comment Z
16. In the case of overlapping standards, the more strict would apply. Q
WB. The consistency checklist was not included since application forms are typically an
re 2
administrative decision and the substantive content of the form was identified (e.g., 6 0'
what developments are potentially a "planned action ", need for consistency with the v o
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and an environmental consistency checklist which is c w:
equivalent to the current SEPA checklist). An illustrative consistency checklist is now w _
included as Appendix D. u.
C. This is a typographical error. The correct text is shown below:
w 0.
"or MIC /H zone) a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC /L or u.. ?:
MIC /H zones," N
D. The greatly increased environmental complexity of work in the river would require a Z =
!--
very greatly increased amount of EIS analysis to evaluate the appropriateness of a p
blanket planned action designation. The multiple permit review by other State and w "- uj
federal agencies for such work, virtually eliminates any time savings from being
designated a planned action. The greatly increased effort to evaluate the planned action U N:
status for projects within the river does not seem to be justified by the insignificant C 1-
degree to which a development would be facilitated. =
H U
E. State law requires that each project which is determined to be a planned action shall 1=0:
have been found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and have no significant w Z
environmental impacts, based on a SEPA checklist or State approved equivalent. 0 _`
Embodying these requirements in the local ordinance is required to ensure consistency 0 1-
with the authorizing State statute. Z
No regulatory gaps which are would allow significant adverse impacts are foreseen.
However, the required consistency checklist is a safety net which could be used to fill a
regulatory gap which is discovered in the future. The City of Everett, the only city
which is now implementing a planned action ordinance, also envisioned a seamless
regulatory net. They have found the consistency checklist to be a significant tool in
project review.
F. Besides Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.6.1, the following existing State statutes
address the protection of archaeological and paleontological information.
RCW 27.34.010
and 27.34.200
RCW 27.53.010
RCW 27.53.040
\� \:�i:'a• > �, \tea•.
�,:,..rrr
\\/,'\ y�•aC .k.:;.. �f:» �•::: �.:.ti,.;,., \kYV.�• \ax:i;,..•� \\
�'•.r"r. /r5$.r� \` Ziff\`, �..?::::•.}`......:> .................. ...:........ \..........,..,....
Establishes public policy to designate, preserve, protect, enhance
and perpetuate structures, sites, districts, buildings and objects of
high historic, archaeological, architectural and cultural
significance.
State declares its interest in the conservation, p[reservation, and
protection of archaeological resources.
State defines archaeological resources to include known and
unrecognized resources anywhere in the State of Washington.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE 8 -34
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
RCW 27.53.060
State declares is unlawful to knowingly remove, alter, dig into or
deface any historic, prehistoric archaeological resource or site. A
permit from the State Historic Preservation Officer is required for
any such activity to ensure proper resource management.
RCW 36.70A.020
GMA Planning Goal 13: Identify and encourage the preservation
of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or
archaeological significance.
WAC 197 -11 -960
SEPA includes Historic and Cultural Preservation as an Element
of the Environment to be protected from significant adverse
impacts, as defined in adopted public policy. Tukwila staff
administratively identify sensitive sites /resources and work with
the applicant and State Historic Preservation Officer to
appropriately manage potential impacts.
The cultural resource evaluation should apply to buildings on the State or Federal
historic registers.
G. Fair share potential mitigation for infrastructure costs would be based on the Tukwila
concurrency ordinances. No estimated figures for a specific site is available, although
the facility and estimated costs have been identified (FEIS Chapter 3). The developer
retains the right to protest the fair share cost calculation.
H. As an integrated GMA subarea plan and SEPA environmental impact statement, the
"plan" consists of the DEIS, FEIS and associated appendices. However, the proposed
permit strearntining, capital improvements and regulations which are proposed to
facilitate redevelopment have been grouped in FEIS Chapter 3.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
.1: ,/ut,; bm7Eit;:r'.. i3Si a,in: =':v .01:Yak" BX v41.4Kin ' 1,S.S.:y s
PAGE B -35
Z.
QQom'
uJ 5
JU!
O 0
N O
CO
Lu =.
• u_ '.
W 0
• 1.
co
mow;
Z
I-- O.
z�
coI
W .W
0
0 I-`
z
•
•
•
• •
,pormaggessamemso,
•
Commission. The
meeting on March
of the overall MIC
• 1 ,
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 12, 1998
DRAFT
fl cr?
/Z i ?8
Mr. Arthur called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m. All members were present,
except Mr. Neiss, who was excused. Representing the Planning Division were Jack Pace,
Vernon Umetsu and Mary Bandirola.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19,
1998. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
L96 -0071: Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) and Strategic Implementation
Plan Workshop.
Vice Chair Mr. Bill Arthur opened the workshop.
Vernon Umetsu gave a brief review of the proposed plan, corrections to the plan's
Background section and the current status of Planning Commission review.
MR. MERYHEW MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S POSITION AND
DOCUMENTED RESPONSE AND FORWARD THAT AS AGREED TO BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Umetsu proposed the following changes in the Strategic Implementation Plan from
pages twenty one through twenty seven.
CHANGE IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS III, (Pg. 21) (b)(4)(iii) to read a conditional
or unclassified use, in the respective ]vIIC/L or 1VIIC/H Zones.
CHANGE IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS III, (Pg. 21) (b)(4)(v) to read any decisions
about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally
require a SEPA threshold determination. •
Mr. Arthur excused Ms. Stetson due to illness.
At 7:25 p.m. Mr. Arthur called for a break
The meeting was reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
MR. MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNED ACTION
STREAMLINE PROGRAM WITH THE CHANGES TO SECTION III, (Pg. 21)
(b)(4)(iii) and III(b)(4)(v). MR. LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION.
:.THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED. z
z:
Mr. Umetsu discussed Capital Improvement Plan Revisions (Pg.24). re �'
u6=
J0
MR. LIVERMORE.MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S 00
RECOMMENDATION FOR CIP REVISIONS AS PRESENTED AND MR. co w
MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND
cn
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. w O.
Mr. Umetsu discussed the Regulatory Amendments. g
co d
In individual motions, the Planning Commission provided the following direction for w'
plan revisions. z
O,
z H:
(Pg. 26) TMC 18.36.020(13) &(23) AND TMC 18.38.020(13) &(24). HOTELS AND
MOTELS BE PERMITTED USES IN THE MIC. v
ON
o f-
(Pg. 26) TMC 18.38.020(xx). THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS '111E CHANGES. w w
H U'.
(Pg. 26) TMC 18.50.xxx. ESTABLISH THAT THEFIRST FOUR (4) —` z
CONDITIONS WOULD APPLY WHEN WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE MIC w �.
BOUNDARY. o
z
(Pg. 27) TMC 18.50.xxx (1). REPLACE THE WORD "POTENTIAL" IN THE
FIRST SENTENCE WITH "REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ".
(Pg. 27) TMC 18.50.xxx (1), SECOND SENTENCE. REPLACE THE PHRASE
"OVER 50 YEARS OF AGE" WITH "ON THE STATE OR FEDERAL HISTORIC
REGISTERS ".
(Pg. 27) TMC 18.50.xxx (2), LINE 1. DELETE THE WORD "STRONGLY ".
(Pg. 28) TMC 18.50.xxx (5) (C). PLANNING COMIESSION ASKED MR.
UMETSU TO GO TO LEGAL STAFF TO GET CORRECT WORDING FOR
THIS AREA.
MR. LIVERMORE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AS
MODIFIED BY THIS BOARD AND MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE
MOTION. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1
ON PAGE 29 OF THE STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, FIGURE 5 IS
COMPRISED OF THREE DIAGRAMS. THE FIRST DIAGRAM SHOULD
REFER TO FOOTNOTES 1 -5 -6 -7 NOT 1- 5 -7 -8. THE SECOND DIAGRAM
SHOULD REFTER TO FOOTNOTES 6 -7 NOT 7 -8. THE THIRD DIAGRAM z
SHOULD REFER TO FOOTNOTES 6 -7 NOT 7 -8. _ t
1.- W.
(Pg. 28) TMC 16.34.XXX and 16.34.XXX. MR. MALINA MADE A 6 n
JV
RECOMMENDATION THAT BUS PULLOUTS WILL BE REQUIRED AT ALL U o;
BUS STOPS ON PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS. • to w
w =,
(Pg. 28) TMC 16.34.xxx et. seq. MR. MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT N p
THE DRIVEWAY DESIGN WITH THE MODIFICATION TO 16.34, STRIKING 2 1
OUT (SUBSECTIONS) A AND B (AND REQUIRING) BUS PULLOUTS ON la
PRLNCIPAL ARTERIALS. MR. LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION.
52 d':
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY I •
APPROVED. z F-:
1- t31
z17.
It was clarified that the provision for City Engineer approval of variations from the w w:'
16.34.xxx standards was supported. 'v o
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
•= 0
Mr. Pace briefed the Planning Commission on Stanford's Restaurant. They have some LL p;.
minor modifications. They proposed to rotate the restaurant 360 degrees, they also have :u.i z
a change with the entry. They're using a metal type cover material on the canopy. The o i
entry feature will be refined a little bit. The sign will be moved in accordance with the z
building. There will be some refinement in the landscaping.
Mr. Pace asked the Planning Commission if they had _a problem approving this
administratively?
The Planning Commission all agreed that this would not be a problem.
Mr. Arthur adjourned the meeting.
Prepared By,
Mary Bandirola
ATTACHMENT D
Revisions to the Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan of 11/12/97
This Attachment shows the specific regulatory changes made by the Planning
Commission at its March 13th workshop. All changes have been incorporated into a
Planning Commission recommended plan dated Apri110,1998 (Attachment A).
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Adopt a new TMC 21.04.XXX (State Environmental Policy Act)
This new TMC section establishes a new `planned action" option to
normal SEPA review. The following four sections would be
contained within this new TMC section.
ntt ,: :<::::> ::::« ;::::.; ' :::: >F atu� d: aett s: >area ee al
t �ied: F�i�n�ec��1�; ��i�?�?s=:.;:;::;:;::.;;;:.;;>;:;;:;;;;:.:;;:::.:; �:.:;;:.:;;; ;;:::;:P:.;;:; >;;: >;;::;::::.:.
xde> tc ed;as?<developmen s h ch sates y al a l e fotiowin
:::< i s a >" • ermltted use:::: located: within the< YSS : 'AMC:;:;::::
i• :•.: i•. :•.y: v.•: i:•�: r.�•:. �:. �. �:as•a::: a�1•.:ASM[•V:G:Aww':i :l:%K : L':< h;!, y} i \i•JA :A'i��K�iiiv:iii:i:::}:i ?{ y:i;:}`i:il'�Ji�i �:� v::::vi:
onsT s e
] £1nsis efl
ti
op.. O e t n r >a positron w hich o
•nue<T 'i g
<a`oral'`<
?;ijii:i::4:iti}::ti;:; �i;'' ::::: v:4:L: :•2;y�:of;:: - :ti:iF: T:•::.::::i '::::: e: .g
; >; : a�oi ;Qsrhthuct:;;:;sg.;:?.:?
le t
I Note to Reviewers: Such uses are more complex and require case by case review
and approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council respectively. No
time savings in permit review would result from designating them a planned action
and their greater potential for significant adverse impacts make such a designation
inappropriate at this time.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
21
.. A . • • .
.. _.,.. . . ...... .. .. ..... ..... ,!:'f!°r^OJrR::T'+�p.°T` ^!P. ... ,,;_ n*••;*• rr.•+« w>.. e. r.• n•+! u.,: dw��vl• m. rt• rs+ ra• s•. rnw.,.. v%:+ xk. RLwwnYai+[ t+.: U;:l?-' C+ 1) 4kR% U; Y. Y�i:+' Tt9% v�' n.^'+ �':W�'•ipFRaNNWPrHN.v+M1n.....,i
z
s~
w'
JU
U0
co
co w
W
W • 0
2
u_Q
=d
w
z�
l-0•
Z1--
w
w
UU
0 N,
0 I-
W ul
2
1- U.
U- FE; Z
W
O ▪ 1-.
z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997 '
(c) Consistency Check
aun...
;ate
stateme
}:l`g ell ;' }iZle fl >must detrl0<.: stmt. ; at >i
::'t:i:::::!::::�'ii:ti:i;i: ?S} (:};;ii: +•: �:;ri:tiv4'Lj: •i:4:j:! �i .•:} :ii:i<:•:•:4:C:::ii:•ii }:•: Q:i4i }i:.:�•i�•ii:?
'pursuantto the environme
�:stetx��cnecxt�sc
6114g t
are`'a ,reset te'i
az d Envi ot�t le::
signati tg a development as a Planned • ActiQo
"c >dev :opIA.
r0 0
eis
•
'appeal: >FT•.. vtsto s ......
2:1 >ti4<
ev>:::.>:«::: :: >. <:.;;:::::;:::::,......<;,v ter.::J ocess<'• >`
: >:::''ie <fanizectcr.T� elopert....r..........:.:
•;: E::; a; k?,'•:?: E;:>:;};:,? �` :::;;;':::;•i;;: ?::;:.'•': %::i; �;::i: ?::::;5 <;;:•;t;:;:: � ?;.'•::s; �:.r•::r>:S:S ;.':•:r
esl taon a plan ed action would rehe ve tl
PkX?Iarfilltri�g
U • • •o• Si
22
Tukwila Department of Community Development
om tto-wa as iY g4.7 ;, a.:.:. ..... fet- .. fir, 4:0, : rW"r✓1t,'a�s� '''. 2u:�'', � f 1
z
~w
00
u) •
J.=.
H
(1) LL..
W O .
J
u
a
•
I— W
Z
I— 0
co,
�H
W W'.
H
'6:
w i. z
U
E-_,
0
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997 ,
nFO)
FP 57
4
6
7
Typical SEPA Process
w/o Shoreline Permit Assume
500 + Yards of Excavation
Complete Application Received
Post Site and Mail notice of
application. Assume 3 wks.
SEPA review period
Issue DNS
Begin 15 day comment period
Finalize DNS.
Assume no MDNS so no 14 day
appeal period
Planning SEPA Review done.
Time = 6 weeks
Typical Planned Action Process
w/o Shoreline Permit. Assume
500 Yards of Excavation
Complete Application Received
No posting or mailing. Assume
3 wks. for planned action
"Consistently Checked"
Planned action complete
Time = 2 weeks
Difference
Pre AlinaiDES,
* Reduce Posted & Mailed
Notice from 1 to 0
* Admin. Decision
* No review by other agencies
at jurisdiction (they rely on
regs only, not SEPA)
Potential 4 wk time saved
No practical time savings
are anticipated as Building
permit review time now
exceeds 6 wks.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Page 23
z
_.1--
Z.
tt
—J
0 0:
U
N
w
. w=
J
N LL;
wo
•
a:
H w'
•
=•
o:
z
�
:U
0
` =w:
cy
w z-.
U �'
z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Capital Improvements
Capital improvements to support the level of development identified
in the Comprehensive Plan were identified and incorporated into the
Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Further detailed analysis
with updated data was done for this implementation plan to ensure
adequate infrastructure support of the MIC buildout condition.
The implementation plan analysis has identified four capital
improvements to support MIC buildout. These improvements have
been shown in Table B on the following page. Capital improvements
which are not needed to support area buildout to adopted level of
service standards (such as resolution of RTA facility location and the
16th Avenue Bridge's future status) have not been listed although
they have been discussed in the "Background" section.
24
Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
w, •
22'
U O.
to c
W ='
J H;
N LL
w O:
J.
..I-w
z
z o:
ul
.2
ow
z:
�Uln?
O.
z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Table B
Capital Improvement Plan Revisions
System Deficiency
Proposed Facility
Deveio nienf )impact
ivIitigating Action
ROADS
S. 112th St. intersection with
Pacific Hwy. S. will operate at
LOS F at buildout based on
updated traffic data.
An upgraded signal controller at the Pacific
Hwy. intersection will upgrade operation to
LOS B or C and support the corridor
ALOS -E..
Amend the Concurrency Ordinance to
incorporate this improvement to provide
for fair -share mitigation payments from
applicable future developments. State
funding support of the controller
installation is anticipated. Installation is
anticipated prior to the corridor ALOS -E
threshold being exceeded.
Pacific Hwy. S., south of
Boeing Access Road
resurfacing and frontal
improvements. Not required to
provide the minimum ALOS -E
capacity .
Resurface with some widening, and frontal
improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
utilities, etc.).
The City has already installed the conduit to
allow coordinated phasing of signals with
adjacent intersections.
No private contribution for road
improvements. (New projects and re-
developments are responsible for frontal
improvements per existing TMC 16.36.).
The S. 124th St. access to the
existing Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad yard will
exceed the LOS -D threshold
for this residential arterial in
the immediate future and does
not provide for functional
separation of traffic (pols.
13.3.1 & 13.2.1).
Design options to resolve capacity and
safety issues are being developed at this
time. Major options include a new bridge
to the southern rail yard areas, a new north
access road, and improving the existing
route to resolve safety and capacity issues..
The City's goal at this time is to secure
BNSF participation in identifying the
best solution and its implementation.
State and federal funding support will be
crucial to any solution. Receiving such
support must await the resolution of
design issues. Applying proposed
regulatory streamlining provisions and
approving further facility expansion will
be problematic until these traffic
concurrency and Comprehensive Plan
consistency issues are resolved.
UTILITIES `-
Build a new water line on S.
112th Street to loop the system
for water quality purposes.
Looping became needed when
an intertie with the City of
Seattle water system was
closed off by Seattle, after
water system deficiencies were
identified in the
Comprehensive Plan process.
The 1,500 ft. long, 12" line would cost
about $140,000 with all hydrants and
connections.
.
Fair share payments from benefiting
properties (e.g., on Pacific. Hwy., south
of S. 112th Street).
•
Tukwila Department of Community Development
25
Z •
H Z'.
W
00 •
co • cr
W
•
J =
1—:
0 Wi
WO
g
u- Q
=• O
I 0:
Z F—
N;
1,.
W W,
U
— O.
lil Z .
•
U N:
Z 0 ▪ H
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Regulatory Amendments
Regulatory amendments are needed to replace the substantive review
standards which are currently applied using SEPA. Since the SEPA
process would be eliminated from project review, the regulations
become necessary. These regulations do not increase the substantive
standards which are currently applied. Other SEPA areas of concern
are adequately addressed by existing regulations.
Amend TMC 18.36.020(13) &(23) ( and TMC 18.38.020(13) &(24)
(Zoning Code MIC/L and MIC/H permitted uses respectively)
Policy 11.1.5 provides for locating only uses commonly associated
with manufacturing and industrial uses in the MIC. Hotels and
motels are not such commonly associated uses, especially as there
are hundreds of rooms within a 10 minute car ride.
•
Amend TMC 18.38.020(xx) (Zoning Code MIC/H Permitted
Uses)
Policy 11.1.5 provides for locating uses commonly associated with
manufacturing and industrial uses in the MIC. "Manufacturing,
processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products,
such as cosmetics and drugs" would satisfy this intent. These uses
are already allowed in the MIC /L zone as a permitted use (TMC
18.36.020(20).
w.. Manufae urrngr pyre ess x g and/or;packa int; haxmaceuti aL
Amend TMC 18.50.xxx (Zoning Code Supplemental Development
Regulations)
Policy 15.1.5 provides for incorporating design for crime prevention
lighting while avoiding glare: The following provisions would
incorporate State and federal crime prevention light levels and apply
the standards normally supported by the Board of Architectural
review to avoid glare.
l s�
eve1opmen s w# n 00 £eet a
re reheiive
nzr:tatar`'
c
...... ........
k t t umx. tAs
26
Tukwila Department of Community Development
egmi w.w._r
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
be >gra t 1 ti t e D re €a •
m?tDevelopment
considerations
Amend TMC 18.50.xxx (Zoning Code Supplemental Development
Regulations)
Per Policy 4.6.1 provides for preserving paleontological and
archaeological information. This policy is similar to State statutes
which establishes archaeological and historical buildings as valuable
and subject to regulation by all jurisdictions, requires local
jurisdictions to regulate activities which could damage such
resources, and specifies measures to be take when such resources are
encountered.
egca
i t 'i eQ ''
.... x::.•r
enc
sesst d ...:.sg�a.�.' .:.
..>...f .t
� � :.;>caetic � an...o rs •
oi.ar A>t
e T: :.:.
on n osructi asestne n m.
a:.� res
e • l*ence a aerrol ct�
teo t t `'eat e "os a 4
::<::;: >::::
rSi:i�i::rr::•
nnrrrrenc
r:.r ?r ' c t $ c tr
rote btft . nYestI tIo
esstta l archae
me s
.fit
�rctuta
arcaealgac
���•�1Gal. S: stXltt' .
aYatlt Y1S ' fl Q: stonc
• ::. ti gal.
tentta:si
areservatrc
atrIW s re "ai r <a
•
aitaeol ;. ICa
ixn lecxtd >heaPpantsha
aeolagi l ter a i s.a
rchaeolog an :zstc rFc .reservat on :
t::remat s de el0p a; >propria�e >tr°e`a et
e f I g the exeavat o th` no:
Tukwila Department of Community Development
x.+° sEtwnr�, wY�, r�• p�Kr' t�•! va�wNc�yuSr ":'kF:•.,•;3A^ >tu.. ;c. " ?;rr. _.�:, ^'��,!t! +.:.5^ -i :�r:.7 t �rr,.r•u ". tr ^ -. '..r;;^; ++ . ..._ .,., w,.. ny. »re•r+:.!.•zT.�+.q.,,.nvr;.»�+w:
27
z
_�
z
c4 2
JU
00
c0
co w
J
(J) u_
w
2
LL. Q
=d
w
z�
HO
z
w uj
O • N
O I-
w
I— • U
w8
z
w
U N
0
z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
aut t000 rz.....::>::»:>::>::>::>:»:> : >: >:: > >: ><:: >: >:: ><: >: >:<: >:::
# ze::::: �4.:.::.;:.::.;;:.;;:::.;:;::;;;:<;.;:;.::.;;:;.;;::;.:; :.;;:.:.::.::.::;. >::;;::;<: >:;
stud t generally identify
arcaaeol g call aleontolo eat:.:.otentiat
.::::< >:..
require >frvm; tl e` appl e.. nt.such!nf ?rmat on
nece sa:::; tct;tt ake all deterrnfnati'o • >f eim
>EI 4e4L1t1IE 4 >;(
of iscover • u rialsr
• pr lraixle s g> tficant •
<resc rces>tk a `are
3ropos d actwn fIi : ?av ?¢
1pact< xt chaeolagiea€ p a stor
" l l r >list n`` in tt a >I t onaL
aces ettc�n.obs ry bltra eon>ol.
4.110e.
ea uatxon of f Il
`aTtCL1't2T3'I1>
ehaeo o
c '`. o d zt sturb nee zust a n .: :
lit 1
•
Amend TMC 16.34.xxx (Road Bridge and Municipal
Construction Specifications)
Policies 2.1.13, 13.3.2, and 13.3.4, ensure maintenance of area -wide
roadway capacity and safety: The following road standards are
needed to maintain corridor road capacity and safety.
ow agpra xsions
capacity a d saf
�fauts wi l l e t `uifred o atl r ttc i al air r>wal
ratio tl
28
Tukwila Department of Community Development
:+• m�, nhn). t. rN NVnRtAYi• V+! F.: a^z�:Y'tie+tai+t`ft...s,R!':Rrt.: fad' M:' 1a4Rwn. rM`" a'"'!?t 7� !" ?!�+T.T•C'Prfl•.A!9w'}•+na..e.
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Figure 14
Commercial/Industrial Access Spacing and Corner Clearances
MINIMUM ACCESS POINT SPACING WHEN DIRECTLY OPPOSING DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT POSSIBLE) 4-8
1. B
Street
Speed Z
(mph)
DIMENSIONS
A s
B 4
C 4
25
105
105
105
30
125
125
125
35
150
150
150
40
185
185
185
45
230
230
230
j
COD
ACCESS POINT'
L`1
�turb line (Typ•)
a.
u
A
MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR STOP SIGN INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET) 7 -8
DIM
OPERATION SPEED
30
35
40
45
A
115
135
150
180
B
85
105
120
140
C
115
135
160
180
D
115
135
160
180
E
105/0
135/0
160/0
180/0
JLflA
sUeet
B a
E
W
Cum Una (Ty p.)
c o
11{ 111{
E
MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET) 7-8
DIM
OPERATION SPEED
30
35
40
45
A
230
275
320
.365
B
115
135
160
180
C
230
275
320
365
D
230
275
320
365
E
115/0
135/0
160/0
180/0
u
A
B
Curb line (Typ.)
sUtel symIX MIN
NOTES
1. Access point spacing only for public streets. This shall be a guideline for private streets.
2. Refers to posted speed or operating speed, whichever is greatest.
3. Between the nearest edges of two -way access points. Distances between adjacent, one -way access points (with the inbound
access upstream) can be one -half the distances
4. Access points directly opposite from each other when possible. Where it is not possible, these dimensions will apply.
5. Where access points are to be signalized, a minimum spacing of 600 feet to any other signalized intersection should be
maintained.
6. Access points near stop or signal controlled intersections should be checked to determine whether stopping queues will
block the access point.
7. In cases where access spacing is not attainable because existing frontages are narrow or have physical constraints, access
points should be located as close to the tabulated values shown above as possible. The City Engineer may require
investigations to determine what turning controls are appropriate at the access point. The City Engineer shall base all such
decisions on maintaining needed corridor capacity and safety.
a
r -e a •euu 1 ♦B .en 1
trestert. Palter a
- Casw,tta: aw:
TICS OF
TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:` THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A
UBLIC'HEARING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 5,1998, BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT TUKWILA :CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.,..
'UKWILA, WASHINGTON, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
ADOPTION' OF THE TUKWILA MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL• CENTER
•
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN,
THE PLAN INCLUDES STREAMLINING PERMIT 'REVIEW, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS •>,
AND IREGULATORY REVISIONS. STAFF WILL BE REQUESTING THAT THE
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA BE'EXCLUDED FROM.THE PLAN.
PROJECT LOCATION: ` ALL PROPERTIES NORTH OF THE 126TH STREET RIGHT - -OF WAY
ALIGNMENT NORTHWARD TO, THE0CITYLIMITS. AND: ITSPOTENTIAL ANNEXATIONAREA,
B UT EXCLUDING THE ALLENTOWN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
�,NY AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ARE :INVITED'TO -BE PRESENT TO VOICE.
APPROVAL, DISAPpROVAL, OR OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE. FOR THOSE UNABLE
TO,ATTEND ;IN PERSON, YOU MAY SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE CITY
CLEIi1C7Ss OFFICE :UNTIL 5 PM ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1998 FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT VERNON UMETSU, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AT
(206) 431' -3684:
THE • CITY OF TUKWILA STRIVES TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE. WITH
DYSABILITIES PLEASE CONTACT THE; CITY CLERK'S 'OFFICE .AT:.(206)' 433 -1800
BY: NOON ON MONDAY IF WE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE..
TED THIS 'DAY` OF
[�J ,1998.
CITY OF TUKWILA
E E..CANTU, CITY CLERK
ATE OF PUBLICATION: SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
Lp--17.7Q f 1
otice of Public Hearing
hereby declare that:
ODetermination of Non -
significance
Notice of Public Meeting fl Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
0 Board of Adjustment Agenda fl Determination of Significance
Packet and Scoping Notice
['Board of Appeals Agenda ['Notice of Action
Packet
fl Planning Commission Agenda fl Official Notice
Packet
0 Short Subdivision Agenda E Other
Packet
O Notice of Application for O Other
Shoreline Management Permit
Q Shoreline Management Permit
was mailed to each of the following addresses on ZsIe
Name of Pro j ec
File Number
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
TUKWILA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
September 25, 1998
Dear Sir or Madam:
Your comments are invited at a City Council public hearing on the "Tukwila
Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan." This plan
implements the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan by:
♦ reducing the minimum land use permit review time by 4 -6 weeks,
♦ identifying capital improvement needs and potential public /private
responsibilities, and
♦ modifying development standards in support of the streamlined review process.
The Plan area is shown on the back of this notice.
Briefings on the Plan have been held over the past year. Please feel free to contact
Vernon Umetsu (431 -3684) for a copy of the plan or further information.
The public hearing will be held at:
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
On Monday,
October 5, 1998,
At 7:00 PM.
file:q : \micip \cncl \hrngntc. doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
z
F- W
0;
0 0
w.
W =
1_
00
g -J
wa
:i
1- w,
z`
1- a
z
W w,
UN
!0
w W
Vi.
LL.O
w z:;
U=
0
A2 Auto Repair and Body Shop
11180 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98188 -1943
Ace Electric Service
11234 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1945
AC/ Distribution
3225 S 116TH ST #133
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1972
Z
Q
106...
Affordable AutoBody Service American Transport, Inc. Annex Tavern CC Z W'
12539 E MARGINAL WY S 10835 PACIFIC HWY S 10325 E MARGINAL WAY S 2;
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2560 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1938 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1803 -J _
J Ci
UO
NW,
Annex Tavern Associated Grocers, Inc. AT &T Wireless Services N �"
10325 E MARGINAL WY S 10430 E MARGINAL WY S 3215 S 116TH ST #113 U1
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1803 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1887 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1973
.g Ji
U. <
15E-._...
Bailey Sales & Assoc., Inc. Baron Internat. Aviation,Inc Ben- Ko -Matic ?,''
12303 E MARGINAL WY S 3415 S 116TH ST #103 11022 E MARGINAL WY S H O
.
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2594 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1980 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1935 Z
ILI Z F'-W:
D,.
D '
C.) ,
;O -.
C11--.
Bernard Imports Best Cafe and Teriyaki Boeing Co. .W la
11020 E MARGINAL WY S 10990 E MARGINAL WY S 3417 S 120TH PL H U;
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1935 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1933 TUKWILA WA 98168 -3321 .- 0
W Z
U CO
_;
a '0 ~f
Boeing Co. Boeing Co. Boeing Co.
8701 E MARGINAL WY S 8620 E MARGINAL WY S 7755 E MARGINAL WY S
' TUKWILA WA 98108 -4681 TUKWILA WA 98108 -3319 TUKWILA WA 98108 -7605
Boeing Co..
9010 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4022
Burl.Northn & SantaFe Rwy Co
12400 51ST PL S
TUKWILA WA 98178 -3499
Boeing Co.
9725 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -3310
Cameron- Ashley Bldg Products
11022 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1935
Boeing Fld Chevron Mini.
10805 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1931
Carrier Corporation
3215 S 116TH ST #133
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1973
• a$ l��2.Cs so -red by Nast -For .af,A)c/J - 9-411-V
Checker Auto Sale Checker Towing Checker -M
• 10710 E MARGINAL WY S 10710 E MARGINAL WY S 11180 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1930 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1930 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1943
Circus Contractors Granite & Marble Credit Union of the Paci
12449 E MARGINAL WY S 12265 E MARGINAL WY S 10200 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2558 TUKWILA WA 98168 -2571 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1831
Custom Gear, Inc. Detroit Automated Systems
10834 E MARGINAL WY S 10847 E MARGINAL WY'S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1932 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1931
DRC International
3415 S 116TH ST #125
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1978
Eagle Systems, Inc.
12400 51ST PL S
TUKWILA WA 98178 -3436
Electrical Distributing, Inc
3414 S 116TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1978
Dupont MSA Industries
11521 E MARGINAL WY S #100
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1965
Eastern Elecric
10831 E MARGINAL WY .S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1931
Emerald Food Equipment Co.
3225 S 116TH ST #177
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1992
Diebold, Inc.
3415 S 116TH ST #113
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1972
E B Bradley Co., Mfg. Ac
3314 S 116TH ST #B
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1854
Edca Roofing, Inc.
11269 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1953
ENA Couriers, Inc.
9126 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4028
Enders & Associates Eurobest F & L Cafe
12123 E MARGINAL WY S 3315 S 116TH ST #109 12541 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2579 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1980 TUKWILA WA 98168 - 2560.
Gene Juarez Salons, Inc.
10828 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1952
:. :1:,111:!'i.�vd�::.:...e+..,.. s'M�c.1urL,::aJt.•:�LVi�:4::.
General Elec. /Aircraft Engns
3415 S 116TH ST #123
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1978
•,,,:;g4a1∎4.ilh v. >;+ c,:54:wet: k:r L•.:.'SiuLUtttiLSC:6 °,ms^
General Trailer Parts, L
11210 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1945
Golden Rule Brake Service
10300 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1804
Group Health Cooperative
12400 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2559
Hayward Baker, Inc.
11004 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1935
Inco Express, Inc.
3600.5 124TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2595
Integrated Freight Systems
3225 5 116TH ST #169
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1972
Jet Fuel Espresso
11234 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1945
Jorgensen Forge Co.
8531 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4018
Larry Norton Auto Repair
11180 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1943
Goodyear Trupk Tire Center
12115 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2579
H. D. Campbell Co.
12301 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2594
Hillside Apts.
12437 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2500
Industrial Caster & Wheel Co
3315 S 116TH ST #121
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1980
Janitorial Supplies Corp.
10848 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1990
Jet Set Northwest, Inc.
9120 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4028
Kenworth Truck Company
8801 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4045
Larson Juhl, Inc.
3425 S 116TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1977
Goodyear Wholesale Tire
12125 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2579
Hall Truck Center
11222 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1996
Holiday Inn
11244 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1999
Innova Corporation
3325 S 116TH ST #161
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1974
JAS Forwarding "USA"
11521 E MARGINAL WY S #1
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1965
Joe's Auto Service, Inc.
10230 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1845
King County Metro
12100 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2580
M. C. Lile Company, Inc.
3224 S 116TH ST #109
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1972
. .w :tSl'i`•r.rr.'.�J:s: I.:cfiutr' M..,. ....L.:,,. :.,;n.,u�- :s:.w...w a....,.,]d.,.wa.,,,,._., �;sii::AC,v:l.e:nsta ,, ...n.. y,..,.n.• ua,.vn...e.,...,. - =: ::t;.0 - •
UJ
Wes;
:0 0.
U �,
N lL.
•
W O'
J:
U ni
•
•
S C'J
O,
Z
iO WF.
•� H
W w.
• .~ -,
_Z.
w N; •
Mac's Smokehouse South
10315 E MARGINAL WY S,
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1803
\
Mann One Electric, Inc.
12123 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2579
McGregor Hardware Dist I
3225 S 116TH ST #169
TUKWILA WA 98188 -1972
ZQ
Metro Transit Fac. Maint !
MEDIQ /PRN Life Support Svcs. Medusa Marble & Granite W
~ Z'
3425 S 116TH ST #101 12265 E MARGINAL WY S 11911 E MARGINAL WY S 4 2i
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1985 TUKWILA WA 98168 -2571 TUKWILA WA 98168 -2597 W °
J
0 0
N O
i'CO W,
W =:
J 1-;
MSAS Cargo International Museum of Flight Newcastle Ltd. N LL;
3415 S 116TH ST #109 9404 E MARGINAL WY S 3225 S 116TH ST #181 W Oi
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1972 TUKWILA WA 98108 -4097 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1972 2 _`'
. ¢ J.
u_ a:
co a
=W
Nicewonger Co., Inc. Non Stop Bar & Grill Northwest Container Svcs 2:11: -
10825 E MARGINAL WY S 12606 PACIFIC HWY S 9229 E MARGINAL WY S I-- 0,
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1931 TUKWILA WA 98168 -2551 TUKWILA WA 98108 -4031 2!I--
W W?
2 Ds
Ua
NW Systems Installation,Inc. OB Leasing Co. W W.
10838 E MARGINAL WY S 12400 51ST PL S 3:(.)
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1990 TUKWILA WA 98178 -3499 LL �`.
uj Z
,V co
O
OCS Northwest LLC /OCS Sea. Odwalla One Ten Auto
11004 E MARGINAL WY S 3215 S 116TH ST #121 11180 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1935 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1973 TUKWILA WA 98168 -1943
NW Auto & Truck Wrecking,Inc
10230 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1845
OPAS Corporation
3325 S 116TH ST #109
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1974
Pacific Crest Brewing C
10845 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1931
Overnite Transportation Co.
11231 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1953
Paco Pumps, Inc.
3215 S 116TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1973
Pac Auto Sales, Inc..
12471 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2567
Paramount Supply, Inc.
. 10832 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1932
•
Parrots Plus
11020 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1935
Professional Services, Inc.
9134 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4028
Rainier Industrial & Supply
9026 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4026
Rilu, Inc. /Randys Restaurant
10016 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1802
SeaPac Truck. Lines
10430 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98118 -3763
Seattle Police Athletic Assc
11030 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1989
Star Lock & Key
10230 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1845
System Seven Repair, Inc.
10831 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1938
Parsec, Inc.,
12400 51ST PL S
TUKWILA WA 98178 -3499
Puget Sd Mobile Trailer Rpr.
12121 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2579
Rainier Tire
12525 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA.98168 -2560
Roof Doctors
11269 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1953
Seattle Farwest Service Corp
11180 E MARGINAL WY S #200
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1943
Secret Garden Statuary Ctr.
11061 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1941
Steve's Auto Shop
11180 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1943
TEC of Seattle
11017 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1941
PHI Wiring Systems
3225 S 116TH ST #117
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1972
i-Z;
Puget Sound Tire
11011 PACIFIC HWY S >;
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1941 J U:
UO
.W=
J •
• N LLt
Rentway Truck Leasing, I W O.
11222 E MARGINAL WY S • 2 t'
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1996 J'
• =d�
U.I.
Sea -Tac Ford Truck Sales Z ~'
11000 PACIFIC HWY S Z.� .
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1998 W W
Cy
;O N`
'Seattle Jaycees. Bingo 2 o
11030 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA•WA 98168 -1935. -
•U—.
Six Robblee's, Inc.
11010 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1942
Suburban Propane L.P.
10655 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1936
Tradeshow Convent. Svcs,
11621 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1965
Z
Tri Mac Transportation
11001 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1935
TTX Company
12400 51ST PL S
TUKWILA WA 98178 -3436
Triad Machinery, Inc.
11210 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1945
Tukwila Glass & Contracting
11245 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1953
Truck' Trailer Sales
12119 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2579
Valley Truck & Equipment
12421 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2567
Wash. St. Dept. of Trans.
8900 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -3830
Wells Trucking /Leasing
10655 PACIFIC HWY.S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1936
EVAN LEWIS
US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS
4735 E MARGINAL WAY S
SEATTLE WA 98124 -2255
ANN KENNY, SHORELANDS DIV
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
3190 160th AVE SE
BELLEVUE WA 98008 -5452
DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 48300
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -8300
KC DEPT OF DEV /ENVIR SVCS
SEPA INFORMATION CENTER
900 OAKSDALE AVE SW
RENTON WA 98055 -1219
PORT OF SEATTLE
PO BOX 1209
SEATTLE WA 98111
STEVE HAGEN
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808
SEATTLE WA 98104-5031
CITY OF RENTON
•PLANNING DEPARTMENT
200 MILL AVE S
RENTON WA 98055
GEO E LINA
TUKW PLNG COMMISSION
1561 7th AVE S
T 'VILA WA 98188
G' SS
TUKWI PLNG COMMISSION
1631- 5th PL S
T ILA WA 98188
0K
PAM ART
TUKWI•; CITY COUNCIL
4115 = 39th ST
T LA WA 98168
PHIL SCHNEIDER
DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
22516 SE 64th PL STE 230
ISSAQUAH WA 98027
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIR. PROG. MGR.
15700 DAYTON AVE N MS -138
SEATTLE WA 98133
DEPT OF FISHERIES /WLDLIFE
16018 MILL CREEK BLVD
MILL CREEK WA 98012
K C TRANSIT DIVISION
SEPA OFFICIAL
821 SECOND AVE, MS -122
SEATTLE WA 98104
TUKWILA LIBRARY
14475 59th AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168
CHUCK PETERSON
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808
SEATTLE WA 98104 -5031
CITY OF SEATAC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
17900 INTERNAT'L BL #401
SEATAC WA 98188 -4236
VERN ' RY
TUKWILA NG COMMISSION
4431 S '8th ST
TUKW A 98168
DAVID
TUKWILA
13212
TUKW A
i
IV
ORE
LNG COMMISSION
AVE S
W 98168
1F0iNC
JOE ►`UFF• E
TUKWI CITY COUNCIL
5332 40th ST
T LA A 98168
SEPA ENVIRON REVIEW
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
PO BOX 47703
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -7703
MARY BARRETT
DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PO BOX 68
ENUMCLAW WA 98022 -0068
DCTED
GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PERF
PO BOX 48300
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -8300
RUTH HARVEY
KC WATER & LAND
700 5th AVE #2200
SEATTLE WA 98104
FOSTER LIBRARY
4205 S 142nd ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
220 FOURTH AVE S
KENT WA 98032
KAT
TUKW
132
T ILA
HENR
TUKWI
5327
TETSON
PLNG COMMISSION
th AVE S
WA 98168
T
JIM
TUKWI
15820
T
IN
LNG COMMISSION
0th ST
WA 98188
go lc
GGE ' ON
ITY COUNCIL
rd AVE S
A 98188
Fox
ALL • EK = RG
TUKWIL CITY COUNCIL
4920 ••1st ST
T LA 98188
Z
re 2
6
J U'
U 0'
U 0'
U)w:
W ='
W • 00}:.
g J'
LL Q.
co d.
H =.
Z�
H O;
Z F-;
D.
U0
fn;
O H
W
u.
— • O,
.Z.
O 1t
z
JOAN
TUKWI
15224
T
EZ
CITY COUNCIL
OOD BLVD
A 98188
Nancy Ousley
Seattle :Office of Mgmt/Plng
600 4th Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104 -1826
STEVE " UZMA
B.N.S.F. RAILWA
999 THIRD •V
SEATTLE WA 98104
ELIZABETH WARMAN
BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES
PO BOX 3707, MS 14 -49
SEATTLE WA 98124 -2207
LEE LINNE
JORGENSEN FORGE
8531 EAST MARGINAL WY S
SEATTLE WA 98108
RUSS SEGNER
KIDDER MATTHEWS & SEGNER
12886 INTERURBAN AV S
TUKWILA WA 98168
LAURA WHITAKER
PERKINS COIE
1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR
SEATTLE WA 98101 -3099
U.S. E.P.A.
1200 6th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98101
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
LEGISLATIVE BUILDING
OLYMPIA WA 98504
SEPA OFFICIAL
K C WATER POLL. CONTROL
821 SECOND AVE MS -120
SEATTLE WA 98104
•
i. •
P• A
TUKW
1191
T
CITY COUNCIL
NTERURBAN PL S
WA 98168
CITY OF SEATTLE
SEPA INFO CENTER
720 SECOND AVE STE 200
SEATTLE WA 98104
STEVE LAWRENCE
FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB
4251 S 139th ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
JOHN CRULL
BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES
PO BOX 3707, MS 2R -71
SEATTLE WA 98124 -2207
RAY GOODING
ASSOCIATED GROCERS
PO BOX 3763
SEATTLE WA 98124
BOB HART
SGA CORPORATION
6414 204th ST SW STE 200
LYNNWOOD WA 98036
ERIC LASCHEVER
PRESTON, GATES & ELL-IS
701 5th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN.
711 S CAPITOL WY #501
OLYMPIA WA 98501
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GEN
PO BOX 40117
OLYMPIA WA 98504
K C EALTH DEPT
506 2 d AVE #201
SEATTL WA 98104
'FOX
STE ° MU T
TUKW L• CITY COUNCIL
3303 = 132nd ST
T 'ILA WA 98168
RODERICK MALCOM
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
39015 172nd AVE SE
AUBURN WA 98002
DANIEL ARAGON
DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB
4504 S 124th ST
TUKWILA WA 98178
PHIL GLADFELTER
PACCAR
PO BOX 1518
BELLEVUE WA 98009
DAVID McDONALD
ASSOCIATED GROCERS
PO BOX 3763
SEATTLE WA 98124
MA T WOOD
CUS & WAKEFIELD
700 h AVE - STE 2700
SEATTL WA 98104
RICHARD McCANN
PERKINS COIE
1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR
SEATTLE WA 98101 -3099
.OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
111 W 21st AV MS KL -11
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -5411
K C PLNG & COMM DEVEL
900 OAKSDALE AV SW
RENTON WA 98055 -1219
P.S. REGIONAL COUNCIL
1011 WESTERN AVE #500
SEATTLE WA 98104
Z
Z;
mow:
U O`
CO
cow;
=.
J H;
LL
W O
J'.
LL Q;
0:
=d
I- _
Z�
I- 0'
Z
p
0 H'
W W'
�U
LL
lil Z;
O ~'
Z
•
P.S.A.P.C.
110 UNION ST #500
SEATTLE WA 98101
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
SHORELINE PERMIT REVIEW
3190 160TH AVE SE
BELLEVUE, WA 98008 -5452
4T.-°u Pap r2l r? A(
KENT LIBRARY
212 2nd AVE N
KENT WA 98032
SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY
1000 4th AV - 2nd FLR
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1193
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
PO BOX 1869
SEATTLE WA 98111
OLYMPIC PIPELINE
PO BOX 1800
RENTON WA 98057
WATER DISTRICT #20
12606 1st AVE S
SEATTLE WA 98168
SEA \'�7 TIMES
LEG. OTICES
PO - /•X .0
S TTLE 98111
IVAR JONES
DELTA MARINE
1608 S 96th ST
SEATTLE WA 98108
Gary C. Taller
Boeing Defense & Space Group
P.O. Box 3707, MS 46 -87
Seattle, WA, 98124 -2207
SW KC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
16400 SOUTHCENTER PY #210 140 RAINIER AV S STE 7
TUKWILA WA 98188 RENTON WA 98055 -2000
S CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST
4640 S 144th ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
SEATTLE LIBRARY
1000 4th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1193
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
815 4th N
SEATTLE WA 98109
SEATTLE WATER DEPT
710 2nd AV - 10th FLR
SEATTLE WA 98104
RENTON LIBRARY
100 MILL ST
RENTON WA 98055
KING COUNTY LIBRARY
300 8th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98109
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
7235 S 228th
KENT WA 98032
TCI CABLEVISION
15241 PACIFIC HY S
SEATTLE WA 98188
PUGET SOUND POWER Se LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
22828 68th AV S - #102 PO BOX 68063
KENT WA 98032 -1834 SEATTLE WA 98168
WATER DISTRICT #125
PO BOX 68147
SEATTLE WA 98168
IKE NWANKWO
DCTED, GROWTH MGMNT DIV
PO BOX 48300
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -8300
CLARE IMPETT
K.C. INT'L AIRPORT
PO BOX 80245
SEATTLE WA 98108
Margaret Duncan
P.O. Box 498
Suquamish, WA 98392 -0498
CITY OF RENTON
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
200 MILL AV S
RENTON WA 98055
DUWAMISH COALITION
c/o R.C. O.B.S.P
516 3rd AVE - RM 420
SEATTLE WA 98104
RICHARD ANDERSON
SEAFIRST R.E. INVESTMNT
PO BOX 34029
SEATTLE WA 98124
Ikuno Masterson
Office of Budget & Strategic
Planning
516 Third Av, Rm 420
Seattle, WA 98104
•
ELSIE CROSSMAN
SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMT /PLNG
600 4th AVENUE, SUITE 300
SEATTLE, WA 98104 -1826
JANET THOMPSON
WA. STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
3190 160th AV SE
BELLEVUE, WA 98008 -5452
ROGER WAGONER
BERRYMAN & HENIGAR
1215 4th AV, SUITE 1400
SEATTLE, WA 98161
ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES
5309 SHILSHOE AV NW, ST 200
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: LLOYD SKINNER
GARY HARSHMAN
URSG
2401 4th AV, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WA 98121
LORIE PARKER
CH2M HILL
777 108th AV NE
BELLEVUE, WA 98004 -5114
JANICE TAYLOR
SECRET GARDEN STATUARY
11061 PACIFIC HIGHWAYS
TUKWILA WA 98168
......r_...�_ti�. ��_M1; ;.:'S: ..w ray.. .\z::'�uc.���'•i: %Y'�:,i'' rC.'::.i:':c.
PORT OF SEATTLE, MARINE
DIV
PO BOX 1209
SEATTLE WA 98111
ROACH JOHN S
3720 80TH SE
MERCER ISLAND WA 98040
ROMERO DAVID R
3806 S 116TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1948
SABEY CORPORATION
PO BOX 9847
SEATTLE WA 98109
SEA TAC FORD TRUCK SALES
PO BOX 68848
SEATTLE WA 98168
THOMPSON EARL D III
1321 A NORTH ST
OLYMPIA WA 98501
THORPE PROPERTIES
PO BOX 38
KENT WA 98035
TRUST COMP OF WA, ATTN M
VRANIZAN
10900 NE 4TH ST #825
BELLEVUE WA 98004
VICTOR ENTERPRISES LLC
3600 S 124TH ST
1 TUKWILA WA 98168
WOOD MEADOWS LLC, C/0
QUADRANT/KMS MGMT
12886 INTERURBAN AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3318
RHONE - POULENC INC
9229 E MARGINAL WAY S
TUKWILA WA 98108 -4031
ROBBLEE INVEST CO, ATTN R
METCALF
PO BOX 3703
SEATTLE WA 98124
ROSATTO RAY J
10818 DES MOINES WAY S
SEATTLE WA 98168
SCHUEHLE EVELYN J
16412 6TH SW
SEATTLE WA 98166
STERNCO LAND CO,
FULKERSON S
8512 172ND AVE NE
REDMOND WA 98052
THOMSON PETER M
PO BOX 88251
SEATTLE WA 98138
TOM RUSS, C/0 DOWNTOWN
HARLEY
6727 M L KING JR WY S
SEATTLE WA 98118
TUKWILA ROCK PILE, C/0 M
SMITH INC
11091ST AVE #500
SEATTLE WA 98101 -2988
WELCH JOHN T
12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2567
RIVERTON CONTRACTORS
INC
12218 51ST PL S
TUKWILA WA 98178
ROBINSON R & R, ANNEX
TAVERN
10325 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1803
RUSSELL CURT
4108 41ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA 98118
SEA POLICE ATHLETIC ASSN I
11030 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168
SUBURBAN PROPANE
12642 INTERURBAN AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168
THOMSON PETER M
PO BOX 88251
SEATTLE WA 98138
TORGHELE MAGDA, C/0
CAROSINO T
11245 E MARGINAL WY 5
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1953
UNION PAC RR CO,
PROPERTY TAX - 10TH FLR S
1700 FARNAM ST
OMAHA NE 68102 -2010
WERRAN STANLEY -TRUST
12048 10TH AVE S
SEATTLE WA 98168
i-z-
re
w
6
J U:
U0:
CO co 0
=`
N LL.
w0
LL Q'
0.
F. w
Z
0'
z�
w w
D
Do
o
W W
Z
w c`
U =;
z
HAAPLA & HAAPLA
10230 E MARGINAL WAY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1898
HIGHLINE COMM COLLEGE
FUND, C/O ZARAN SAYRE &
ASSOC
30504 PACIFIC HWY S
FEDERAL WAY WA 98003
HOLIDAY INN
11244 PACIFIC HWY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1945
KENWORTH MOTOR CORP
8801 E MARGINAL WAY
TUKWILA WA 98168
LARSON ROB
5011 S 138TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -4701
LOFTUS THOMAS J
4918 S 122ND ST
TUKWILA WA 98178 -6444
MCCONKEY DEVELOPMENT
CO
3006 NORTHUP WAY STE 101
BELLEVUE WA 98004
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN
TRIBE
39015 172ND AVE SE
AUBURN WA 98092
NICEWONGER PAUL
E +PAMELA $
901 W EVERGREEN
VANCOUVER WA 98660
OLSON LOUIS C & KATHLEEN
4904 S 122ND ST
TUKWILA .WA 98178 -3444
HALL TRUCK CENTER
PO BOX 69350
SEATTLE WA 98168 -9350
HITCHCOCK DOUGLAS R
15307 SE 43RD PL
BELLEVUE WA 98006
HOPPER L W
5105 S 136TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -4729
KING COUNTY, REAL PROP
DIV
500 K C ADMIN BLDG
SEATTLE WA 98104
LEGASPI ED & MARION
13672 51ST AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -4704
LOISELLE ROY
PO BOX 412
FALLS CITY OR 97344
MEDICA MARIA
3014 28TH AVE W
SEATTLE WA 98199
MUSEUM OF FLIGHT
FOUNDATION
9404 E MARGINAL WAY S,
07024 -00
SEATTLE WA 98108
NORTHWEST AUTO
WRECKING CO
10230 E MARGINAL WAY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1898
OVERNIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
1000 SEMMES
RICHMOND VA 23288
HELMS KEITH
2400 PERKINS LN W
SEATTLE WA 98199
HIXSON KAREN
132 SW 166TH PL
SEATTLE WA 98166
JORGENSEN FORGE CORP
8531 E MARGINAL WAY S
SEATTLE WA 98108
KING COUNTY PARKS
3005 NE 4TH
RENTON WA 98056
LELAND DONALD
7112 8TH NE
SEATTLE WA 98115
LOONEY WILLIAM A
PO BOX 66098
SEATTLE WA 98166
METRO, 5432 - D50304 -TX
821 2ND AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1598
NAKKERUD LIVING TRUST,
C/O STRATTON E
17060 21ST AVE SW
SEATTLE WA 98166
N.W. TRUST & INVEST, ATT
JIM MCGOVERN/ DESIMONE
1201 THIRD AVE 20TH FLR
SEATTLE WA 98101
PEASE VIRGINIA
PO BOX 88755
TUKWILA WA 98138 -2755
z
1
�w •
• JU
UO
N
•W=
w 0' •
J
u. a;
w;
'Z=
F-0.
. z �.
oD'.
;o Fi
W;
z
-:
w •
Z'
• U ='
.'o
Z.
ACE ELECTRIC SERVICE
PO BOX 15390
SEATTLE WA 98115 -0390
BAILEY & LAUGHLIN
PROPERTIES
12303 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168
BOATMENS TRUST CO
PO BOX 14633
ST LOUIS MO 63178
BUTY F /BURTON M
1101 ARROYO BEACH PL SW
SEATTLE WA 98146
CHATHAM COMPANY LLC
11621 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1964
DESIMONE KATHERINE M
PO BOX 9847
SEATTLE WA 98119
EASTERN ELECTRIC
APPARATUS
10831 E MARGINAL WY S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -1932
ESTATE OF FRIEDA
BERNHARDT
12527 35TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2505
GENERAL TRAILER CO
PO BOX G
SPRINGFIELD OR 97477
GULLA JUAN F
11662 44TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98178 -3403
ALPHA 4 LLC
PO BOX 60051
SHORELINE WA 98160
BEAHM JOHN
238 NW 49TH ST
SEATTLE WA 98107 -3417
BOULEVARD EXCAVATING
INC
PO BOX 66B
PACIFIC WA 98047
CAPELOUTO ISAAC S
5509 S BRANDON
SEATTLE WA 98118
CODIGA JAMES A
12529 50TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98178 -3431
DIAMOND PARKING INC
3161 ELLIOTT AVE
SEATTLE WA 98121
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTING
INC
3414 S 116TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
FREEMONT ASSOCIATES
700 N 36TH ST
SEATTLE WA 98103
GIPSON JAMES E
13612 117TH AVE NE
KIRKLAND WA 98034
GUSTAFSON THEODORE E
16822 SE 136TH ST
RENTON WA 98059
ARAGON DANIEL C
4610 S 124TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98178 -3448
BERNHARDT R
3418 S 126TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168 -2536
BURKE ROBERT M
7924 S 202ND ST
KENT WA 98032
CARROSSINO PROPERTIES
LLC
25647 MARINE VIEW DR S
DES MOINES WA 98198
COOK CHRISTOPHER & MARI
25006 SE 184TH ST
MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038
E B BRADLEY CO
3314 S 116TH ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
ELIAS JAMES A
4209 LAKERIDGE DR E
SUMNER WA 98390
GATEWAY NORTH PROP LLC
BLDG 5 & 6
12720 GATEWAY DR #105
TUKWILA WA 98168 -3333
GRP HEALTH COOP, ATTN B.
MCCRAY
521 WALL ST
SEATTLE WA 98121
H &M ASSOC III ,C /0G &M
INVESTMENTS,
510 RAINIER AV S
SEATTLE WA 98144
z
_I-
~w'
rQQ 2;
JU,
1)0:
w O
cow:
w =;
.w 0`
•0a'
•z
.2
:0 -:.
w w,
:Luz,
•0
0.
:z
\IILA,i.l t
Jht .. 9dy 111
G7
J
v„, /906
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No. /
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE TUKWILA
MANUFACTURING /INDUSTRIAL CENTER STRATEGIC
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN;
ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS; AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF
TITLES 16, 18, AND 21; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center is one of four Manufacturing Industrial
Centers designated in the King County Comprehensive Planning Policies, pursuant to the State Growth
Management Act; and
WHEREAS, City staff developed a Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implemen-
tation Plan and implementing regulations as directed in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, extensive opportunities for public participation in developing the plan and its regula-
tions were made available; and
WHEREAS, an environmental impact statement on the plan and regulations was circulated for
public review and finalized after public comment; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impact statement on the plan and regulations evaluated the impacts
of certain "planned actions" per WAC 194 -11 -164 and 168, and found no significant adverse impacts per
WAC 197 -11 -172; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development
for review per State statute with the State's comments being presented at the City Council public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on the plan and
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all comments and materials during its deliberations
including the Environmental Impact Statement and the Planning Commission recommendation, and made
revisions as a result of further staff analysis and public input; and
WHEREAS, the plan area boundary and its associated provisions have been limited to areas within
the City of Tukwila in order to address concerns raised by the City of Seattle and King County
administrations; and
WHEREAS, the City will monitor MIC development and performance of this plan through regional
Growth Management Act Benchmarks Program currently administered by the Puget Sound Regional
Council;
MICPLAN.DOC 10/29/98
1
NOW, THEREFORE, T)'✓:.: CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF i OKWILA, WASHINGTON,
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The analyses and conclusions in the "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Strategic Implementation Plan," the associated environmental impact statement, and the staff
responses to comments on the plan and draft environmental impact statement are supported. These
documents are incorporated herein as if fully stated and are on file at the Tukwila Department of
Community Development.
Section 2. Adoption of Plan. The "Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Imple-
mentation Plan" is incorporated herein as if fully stated and adopted as a subarea plan of the "City of
Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan" pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. Implementing
regulations within the plan are adopted by this ordinance.
Section 3. Ordinance No. 1758, as codified at TMC 18.38.020, is amended to allow a new class of
permitted use in the MIC /H zone as follows:
"Manufacturing, processing and /or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products, such as
cosmetics and drugs ".
Section 4. A new TMC section 18.50.100, MIC /L and MIC /H Site Lighting Standards, is hereby
created as follows:
18.50.100 MIC /L and MIC /H Site Lighting Standards. z
zI-• :
►-z:
A. The following site lighting standards shall apply to portions of developments within 100 feet of re w
the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center boundary as defined in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan: -I 0
U O.
O 0
1. the minimum light levels in parking areas, paths between the building and street or parking ' w ='
areas shall be 1 ft. /candle; N f-
u.
w 0'
2. the maximum ratio of average:minimum light level shall be 4:1 for illuminated grounds; 2 .
Y u-
3. maximum illumination at the property line shall be 2 ft. /candles; CO d
=w
E- _
4. lights shall be shielded to eliminate direct off -site illumination; and z
W I- o
z E-
5. general grounds need not be lighted. 2 D
U
0'.
N
B. Variation from these standards may be granted by the Director of the Department of o 1
Community Development based on technical unfeasibility or safety considerations. = Wo
U.
Section 5. A new TMC section 18.50.110, MIC /L and MIC /H Zone Archaeological /Paleon- o
z
tological Information Preservation Requirements, is hereby created as follows: D-
0 I.
0
18.50.110 MIC /L and MIC /H Zone Archaeological /Paleontological Information Preservation z _
Requirements.
The following provisions shall apply in the MIC /L and MIC /H zones:
1. If there is reason to believe that archaeological resources will be disturbed, a cultural
resources assessment shall be conducted and, if warranted, an archaeological response plan and provisions
for excavation monitoring by a professional archaeologist shall be made prior to beginning construction.
The assessment should address the existence and significance of archaeological remains, buildings and
structures on the State or Federal historic registers, observable paleontological deposits and may include
review by the State Archaeologist.
2. It is recommended that the applicant coordinate a predetermination study by a professional
archaeologist during the geotechnical investigation phase, to determine site archaeological potential and
the likelihood of disturbing archaeological resources.
3. Excavations into historically native soil, when in an area of archaeological potential, shall
have a professional archaeologist on site to ensure that all State statutes regarding archaeological
conservation /preservation are implemented. The applicant shall provide a written commitment to stop
work immediately upon discovery of archaeological remains and to consult with the State Office of
MICPLAN.DOC 10/29/98
2
al
.
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) to assess the remains and develop appropriate treatment
measures. These may include refilling the excavation with no further responsibility.
4. An applicant who encounters Indian burials shall not disturb them and shall consult with
OAHP and affected tribal organizations pursuant to State statutes.
5. The Director is authorized to:
a. conduct studies to generally identify areas of archaeological /paleontological potential;
b. make determinations to implement these provisions; and
c. waive any and all the above requirements, except for subsection "4" (reporting of
discovered Indian burials), if the proposed action will have no probable significant impact on
archaeological or historical resources that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,
or on observable paleontological resources. Examples of such actions include excavation of fill materials,
disturbance of less than 10,000 s.f. of native soils to a depth of 12 inches, penetration of native soils with
pilings over a maximum 8% of the building footprint, and paving over native soils in a manner which does
not damage cultural resources. The above examples are illustrative and not determinative. A case -by -case
evaluation of archaeological /paleontological potential value and proposed disturbance must be made.
Section 6. A new TMC Section 21.04.152, Planned Actions Identified, is hereby created as follows:
21.04.152 Planned Actions Identified.
Planned actions are specifically identified as developments which satisfy all of the following charac-
teristics:
1. is a "permitted use" located within the MIC /L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC /H (TMC
18.38.020) zones and /or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively) ( "conditional"
and "unclassified" uses are not planned actions); and
2. satisfies the consistency checklist which demonstrates that all impacts have been mitigated;
and
3. is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan per RCW 43.21 0.031(2); and
4. is not any of the following:
a. an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200, per RCW 43.210.031(2);
b. an action which is not consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as adopted
per RCW 36.70A (consistency required per RCW 43.210.031(2));
c. a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC /L or MIC /H zones;
d. a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or commuter rail
system;
e. any decisions about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would
normally require a SEPA threshold determination; or
f. a development in which any portion includes shoreline modifications waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
Section 7. A new TMC section 21.04.154, Consistency Check, is hereby created as follows:
21.04.154 Consistency Check.
A. Having identified the developments which are a potential "planned action ", the development
must demonstrate that it has mitigated all of its impacts pursuant to the environmental impact statement
and planned action ordinance, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (RCW 43.210.030(2).
MICPLAN.DOC 10/29/98 3
z
�z
U0•
co at
J
CO u_
w 0:
g
LL =;
W0
I- w,
z�`
I- 0;
Z
�—
U�
o
ww
O.
wz
N;
0 1— •
z
•
.1442'N 4141
B. A consistency checklist will be provided by the Director of the Department of Community
Development. The criteria for Comprehensive Plan consistency are as presented in the "Integrated GMA
Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center."
Section 8. A new TMC section 21.04.156, Designating a Development as a Planned Action, is
hereby created as follows:
21.04.156 Designating a Development as a Planned Action.
A. The Director of the Department of Community Development shall be authorized to designate a
specific development proposal which is eligible to be a planned action, has mitigated all of its significant
adverse impacts, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as a planned action.
B. This designation shall be final, with no administrative appeals.
Section 9. A new TMC section 21.04.158, Planned Action Development Review Process, is hereby
created as follows:
21.04.158 Planned Action Development Review Process.
Designation of a planned action would relieve the application from any SEPA review including a
threshold determination, any final threshold determination, public notice of SEPA action, and any admin-
istrative appeals. A notice of complete application would NOT be sent for Type 1 applications which
choose the planned action option.
Section 10. Incorporation of MIC /L and MIC /H Zone Driveway Design and Bus Pullout
Requirements. The Public Works Director shall incorporate the "MIC /L and MIC /H Zone Driveway
Design and Bus Pullout Requirements," as presented in the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan (pages 28 and 29), into the City of Tukwila Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards as adopted in Ordinance 1783 and codified at TMC 16.36.
Section 11. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for
any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality o€ the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other
person or situation.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official
newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and
publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI CITY OF. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular
Meeting thereof this c Ng day of "j" lvu(' - LAc/ , 1998.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
fa e E. Cantu, City Clerk
APPROVED
.• FOR
By
Office of the City orney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: /o�.� /9 f
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: /// /f
PUBLISHED: / //( /f
EFFECTIVE DATE: //
ORDINANCE NO.: /7.5_7
w go-frt
Joh ' . Rants, Mayor
MICPLAN.DOC 10/29/98 4
,irk(,, City of Tukwila
of lr �_� -��"
Q : .,.li ..i . o
,"cs� ':t ��;�, r:'2 ; 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
7908 -=
•
MEMORANDUM
John W. Rants, Mayor
z
To: Tukwila City Council Members w
From: Mayor Rants o p
co o:.
Date: September 23, 1998
CO a_
RE: L96 -0071 -- Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan 2
as Modified and Recommended for Adoption by the Tukwila Planning Commission.
PLAN DESCRIPTION
g <.
D. a
- Lu
z�.
The "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan" carries out z 1`
Comprehensive Plan policies to responsibly facilitate industrial area improvement. It builds g n ui
upon pervious planning work to: D 0)
• better identify, coordinate and implement the MIC development, o
• identify and provide for MIC infrastructure needs, and = w`
♦ adopt a new State permit streamlining process which reduces the minimum review time by
LI
four to six weeks for land use permits. U Z
Plan review by the City Council was delayed in deference to requests by the City of Seattle and o
King County to resolve their concerns. These discussions have resulted in a staff Z
recommendation to exclude the potential annexation area from this plan (see attached map). No
other changes to the proposed plan are recommended at this time.
Please note that the updated MIC shoreline plan materials have been extracted per earlier
agreements with the City Council and Planning Commission. They will be reviewed as a
component of the City -wide shoreline master plan update.
PLAN REVIEW BACKGROUND
This Plan has had on -going coordination with both the City Council and Planning Commission.
Currently, the Planning Commission has recommended Plan approval as amended, and the
Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) has forwarded it for Council review. Plan
coordination and review has been summarized on the following page. •
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
• City of Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Cr w:-r Implementation Plan
September 16, 1998
Date... •
•
Page 2
5/19/97
• 3/12/98
3/26/98
6/22/98
The City Council and Planning Commission endorse the purpose and structure of a
Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center implementation plan. This includes
reviewing all revisions of the MIC Shoreline Master Plan at a later date, in
conjunction with the City-wide Shoreline Master Plan update.
The draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
is issued and widely distributed to the Planning Commission, City Council and
parties of record.
The Planning Commission is briefed on the draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Strategic Implementation Plan (11/12/97). Copies of the draft Plan are also
sent to the City Council.
A public hearing is held at which the City of Seattle and the Boeing Aircraft
Company orally summarize written testimony (Attachment B).
The Planning Commission reviews and endorses the Planning Division responses to
the public hearing comments, deliberates the proposed Plan provisions, and directs
revisions to be made. (Attachments C and D)
Final Planning Commission review. Minor modifications are directed to be made
and the revised document is recommended to the City Council for approval.
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) is briefed on MIC Plan's
objectives and a recommended review process. The CAP endorses the
recommended review process (presented below).
RECOMMENDED REVIEW PROCESS
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee and staff, recommend that City Council review be
structured in a manner similar to the Planning Commission's process:
Sept. 28, 1998: Briefing and workshop
Oct. 5, 1998: Public Hearing and subsequent deliberations to modify the Plan
Meeting 3: Adopt the Plan if there are not significant changes.
This is a legislative review. Please feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu (206- 431 -3684) or myself
if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan (April 10, 1998)
B. Public Hearing Comments and Staff Responses
C. Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
D. Revisions to the Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan of
11/12/98 file: q \micip \cncl\intromem.doc
z
�z
•
0O •
N 0:.
to tit
to
W LL,
wO
ga •
n.
za •
I— la
Z �.
1— o
Z1-.
•U0;
• 0-.,
=w:
1-. U
u. o
Li; z;
c/Y
O
z
.. 1 L.
s. ...., ."'...."-•-•••ssosIs.s.:i .... .:... . ...'•;•,........:••••••••• 11,
-•,,••■.--....•-• ...__...• ) .... -•-,. •-•.:,., ....? . i .1 .:5- i
4. .,i,. • s ---r•-\
.....---.. • •••,., . ....:- . p:
......e .,....._.
AN:Ng )4A - .* %‘... el •• -'--..s;,:-..JL' --xr =,.1—:-...-7---1-.,
... . . ...
A rteA -re....re-1 4 \ .v,....... ........ •-,\.....3....1..........,...Rt • N;....... .......... i
va..., ,:..1...i..7:11 .. .....i
..., ‘ .1i4....., 4 e k 1
..:**".; i :V: . . ic etlins2.! ‘....r.. .. t r.. , • • T
.. In . :Aar: • ,
.
..., ' Road '....‘ ‘, 1 i 1
0. ‘ )....S :1;1
" • ^:. e
1 ...`"
erCLUT) '•• •••••:;'
i ■ • •N
L1104C041.
UG COVITY .. t ••••
tr. • . ....• .................. ...... .
r • 1•••••••••,•, • ••%,•.•■.,
, •
A X ••• ...... ..................
•,
— •I•sl .‘ .7 I ".•*:.%IeL N
AL • 'Hwy 599 ittNN
• \ . \ -1 • 11. \ • :\•‘' .‘•
f-- \ ▪ ............
. t..
• '11
t ..7...7:•••%0•••••• ••••••: *'• • ••■• I
1 •••1 ....... ..... %
• •• NA 4 11.
„L
• ....
•
N.„ •
••,., •s.
1 1 I .
i iI• 12601 _y?
• • .•
gt.
la* re %MIL.
•
71:111:::‘:17‘• C." •
1 1 r".1. )1\ `;‘,\
I X
,•••••••• S • •• •41. •••••••• l ••■••••• •••%••”•■••••••.1 ••.\
(
, ..; ••• •I `.
OTT OF SEATTLE
7-•••
Figure 1
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Location Map
:-N. *".!1•
\
••
'1. .e• ".k. *". CITY OF SEATTLE
•. • \
i• a ry twits
• .14S1111:1//// 11Erlia.-....-.....-. ,..9
• •••
I ••
: •\ A. \ At .t'1). • ' • .....
" r • '.' • \
•1.: :-N
A .*
•.!• 7. i •:•.• •N2' N \ %4.‘ -..,
. •.---1 \\. \
"N V .
4 • • L • :d2i..,:•\`10 \ . ••>.
•
• ...1 .1: N<k . •\. , ...... L...1.:, ,:..,
1.Fren«,..emtn ....... .. ts,
q .'• • ••• • AstA•••"•*1••••"'f ....*‘.: \N. \ ....•
).' A
.i_anor.....suntE........i.......ik..i....\....A .-•..:.......................10:\ t ----T.—A 5
%.
i 1 1 i ;•‘ \ r.... ‘k
rY:::,=-.........i-.--.-E.:-4. '...:
;.....„..,—.....r.....i x
i i ..•• • .,* ..1 • ; • ' • • ••• • 4 % 4.:.. 1
......•........ .......... .....
i ....1
iI -,... ... . ....... ... . .... ......: .A.".
9 i 3 i Al .1=h %
*N.:4.d.... i IA
, d., ..• •4••,••..A.....1
..■ • • I. • • D dr 4. * i %
id. i 00 •
‘, •• ..... BOEING kl•
--."....--.....;:......, ik
rf MUG couNly ......—....."..--"' i---, FIELD
.. 3 1.4
A
a
:. • uNiNcoa.
•: 7.• % 9 'A
. • . - . ...... .
,.. \ .- \ N.,. ...r?„, I -- '•- •-.,.1. i 1
•
. ■.■ •••‘• ••
■ \ , 7.. tfi
• ": '... I
-.. I • I .,....,.............”...•
r....1 ,.
. ..., •
..... i
*. i 4
• i
•
".
CITY OF TUKWILA
Manufacturing/Industrial Center
MIC Boundary
-------• City Limits
o SCO I .000
0
Approx. Smile in Feel Noah
.. •
rTh, %.•2
,••-•
•••••
k)
1/) 1 7
t•
SEATTLE
PROJECT _1_74.* •
LOCATION
••••,,,,
..- • it
• 1
,. • : ••••-•..v*!",
!! )6, • ; • 1.;
;Di TACOMA
• „;
•
-It • ‘s'e
s1 OLYMPIA
•
‘, Z
• 6 5
.J
o0
co Liu]
WI
—J
uj O.
2
• g
LL •=C
F—
z
1-0
z
• L1.1
2
0—:
Lu
1110:
z'
0
0 1—
,z
ATTACHMENTS
for
Tukwila City Council Review
of the
Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
List of Attachments
A. Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation
Plan, April 10,1998
B. Public Hearing Comments and Staff Responses
C. Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
D. Revisions to the Draft Manufacturing Inndustrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan of 11/12/97
..• Z�...��cti2:.L::'.:nr......:.;.: p:lr:.r^7w • i`-.° n.. 9;�u."vMwstv�.....+,...•..`._..
FAX TRANSMITTAL
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Fax Number: (206) 431 -3665
TO:
Elsie Crossman, Seattle
Chuck Mize, King Co.
DATE:
September 24, 1998
TITLE:
FROM:
Vernon Umetsu
COMPANY ::
See below.
TITLE:
Assoc. Planner
DEPT:
DEPT:
Community Development
FAX See below.
NO.
Total number of pages
transmitted, including
this cover sheet:
8
SENT BY
(initials):
SUBJECT: Tukwila MIC Plan, City Council materials.
COMMENTS/MESSAGE:
To: Elsie Crossman, City of Seattle (206- 233 -0085)
Chuck Mize, King County Admin. (206- 296 -0194)
Per our telephone conversation this morning, I am attaching the following selected materials
that were approved by Mayor Rants yesterday, for transmittal to the City Council. The
materials reflect our agreements to date. The Council will be briefed this Monday (9/28)
and hold a public hearing on Oct. 5th. at 7:OOPM.
Please call me (206 -431 -3684) or Jack Pace (206 -431 -3686) if we can be of further help.
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 206-431-3684
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
Dept. of Community Development - 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 - (206) 431 -3670
z
ce
D '.
V0.
w0; •
2
(0D
= d.
w
Z
Z
11J uj:
U�
ON.
0. F-'•
wa
�U
LI
0
111 NZ
U .
z
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
FAXED
September 24, 1998
Nancy Ousley, Director
City of Seattle Strategic Planning Office
FAX: 206 - 233 -0085
Chuck Mize, Director
King County Community and Government Affairs
FAX: 206 - 296 -0194
re: Resolution of City of Seattle and King County Concerns Regarding MIC Plan.
Dear Nancy and Chuck:
I will be recommending that areas outside the City of Tukwila be removed from the draft
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center subarea plan as we agreed. I understand that
this will resolve the remaining issues the City of Seattle and King County administrations
have with this subarea plan.
The following materials incorporate my recommended changes and are being forwarded to
the City Council for their review, which will begin on September 28th. A public hearing is
being scheduled for October 5th.
• a Council Agenda Synopsis and
• the Mayor's letter to the City Council recommending the subarea Plan with deletion of
the "Planned Annexation Areas."
I have also attached a draft implementing ordinance that we intend to submit after the
public hearing and direction from the City Council. This draft ordinance is not being
submitted at this time. The final "whereas" reflects our agreement.
Please feel free to call me at 206 - 431 -3686 or Vernon Umetsu (206- 431 - 3684), if I you have
any questions or I have misunderstood anything.
incere ,
Jack Pace
Acting Planning Director
cc: Elsie Crossman, Vernon Umetsu
file:q:\ micipcncl\ Itr9_21. do c
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
COUvCIL AGENDA Smosis
Initials -
Meeting Date
Prepare y
Mayor's review
Council review
9/28/98
VU '
ITEM NO.
[.INFORM TION
CAS Number:
Original Agenda Date 9/28/98
Agenda Item Title: Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan.
Original Sponsor: Council
Admin. X
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
The MIC Implementation Plan has been prepared pursuant to various Comprehensive Plan
policiesand City Council authorization on 2/3/97. This is a briefing of the C.O.W. on the
Plan's content and discussion of a review schedule.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Approval.
Committee: The CAP has endorsed the staff recommended review process (see memo).
Administration:
Cost Impact (if known): None known.
Fund Source (if known): Not Applicable.
Meeting Date
Action
9/28/98
NDICES«
Meeting Date
Attachments
9/28/98
MIC Strategic Implementation Plan and supporting materials distributed under separate cover.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
MEMORANDUM
John W Rants, Mayor
To: Tukwila City Council Members
From: Mayor Rants
Date: September 16, 1998
RE: L96 -0071 -- Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
as Modified and Recommended for Adoption by the Tukwila Planning. Commission.
PLAN DESCRIPTION
The "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan" carries out
Comprehensive Plan policies to responsibly facilitate industrial area improvement. It builds
upon pervious planning work to:
• better identify, coordinate and implement the MIC development,
♦ identify and provide for MIC infrastructure needs, and
• adopt a new State permit streamlining process which reduces the minimum review time by
four to six weeks for land use permits.
Plan review by the City Council was delayed in deference to requests by the City of Seattle and
King County to resolve their concerns. These discussions have resulted in a staff
recommendation to exclude the potential annexation area from this plan (see attached map). No
other changes to the proposed plan are recommended at this time.
Please note that the updated MIC shoreline plan materials have been extracted per earlier
agreements with the City Council and Planning Commission. They will be reviewed as a
component of the City -wide shoreline master plan update.
PLAN REVIEW BACKGROUND
This Plan has had on -going coordination with both the City Council and Planning Commission.
Currently, the Planning Commission has recommended Plan approval as amended, and the
Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) has forwarded it for Council review. Plan
coordination and review has been summarized on the following page.
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833
z
1
6D.
JU'.
O O:.
V) 0;
mu
W =�
J
• w.
w 0
g:
in
z a..
F w.
z �'
U�
O I• —`
w
�• U_
u.
— O,
z'
o N'
j
O ~'
z
City of Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
September 16, 1998
Page 2
Date;.'::'
5/19/97
11/20/97
12/11/97
12/11/97
3/12/98
3/26/98
6/22/98
The City Council and Planning Commission endorse the purpose and structure of a
Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center implementation plan. This includes
reviewing all revisions of the MIC Shoreline Master Plan at a later date, in
conjunction with the City -wide Shoreline Master Plan update.
The draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
is issued and widely distributed to the Planning Commission, City Council and
parties of record.
The Planning Commission is briefed on the draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Strategic Implementation Plan (11/12/97). Copies of the draft Plan are also
sent to the City Council.
A public hearing is held at which the City of Seattle and the Boeing Aircraft
Company orally summarize written testimony (Attachment B).
The Planning Commission reviews and endorses the Planning Division responses to
the public hearing comments, deliberates the proposed Plan provisions, and directs
revisions to be made. (Attachments C and D)
Final Planning Commission review. Minor modifications are directed to be made
and the revised document is recommended to the City Council for approval.
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) is briefed on MIC Plan's
objectives and a recommended review process. The CAP endorses the
recommended review process (presented below).
RECOMMENDED REVIEW PROCESS
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee and staff, recommend that City Council review be
structured in a manner similar to the Planning Commission's process:
Sept. 28, 1998: Briefing and workshop
Oct. 5, 1998: Public Hearing and subsequent deliberations to modify the Plan
Meeting 3: Adopt the Plan if there are not significant changes.
This is a legislative review. Please feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu (206- 431 -3684) or myself
if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan (April 10, 1998)
B. Public Hearing Comments and Staff Responses
C. Planning Commission Workshop Minutes
D. Revisions to the Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic ImplementationPlan of
11/12/98 tile: q \micip \cncl \intromem.doc
.z
w
�
re f
•J V,
co 0:
co w:
w z:
J .
10 U.'
w0. •
LL ?.
_°
_'.
I- 0:
Z I-'
n 0'.
0t.::
1-- 'U
w
•�0 —.
I- H
0
Z
Figure 1
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Location Map
CITY OF TUKWILA
Manufacturing /Industrial Center
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TUKWILA MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL
CENTER STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic is one of four
Manufacturing Industrial Centers designated in the King County Comprehensive Planning
Policies, which were developed pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS development of the proposed Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan was directed in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS extensive opportunities for public participation were made available; and
WHEREAS an environmental impact statement was circulated for public review and
finalized after public comment; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on this
plan and recommended a revised plan for City Council approval; and
WHEREAS the City Council held a public hearing and considered all comments and
materials during its deliberations including the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and made
plan revisions as a result of further staff analysis and public input; and
WHEREAS the Plan area boundary and its associated provisions have been limited to
areas within the City of Tukwila in order to address concerns raised by the City of Seattle and
King County administrations;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The analyses and conclusions in the "Tukwila
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan," the associated environmental
impact statement and the staff responses to comments on the plan and draft environmental impact
statement; are supported. These documents are incorporated herein as if fully stated and are on
- file at the Tukwila Department of Community Development.
Section 2. Plan Adoption. The Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan of , 1998, is adopted as a subarea plan of the "City of
Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan" pursuant to the State Growth Management Act.
Z
•_ H.
w
a:2
00
cr) 0',
w;
. w=
J F-
wO
2
g
u. Q;
CO
;
_.
ZI
I-- O'.
:z i--.
U 0,
O N`
rt
wW
0'
w
Z
0 =.
:0�.
z
4.
Section 5, Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the
official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage
and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
regular meeting thereof this day of 1991.
John W. Rants, Mayor
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
ATTACHMENTS
A. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan,
(File No. L96- 0071),
B. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (File No. E96- 0034),
file q: \micip \cncl \ord.doc
•
MEMORANDUM
To: MIC Plan File L96 -0071
From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner \/(iL.
Date:
10/1/98
MIC Plan Review by Tukwila City Council Suspended.
Tukwila City Council review was suspended in deference to negotiations
between the City of Tukwila, the City of Seattle and King County.
Issue topics included:
1 the MIC Plan including Tukwila's Planned Annexation Area (PAA)
in South Park and
the future of the 16th Avenue Bridge.
City Council review was reinitiated when Seattle agreed that their
objections to the MIC Plan would be resolved if the PAA was deleted
from the Plan. Staff agreed to recommend this deletion to the City
Council.'
z
i1
I- Z
re
0
00
co 0:
w =.
J
w
�Q
CO a
=w
Z�
1-o
Z �-
w
U 0.
S12:
0
w W
z'
U(0
z
9.0 City of Seattle
Paul Schell. v1avor
Office of the Mayor
August 17, 1998
The Honorable John W. Rants, Mayor
City of Tukwila
6200 South Center Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mayor Rants:
MUG 2 U
CUM tt?i :.i i* :
DEVELOPMEN f
Thank you for your letter regarding the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC)
Plan and the South Park Potential Annexation Area (PAA). We are ready to work with
you and your staff to find a solution to your request to move ahead with Tukwila's. MIC
Plan. I believe that if the MIC Plan clearly applies only within Tukwila's boundaries, the
City of Seattle would have no objections to the proposal.
Like you, I am disappointed that we have not been able to proceed with the mediation
process to resolve the South Park PAA. I am ready to complete the mediation process
and repeat my offer to assist in moving forward on this issue.
I look forward to hearing from my staff that we have reached an agreement on these
issues. If you have any questions, please call me at 684 -8856.
Very truly yours,
cutuli
Paul Schell
cc: Seattle City Council
Ron Sims, King County Executive
Tukwila City Council
Jane Cantu, City Clerk, City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Tukwila Director of Community Development
Chuck Mize, King County Community and Government Affairs
Nancy Ousley, Strategic Planning Office
600 Fourth Avenue, 12th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104 -1873
Tel: (206) 684 -4000. TDD: (206) 684 -8811. Fax: (206) 684 -5360, E -mail: mayors.office @ci.seattle.wa.us
An equal employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request.
July 8, 1998
OFF 6P0
CA
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor
The Honorable Ron Sims
King County Executive
King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue, Room 400
Seattle, WA 98104 -3271
The Honorable Paul Schell
Mayor, City of Seattle
Seattle Municipal Building
600 Fourth Avenue - 12th Floor
Seattle WA 98104
DUE DATE 7- �9
RE: Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Implementation Plan
Dear Executive Sims and Mayor Schell:
c( 3
On April 10 you jointly communicated a request that Tukwila postpone action on the Tukwila
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) Plan, pending completion of the South Park PAA
mediation process. In response to your request and as a demonstration of our good faith, I have
not presented the proposed MIC Plan to the Tukwila City Council during these intervening three
months.
Although our differences regarding the PAA have not yet been resolved, I do not feel Tukwila
can further delay action on the MIC Plan. This plan was developed with the involvement and
support of numerous citizens, businesses and property owners. We owe it to these parties to
complete the planning process and bring a greater measure of certainty to Tukwila's management
of the area's land use and infrastructure.
Your April 10 letter requested that the South Park PAA be deleted from the plan if City Council
action could not be postponed. I have directed my staff to explore whatever reasonable options
may be available to address your concerns regarding the plan's treatment of the PAA. I
understand that Community Development Director Steve Lancaster has been in contact with
Chuck Mize and Nancy Ousley for this purpose.
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833
w 4•Oworix0.0 1M4w.1 Jiwshro o oincsofro. ..”.. ,....w.m...+m•,sv.. *mar inner eu vAirsama/ egvaerstrrotxel
Executive Sims and Mayor Schell
July 8, 1998
p.2of2
It is disappointing that we have not yet found a way to resolve the difficult issues associated with
the South Park PAA. However, I hope we will not allow our differences on this one issue to
affect progress on other important matters. I believe the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Implementation Plan represents an important step in achieving the goals of growth
management and the objectives of regulatory reform. I hope I can count on your support as
Tukwila moves forward with this plan.
hn W. Rants
Mayor
cc: John McFarland, Tukwila City Administrator
Steve Lancaster, Tukwila Director of Community Development
Chuck Mize, King County Community and Government Affairs
Nancy Ousley, Seattle Office of Management and Planning
Af' REY(C.') or- M.(,C. P
Community and Parks Committee
Monday, September 11, 1998
5:00 p.m.
Agenda
Agenda items
Action
1. Sign Amortization
2. Manufacturing /Industrial
Center Plan Map Minor Change
3. Request for Extension of
Planning Commission
Position ..
4. Ordinance Prohibiting Feeding
Waterfowl
5. Recreation Fees
•
Planning Commission has held public
hearings and has recommended an
ordinance to the Council. Have at it!
Consider the recommendation to approve
the change to the map for the Manufact-
uring /Industrial Plan.
The Planning Commission has requested
a member be given an extension to work
on two projects.
See if the improved version of the
ordinance meets the needs the Council
expressed at the COW.
The committee talked about this issue at a
previous meeting. Don has tried to clarify
some of the confusing issues.
Future meetings
Tukwila Days proposal
Codiga lease
Golf Course concessionaire lease
Golf Cart contract
Clubhouse Design Issues
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate persons with disabilities. Please call Lucy Lauterbach
at 433 -1834 if you need special accommodations.
z
z
ce w
2
JU
00
U)o
• W
J =
w• �
ua
=• a
w
z
Z
W
w
U �
oI-
w w
O
z
U=
O~
z
10:05/1998 10:57
360- 753 -2950
DCTED GROWTH MGNT,
C(.Ty-
STATE OF WASHINGTON pv431,1 C Ff 112,[t'JG f o/s 4
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48300 • Olympia, Washington 98504.8300 • (360) 753.2200
PAGE 01
October 5, 1998
Mr. Vernon Umetsu
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Umetsu:
I am writing at your request to summarize for the record two previous and somewhat
lengthy comment letters on Tukwila's Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan (MIC) and associated SEPA documents. Dated July 8, 1998 and
October 23, 1997, both letters were intended to be largely complimentary, raising only
a few specific concerns. In addition, much space was given to analyzing the City's
approach to designating planned actions. This letter will more clearly focus on local
plan adoption. It restates a few specific comments and clarifies our intentions with
regard to the 'planned action' permit review process and underlying environmental
impact statement (EIS). The City may refer to these previous letters for more detail if
desired.
The MIC plan appears to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. We are
pleased with the care the City has taken to ensure that development regulations are
adequate and streamlined. We are also pleased to see the
archaeological /paleontological information preservation amendment. The Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation would appreciate receiving any reports that are
generated for specific project developments. Please contact Rob Whitlam at (360)
407 -0771.
Aside from the planned action issue, our only concerns are that:
• While the planning documents analyze sewer and water service infrastructure, they
do not address short and long term local and regional sewer and water capacity.
19495/1998 10:57 360 - 753 -2950
Mr. Vernon Umetsu
October 5, 1998
Page 2
DCTED GROWTH MGNT
PAGE 02
• A monitoring program is missing from the documents reviewed. Plans prepared
with Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Fund money must
include "mechanisms...to monitor. the:consequences of growth...and provide
ongoing data to update the plan and environmental analysis" (RCW 37.70A.500).
Such a program should be developed for the MIC subarea.
My two previous letters contain lengthy discussions. of arcane nuances of planning and
environmental review methodology in the context of: designating planned actions.
Although the critique is formed around the. City's particular approach, the issues raised
are not entirely unique to Tukwila. Indeed; we' appreciate the City's sincere effort to
put to best use this new, untested, and ambiguous. provision in SEPA. And we fully
support the goal of reducing the regulatory burden on projects following sound planning
and analysis. It was for Tukwila's willingness to explore such issues that the PERF
grant was provided for the •MIC plan:
But because designation of planned actions is uncharted territory, we have used our
comment letters on the pioneering efforts of Tukwila and a few other cities to carry on
a discussion -- with statewide implications -- about'what level .of analysis is adequate
to support such designations. My sense is that the analyses supporting planned
actions must reach a higher standard of detail•' and ,specificity than any city has yet
achieved if we are to comfortably limit or remove project level SEPA. My personal
opinion aside, Tukwila is clearly within its authority, subject to public process
requirements, to determine for itself the adequacy of its environmental review.
The critique of Tukwila's approach to designating planned actions contained in my two
previous letters reflects on -going discussions With Tukwila staff and others to explore
ways the next generation of regulatory reform efforts may benefit from and build on
the progress made by Tukwila's MIC plan.. While we rescind our request that both
previous letters be made part of the record, we encourage you to consider the issues
we raise for future endeavors.
Thank you for participating in the PERF program and allowing your MIC planning effort
to be "put under the microscope".
Sincerely,
T
Peter Riley
Senior Planner
PR:ns
Cc: Steve Lancaster, Director
z
z•
o O.
wo
=
w
w o:
u-
i--o
z I-
.w
U�
N'
o1• >
=▪ U
▪ z,
F =:
z
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Tukwila City Council Community Affairs and Parks Committee
From: Jack Pace, Acting Director
Department of Community Development
Date: September 10, 1998
RE: L96 -0071 -- Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
as Modified and Recommended for Adoption by the Tukwila Planning Commission.
The "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan" carries out
Comprehensive Plan policies to responsibly, facilitate industrial area improvement. It builds
upon pervious planning work to better articulate Tukwila's industrial zone standards and takes
advantage of the State's recently adopted permit streamlining options.
This subarea plan was reviewed by the Committee in June, when it endorsed the staff
recommended review process (see attached memo). Staff delayed City Council review in
deference to requests by the City of Seattle and King County, who had concerns about the scope
of the plan, and to work with these jurisdictions toward issue resolution.
Revising the planning area to cover the existing City and not include the potential annexation
area will be recommended in order to resolve some of these concerns (see attached map). No
other changes to the proposed plan are recommended at this time. Staff will brief the Committee
on the implications and future options associated with this decision.
Staff requests the Committee's concurrence that the following City Council review schedule
reflects its previous direction:
Sept. 28, 1998: Briefing and workshop
Oct. 5, 1998: Public Hearing and subsequent deliberations to modify the Plan
Meeting 3: Adopt the Plan if there are not significant changes.
Please contact myself or Vernon Umetsu (206 -431 -3684) if we can be of further help.
ATTACHMENTS
file: q \miciplcncl \capmem2.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
i
To:
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
Tukwila City Council Community Affairs and Parks Committee
From: Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
Date: June 19, 1998
RE: L96 -0071 -- Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
as Modified and Recommended for Adoption by the Tukwila Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission has recommended the "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan" for City Council review and approval.
The Plan implements various Comprehensive Plan policies for this area and has had on -going
coordination with both the City Council and Planning Commission. Plan coordination and
review has been summarized below.
5/19/97
11/20/97
12/11/97
12/11/97
3/12/98
3/26/98
The City Council and Planning Commission endorse the purpose and structure of a
Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center implementation plan. This includes
reviewing all revisions of the MIC Shoreline Master Plan at a later date, in
conjunction with the City -wide Shoreline Master Plan update.
The draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
is issued and widely distributed to the Planning Commission, City Council and
parties of record.
The Planning Commission is briefed on the draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Strategic Implementation Plan (11/12/97). Copies of the draft Plan are also
sent to the City Council.
A public hearing is held at which the City of Seattle and the Boeing Aircraft
Company orally summarize written testimony (Attachment C).
The Planning Commission reviews and endorses the Planning Division responses to
the public hearing comments, deliberates the proposed Plan provisions, and directs
revisions to be made. Minutes of this meeting are presented on the following page.
Final Planning Commission review. Minor modifications are directed to be made
and the revised document is recommended to the City Council for approval.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
NMfF26lROMgA1 f.MN.21.Ft�NaMfak.+�Ya.tyMl nhMPtVt> ivS +Wwn�w»xa�w�n.. ............... �...._.......
z
w
fig;
JU
UO:
U Ca
■
w z;
CO U-
lu O:.
g a:.
D. a.
w
z 1._ .
z o
w w
U U.
ON
CI I-
ui
r-
-
Z.
111
UV
H �
O
REVIEW PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development recommends the following:
1. That the Plan be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole for review and action, and a
packet documenting public input and Planning Commission recommendations be submitted
by staff.
2. That the Committee consider a recommendation to structure the City Council review in a
manner similar to the Planning Commission's review process:
Meeting 1: Briefing and workshop
Meeting 2: Public Hearing and subsequent deliberations to modify the Plan
Meeting 3: Review modified Plan, make any further changes, adopt the Plan if there are
not significant changes.
This is a legislative review. Please feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu (206- 431 -3684) or myself
if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENT
file: q \micip\cncl \capmem.doc
z.
:a
mow;
JO
• o o;
(o:• •
mow;
w•=
J 1-
,„1:):
u. a`
Di
i v`
z �. .
w w'
;O N:
?
V
O
H =
z
ATTACHMENT A
Tukwila Manufacturing/
Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan
City of Tukwila
'
..., 1•'l
r,
b. I/ .rrl rat `'ti:
/'1!:t• ,
/ / {�i // [.. fir' : --",„...,--#0 r` T,•
.e n 1 , : . .,•. '. }• • ,rii
}j "Ii 1 A
a_ 1IV.a fir_
Apri11998 ',. ° j` .
i
z
_�
0 01
N 0i
J r7'
W
g Q
W.
LU
;O -4
0 H-
= W.
:1—
Zr.
N.1
O h
44, 0: i );n\! bN ,..t f•�1'•Y= rl J.� , .o• , `: n ...u�'.•.:.aLlY.uc.. rdo:oat .eJ.. A• ae uuu . AL' ::/`1Kli'.P'ic:+t . r':vu'•
.. LA9 '1':=Itt1'1'i.
40;11.1 • -s.4
n
J-'r ▪ j! �0 1.
/908
ukwla 'City Council Agen
John W. Rants, Mayor
John McFarland, City Administrator
Jim Haggerton, Council President
Councilmembers: Pam Carter • Joe Duffle
Allan Ekberg • Joan Hernandez
Pamela Linder • Steve Mullet:
REGULAR MEETING
May 19,1997
7 :00 p.m
LL TO; ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL
Ord #1798
Res #1374
SPECIAL Joint Meeting of. Council and Planning Commission: Staff
PRESENTATION presentation and discussion on the Manufacturing Industrial
Center program. Question. and answer period. PG 3
CITIZEN'S ; At this time, you are invited to comment on items that are not
COMMENTS included on this a:enda.
CONSENT AGENDA a Approval of Minutes: 4/28 (Special Meeting)
b Approval of Vouchers
C
Authorize Mayor to sign agreement with Entranco, Inc., for
Construction. Management. Services . PG 9
Accept as complete the Minkler Boulevard project with Tri-
State Construction Co. in the amount of $1,542,218.97
(includes retainage and sales tax); authorize `release of
retainage in the amount of, $74,594.91. ' PG 51
OLD BUSINESS a An ordinance increasing residential and commercial water
rates in 1997 and 1998 to reflect a pass- through increase
from Seattle Public Utilities. PG 57
An ordinance amending an existing section of the TMC
providing flexible maximum time limits for parking at City.
parks and providink for the issuance of citations for
violations of the ordinance. PG 61
An ordinance prohibiting the use and possession of tobacco
by minors in public parks and facilities, including the
Tukwila Community Center. PG 67
EW BUSINESS a. A resolution amending Res. #1368, adding the positions of
Planning Manager and Project Manager to the non
represented salary scheduled. PG 71.
b. A resolution designating water purveyor representatives. PG 77
• 7: '.REPORTS
>: 8:'MISCELLANEOUS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
.10 :' ';ADJOURNMENT
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities:
'lease contact the City Clerk's Offtce:by noon on Monday if we can be of assistance.
z
1--W
CC 2
w �
O 0
U)o
J
2w
wo
U- a
=d
I- w
Z=
zI-
W
U • �
o I-
ww
wz
O C
F--=
o ''
z
HOW TO TESTIFY
If
you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for .
• the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five
minutes.. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on
comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business.
COUNCIL: MEETINGS
o Council meetings. are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given
gulag Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council
Meetings, held: on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7 :00 p.m. Official Council action in the
of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken: at Regular
Council meetings.
>omnnittee of the Whole Meetings Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council
President is elected by the-Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a:.
one -year term..Committee'of the: Whole meetings are held. the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00, p.m
Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action:.
GENERAL INFORMATION
t; each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not
eluded on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your comments to five minutes.
pecial Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed' are the same as'
those used in'-Regular. Council meetings.
xecutive Sessions may. be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, or personnel
matters
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by :law before the Council can take action on matters `affecting the public
interest such ,as land -use . laws ;'annexations rezone requests;. public safety issues, etc., Section 2.04.150 of the
Tukwila Municipat Code_states the following guidelines ' for Public Hearings:
1 The proponent shall speak first and is. allowed 15 minutes for a presentation
The opponent is then allowed •15 minutes to.make a presentation.
3 Each` side is then allowed 5 minutes: for rebuttal.
4 Citizens`. who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second
time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken.
5 After each speaker has spoken, the: Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the
question, but May not engage in further debate at this, time.
6 After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further
public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postponed to another date.
z
~ w
JU
00
0
cNnw
J =
w0
LL?
a
w
zF_
I_-o
w~
w
2o
U
-U
wz
U -
—
0E-
z
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council and Planning Commission Members
From: • Mayor Rants
Date: May 14, 1997
RE:. Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
Joint Briefing and Workshop
The purpose of this meeting is to provide a briefing on the draft Manufacturing Industrial Center
Implementation Plan, in preparation for more detailed review by the Planning Commission and
ultimately the City Council.
This project has built upon previous work done for the Comprehensive Plan, the Boeing
Programmatic EIS, and the technical analyses done for other City regulations. The Plan
development process included:
• an opportunity for wide- spread business and resident participation,
• workshops with key area landowners, State and Federal regulators, and industrial
development experts, and
• specific technical analyses by consultant and City staff.
The MIC Implementation Plan is composed of three elements:
1. a revised shoreline plan for this area, which would be an element of the city -wide shoreline
management plan,
2. a subarea plan consisting of a comprehensive infrastructure and regulatory review, which has
been structured to mirror an EIS, to integrate SEPA with the subarea plan and
3. proposed regulatory changes which include early SEPA Planned Action review (where
project level environmental review is done during the subarea plan phase) and development
standard revisions.
.._w....wu�_«.,...u....,
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
3SEIMMOSIMEEETM*
It is anticipated that Staff will present the proposed action and respond to questions. Issues will
be identified and direction given during discussions. Based upon the staff presentation, Council
members may wish to express their expectations for the MIC Planning process.
Planning Commission review is anticipated to begin in August.
Please contact Steve Lancaster, Jack Pace (431 -3670) or Vemon Umetsu (431 -3684) if we can be
of any help.
file:q\micip \cas.doc
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48300 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8300 • (360) 753 -2200
RECEIVED
July 8, 1998
Jack Pace, Acting Director.
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Pace:
JUL 13 1998
DEVELOPMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Tukwila's Manufacturing /Industrial
Center Strategic Implementation Plan (MIC).
Congratulations on nearing completion of this pioneering effort to integrate the
State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) and the Growth Management Act
(GMA) and to designate planned actions. As you merge the two statutory
processes into essentially one planning and environmental review process,
distinguishing between SEPA and GMA documents, procedural requirements,
comment periods, and subject matter becomes a bit awkward.
The Implementation Plan is proposed as an amendment to Tukwila's
comprehensive plan under RCW 36.70A. From the GMA standpoint, the MIC
plan appears to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. In addition,
care has been taken to ensure that development regulations are both adequate
and streamlined.
We are also pleased to see the archaeological /paleontological information
preservation amendment. We encourage and support efforts to assure that
archaeological and paleontological resources are considered during the planning
process. The Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation would appreciate
receiving any reports that are generated for specific project developments.
Please contact Rob Whitlam, at (360) 407 -0771.
We request that you look again at our October 23, 1997 comment letter on the
draft plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and include it in the record for the MIC
-4040.
z
= f'-
F- Z':
UJi
o,
( 0
CO w:
W =;
J 1
w o.
u- Q.
(0
w
z
i- 0
z
co.
w
'I Vi
- o;
w z`
ON
Mr. Jack Pace, Acting Director
July 8, 1998
Page 2
plan adoption. We believe many of the comments and some of the critical
comments are still pertinent.
z
a
The rest of this letter addresses the City's approach to designating planned i w
actions. We are particularly interested in this topic because it is new and 6
untested and cities and counties have so little experience with it. We appreciate 6
Tukwila's good faith effort to put to best use this ambiguous provision. In the co o'_
interest of refining future efforts around the state, we feel that it is important to w =
continue to discuss uncertain issues. We understand that our comments are u' f..:
�w
based on an understanding of planned actions that may be impractical or difficult w 0
to achieve but which seeks to preserve the degree of public disclosure g
associated with SEPA in its traditional application. In particular: u.
co a.
_ v:
• We differ with the City's characterization of the "planned action option" on Z I
�
page 2 -7 of the FEIS and elsewhere as a consolidated area -wide 1— o
environmental review at the subarea stage instead of on a project by project w ~
w'
basis ". Planned actions are not area -wide reviews or subarea plans. Planned 2 o,
actions are specific types of project actions - in a specific geographic context o
- whose impacts have been analyzed in an EIS. 01...
ww
Understanding a planned action as an area -wide review leads to a planning (:)
and analysis methodology that focuses on the capacity of the natural and w z
built environment of the subarea. Under these circumstances the goal is to
define the tolerance of these environments to withstand impacts. According z i_
to this line of reasoning, the causes of impacts are of little — or at least
secondary — importance, as long as impacts are addressed.
As a matter of planning practice this is entirely sensible. Understanding the
capacity of the natural and built environment in the subarea is essential to
achieving the values of good planning, including efficient provision of public
facilities and services, environmental protection, and regulatory reform. As a
SEPA matter, however, area -wide review does not clearly and directly
address or disclose the impacts of the proposals contained in the plan relative
to transportation, capital facilities, development regulations, permitting
procedures, and historic preservation. With regard to designating planned
actions, area -wide review does not clearly and directly address or disclose
impacts of specific types of projects.
SEPA does not require particular outcomes. The SEPA process is a
framework of procedures designed to ensure that environmental values
(substance) are considered in decision - making. Agencies must disclose
impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures associated with their actions.
Mr. Jack Pace, Acting Director
July 8, 1998
Page 3
For land use, this has traditionally occurred during project review. Since
GMA, we have come to believe that we can rely on comprehensive plans to
accomplish some or all of this disclosure — but we don't know how much. It
varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from plan to plan, and from element of
the environment to element of the environment, depending on quality and
level of detail.
The substantive regulatory reform advantage of high quality detailed plans
and EIS' for subsequent projects is not in question. The question is how
much planning, analysis, and disclosure is enough to exempt projects from
SEPA procedures designed to inform the public and decision - makers. Since
there is no uniform understanding of the degree to which projects can rely on
plans, and no uniform understanding of the quality and detail required of such
plans, SEPA project procedures have until now provided the forum for these
issues to be addressed on a case by case basis. Because projects designated
as planned actions are exempt from these procedures at the time permit
approval is requested, it seems fair to assume that a commensurate level of
disclosure must occur earlier in the plan /EIS.
Although the City describes planned action as an area -wide review, this
plan /EIS actually addresses three prototype projects on three prototype sites.
Neither an evaluation of permitted uses proposed as planned actions, nor a
subarea -wide capacity analysis, it is a compromise hybrid. We can all agree
that the result has important substantive value for subsequent projects.
However, insofar as it does not clearly evaluate permitted uses and the whole
subarea, we may differ as to whether it is sufficient to satisfy the disclosure
purpose of SEPA or the requirements for designating all permitted uses
throughout the subarea as planned actions.
The City indicates that the environmental analysis upon which this plan
depends is sufficient to support the designation of all permitted uses on all
potential sites in the subarea. The FEIS states that "projects covered by this
analysis will, by definition, be consistent with these plans" and elsewhere in
the plan /SEPA documents that all permitted uses are planned actions. But
the only projects we are sure are covered are the prototypes on the selected
sites.
We acknowledge the City's reference to WAC 197-11-060, which allows the
analysis of related actions in a single document. The City may be correct
that prototype projects and prototype sites adequately represent all permitted
uses and all sites in the subarea, but we don't think this is demonstrated in
z
w
re U 0:
W=
J F-`
W
2
gQ,
N D.
=d
�WW
z �..
Z
V �
:o 52
0F..
W w'
1-
w z'
01-
• z
Mr. Jack Pace, Acting Director
July 8, 1998
Page 4
the documents distributed. It is not readily apparent to the reader (the public
and decision - makers) that all permitted uses are related actions.
z
• The City of Seattle commented on the lack of detail on hazardous waste in = �,
;F-z;
their June 19, 1997 letter on the draft plan /DEIS ( #13 and # 14). They w
pointed out that the lead agency is responsible for making sure that impacts
are adequately disclosed prior to issuing a permit. Tukwila responded: "The o o
City's responsibility to disclose impacts adequately is most appropriately . w =
satisfied by ensuring compliance with state and federal standards, as -' 1-
U) u_
administered by the agency staff with the technical expertise in this field ". w 0
Ensuring compliance may adequately mitigate the impacts, but it does not u_
disclose impacts according to the timing required for planned actions. co a
Impacts of planned actions must be disclosed in the plan /EIS. 1- i
zE
F- 0;
• We are concerned that the proposed ordinance amendments authorize the z F--.
Director to designate planned actions. The statute requires that they be 2 D uj
designated by resolution or ordinance. This is a legislative, not 0 N
administrative, function. o ~'
w U'
• The City proposes to treat the "designation" of planned actions as Type 1 I- u. P
administrative decisions with no notice of application. We encourage the City w z
to issue a courtesy notice even though it is not required. Even if there is no o _;
formal comment period provided, public notice will give interested or affected 01-
parties an opportunity to informally raise issues that the City may not have z
anticipated. This is particularly important given our concern that the types of
project actions are not clearly described and directly analyzed in the EIS.
Furthermore, according to the SEPA rules on planned actions, public notice
for planned actions is tied to the underlying permit. A notice of application
for a planned action must follow a complete application if the type of project
would ordinarily require it.
• In several places in the SEPA and plan documents, the City indicates that the
proposed action is not a physical plan but a plan to test development
regulations and otherwise more effectively implement previous policy
direction.
This suggests that the EIS was more about testing the City's development
regulations in order to streamline the permit process to facilitate the creation
or expansion of a world class industrial center rather than an evaluation of
proposed planned actions. Testing the regulations is good; it doesn't matter
Mr. Jack Pace, Acting Director
July 8, 1998
Page 5
what the purpose of the EIS is as long as the impacts of the planned actions
are clearly and adequately addressed. We raised that concern earlier.
We wonder, though, if the EIS alternatives should have been framed around
variations on the real decisions; i.e., options for permitting procedures and
different levels or intensities of development regulation standards (mitigation).
Prototypes seem appropriate for testing regulations but it isn't clear to us
how the three test scenarios translate into alternatives to the proposals
contained in the plan including regulatory amendments and a new permit
review system.
Despite our comments on planned actions, Tukwila's MIC plan is an excellent
effort. It is our hope that we can learn from your experience, build on it, and
help other communities use planning and environmental review to achieve
meaningful and equitable regulatory reform.
Thanks again for undertaking this Planning and Environmental Review Fund
(PERF) project and for allowing us to put it 'under the microscope'.
Sincerely,
Peter Riley
Senior Planner
Local Government Division
Growth Management Program
PR:se
,z:
w •
QQ g;
J V;
;U 0
i W=
a.
:W 0,
Q4
gyp•
_° •
•
;z
I--
ion'
•
= U;
z:
•
O
z
•
To:
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
Ike Nwankwo, Sr. Planner
Growth Management Section
Washington State Dept. of Community Trade and Economic Development
From: Jack Pace, Acting Director
Date: April 24, 1998
RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan as a Subarea Plan to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
This memorandum serves as a notice of intent to adopt the "Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Strategic Implementation Plan" as a subarea plan, which shall be a part of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. Two copies of the document are
enclosed. Background studies for this subarea plan include the "Tukwila Manufacturing/
Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement."
Copies of this background document have been previously submitted to your office for review
and comment.
The Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan is the initial
subarea plan for the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center area. It is thus not subject to the
annual comprehensive plan amendment process (RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(i)).
The submitted plan reflects revisions made by the Tukwila Planning Commission and its
recommendation for approval by the Tukwila City Council. City Council review is anticipated to
begin in about 30+ days. No significant changes to this plan are anticipated. Two additional
copies of the adopted plan will be sent to you within 10 days of adoption per RCW
36.70A.106(2).
Please feel free to contact myself, Jack Pace (Planning Division Manager) or Vernon Umetsu
(Associate Planner, 206 - 431 - 3684).
file q:micip \intent.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665
z
Z
•mow,.
JU'
U o'
o
rn w.
w Z:
-J
w • o
•
a;
w;
_.
z�
• -w
00
co:
0
0
tL w
H U,
wz
O
z..
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
AGENDA
THURSDAY MARCH 26, 1998
PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS; 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. Ai'l E NDANCE
III. CITIZENS COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items which
are NOT included on this agenda.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 26, 1998 and March 12,1998.
OLD BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION
V. CASE NUMBER: L98 -0001
APPLICANT: Mike Saghafi
REQUEST: Appeal of freestanding sign permit denial.
LOCATION: 15035 Pacific Highway South
C
CASE NUMBER: L96 -0071
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Adopt a resolution to the City Council, recommending approval of the
Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan.
LOCATION: All properties north of the 126th right of way alignment northward to the
City limits and its potential annexation area, but excluding the Allentown
residential neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
VII. CASE NUMBER: L98 -0008
APPLICANT: Western Wireless
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit approval to install a Personal
Communication System (PCS) Base Station, comprised of 9 antennae
with operating equipment on a previously approved monopole.
LOCATION: 12400 - 51st Place South
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
z
Wiz•
re w
J U:
.0 O'
coo; •
1 10
w-
w =:
J H; •
CO
wO; .
g
w a.
a
w`
1-- O;
0;
N!
• o1-
- V`
- z
O
.z
i
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Tukwila Planning Commission Members
From: Jack Pace, Planning Manager and Vernon Umetsu, Assoc. Planner
Date: March 19, 1998
RE: L96 -0071: Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan.
Pursuant to Planning Commission discussions at the March 12th workshop, the Planning staff
submits the following documents for review and approval:
1. Selected pages of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation
Plan where Planning Commission changes to the plan have been made and
2. A resolution to the City Council recommending plan adoption as amended -- Planning
Commission recommendations on Comprehensive Plan amendments are "actions" which can
only be taken at a regular meeting. Actions cannot be taken at workshops.
Please contact Jack Pace or Vernon Umetsu (206- 431 -3684) if we can be of any assistance.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
z
_ �'
'VW
JUG
.U.O;
'(O W
2
:CO
W O,
•
g J'
• LL Q'
•H.W;
O
Z 1-: •
;
11J di
O+
•
-4
o7i.
z
Selected Pages of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan
Showing Planning Commission Directed Revisions
March 19, 1998
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Planned Action and Capital
Improvement Plan provisions as proposed. The Commission recommended revisions to the
proposed development regulations as shown below.
Planning Commission revisions to the proposed development regulations are shown below in
bold. Deleted text is shown with an overstrike while inserted text is shown with an
underline.
•
Di
C.)V,
UO
..w=
Jet
CO
w O:
oi
'.) col
:CI El
w
Z'
r. =J.
0 H'
'Z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Adopt a new TMC 21.04.XXX (State Environmental Policy Act)
This new TMC section establishes a new `planned action" option to
normal SEPA review. The following four sections would be
contained within this new TMC section.
: i e :t fi d Laftned �Aet1OnS.
ch r ter s c ::<: >:::: >: >:>
.....:.............:.............:..... ...............................
•
idttii;tl `'rit f asst
...................
age ��y +ectstons, ab�u.:. tbe: �1..�.�kvenue:�rx, . ge.:
uaesstlere
'.'�'' eater Lark
Note to Reviewers: Such uses are more complex and require case by case review
and approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council respectively. No
time savings in permit review would result from designating them a planned action
and their greater potential for significant adverse impacts make such a designation
inappropriate at this time.
>�L
Tukwila Department of Community Development
21
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
(c) Consistency Check
enq t
': i::::::: i:: isY: 4i:: iititii::: ii:•: i::::: ti::'•?::•{ :::::::::::::}::'::::::: 5{:: ii,;:!!: iiiijj{ ii: ti::::: i:::' r�:::? iiji :::::::ti:::}j:::::i:::::::::v v4:i ^iii:L•: ii
" as d cttari::: r i ` cz :merit rr sfi:r cmonstrate`that
:ii:4:F'.: Y;4:v ^:•i' ^: ^: '•: i:•: :.: �:•:•:: '::: i:•i:•::4y,+ {iC• }: ^: tiff:: vii:•:•i i:^: Li4: ih+:• ii: S:•: isi• i;• i:' i:} i:} ii ?:i:i::;ii::i� {:4:C ?•i:ti•:4+: i:4:4: ? +�i: �:i>
nine it l i
s ateet axtd partn €ct actzv c��cdynanc, atxd 1mstst
tv.v.::: >::
s enay tt
dam c
elo',men {eri>era>
» ' 're$e a .:; rit . a ed:;GM .
X `l z tafizon >Pla and n..xraztrnenta�.
.;... .:...:............................................... ............................... .
tf < u u I r l i`act 1ri`::<> rid s€r
d} Designating a Development as a Tanned Actfo
Director of the Dept of C€�mt u
authorized tc destg zatL a:spec fic.d e
ich was eligible to a zlanne ac ratr,
end was conststent
3eve1Qprtetsha
• ent proposal.:;; >;:::.;
>rated..1c£
....:s natt .......
d is1: • s ca nt
)....The. Fla€ iiei< Action Developrner}t Review Ptoeess..
slgnat Qn c f a pIartr ed action rottld reI
tcattt� ror any E ? re including.
erm at o z} an.., fuzal t rest i td deterrntnatt
tnstrattve appe
,...''...r::3xI :'•;' »''•':`I fl"f•i31;
22 Tukwila Department of Community Development
•
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
nn
1 ' t ,
FP TP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Typical SEPA Process
w/o Shoreline Permit Assume
500 + Yards of Excavation
Complete Application Received
Post Site and Mail notice of
application. Assume 3 wks.
SEPA review period
Issue DNS
Begin 15 day comment period
Finalize DNS.
Assume no MDNS so no 14 day
appeal period
Planning SEPA Review done.
Time = 6 weeks
Typical Planned Action Process
w/o Shoreline Permit. Assume
500 Yards of Excavation
Complete Application Received
No posting or mailing. Assume
3 wks. for planned action
"Consistently Checked"
Planned action complete
Time = 2 weeks
Difference
Pre & Final DNS
* Reduce Posted & Mailed
Notice from 1 to 0
* Admin. Decision
* No review by other agencies
at jurisdiction (they rely on
regs only, not SEPA)
Potential 4 wk time saved
No practical time savings
are anticipated as Building
permit review time now
exceeds 6 wks.
Tukwila Department of Community Development
Page 23
�
w
6
J 0,
0 O'
co o:
rnw;
LL ,I,
J 1.,.;
W O;
g�
CO
u.¢
1- to
z1.-
1- 0
LU
2 Ds
U o'
0 I--'
wW
H V;
Z,
U -`
10 -
z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Capital Improvements
Capital improvements to support the level of development identified
in the Comprehensive Plan were identified and incorporated into the
Tukwila Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Further detailed analysis
with updated data was done for this implementation plan to ensure
adequate infrastructure support of the MIC buildout condition.
The implementation plan analysis has identified four capital
improvements to support MIC buildout. These improvements have
been shown in Table B on the following page. Capital improvements
which are not needed to support area buildout to adopted level of
service standards (such as resolution of RTA facility location and the
16th Avenue Bridge's future status) have not been listed although
they have been discussed in the "Background" section.
24
Tukwila De.artment of Community Development
I— z
mc!
6
J 0 ..
C) o.
co o.
raw;
w
J
W Oi
u_
Via.
w, .
zt-.:
zI-
W w::
U cocol,
;w w'
'U N'.
:CO
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Table B
Capital Improvement Plan Revisions
ys em ) e 'iclelltC r
ROADS
Prapose . Fad i evelopatent l.rnpacl
Vliti lain j Action ...
.
S. 112th St. intersection with
Pacific Hwy. S. will operate at
LOS F at buildout based on
updated traffic data.
An upgraded signal controller at the Pacific
Hwy. intersection will upgrade operation to
LOS B or C and support the corridor
ALOS -E..
Amend the Concurrency Ordinance to
incorporate this improvement to provide
for fair -share mitigation payments from
applicable future developments. State
funding support of the controller
installation is anticipated. Installation is
anticipated prior to the corridor ALOS -E
threshold being exceeded.
Pacific Hwy. S., south of
Boeing Access Road
resurfacing and frontal
improvements. Not required to
provide the minimum ALOS -E
capacity .
Resurface with some widening, and frontal
improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
utilities, etc.).
The City has already installed the conduit to
allow coordinated phasing of signals with
adjacent intersections.
No private contribution for road
improvements. (New projects and re-
developments are responsible for frontal
improvements per existing TMC 16.36.).
The S. 124th St. access to the
existing Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad yard will
exceed the LOS -D threshold
for this residential arterial in
the immediate future and does
not provide for functional
separation of traffic (pols.
13.3.1 & 13.2.1).
Design options to resolve capacity and
safety issues are being developed at this
time. Major options include a new bridge
to the southern rail yard areas, a new north
access road, and improving the existing
route to resolve safety and capacity issues..
The City's goal at this time is to secure
BNSF participation in identifying the
best solution and its implementation.
State and federal funding support will be
crucial to any solution. Receiving such
support must await the resolution of
design issues. Applying proposed
regulatory streamlining provisions and
approving further facility expansion will
be problematic until these traffic
concurrency and Comprehensive Plan
consistency issues are resolved.
UTILITIES
Build a new water line on S.
112th Street to loop the system
for water quality purposes.
Looping became needed when
an intertie with the City of
Seattle water system was
closed off by Seattle, after
water system deficiencies were
identified in the
Comprehensive Plan process.
The 1,500 ft. long, 12" line would cost
about $140,000 with all hydrants and
connections.
Fair share payments from benefiting
properties (e.g., on Pacific. Hwy., south
of S. 112th Street).
•
Tukwila Department of Community Development
,.11...x..,, -■ .
2�
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
o
D
1
Regulatory Amendments
Regulatory amendments are needed to replace the substantive review
standards which are currently applied using SEPA. Since the SEPA
process would be eliminated from project review, the regulations
become necessary. These regulations do not increase the substantive
standards which are currently applied. Other SEPA areas of concern
are adequately addressed by existing - ulations.
d TMC 18.36.020(13 (23) (an . TMC 18.38 20(13) &(24)
( 1 Code'MIC/L • d MIC/H permitted us : respectively)
Policy 1 . 5 provi• s for locating only us • c monly associated
with manufac . i ' g and industrial uses in t. • IC. Hotels and
motels are not < < commonly associate' • - secially as there
are hundred of rooms within a 10 min to car ride.
Amend TMC 18.38.020(xx) (Zoning Code MIC/H Permitted
Uses)
Policy 11.1.5 provides for locating uses commonly associated with
manufacturing and industrial uses in the MIC. "Manufacturing,
processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products,
such as cosmetics and drugs" would satisfy this intent. These uses
are already allowed in the MIC /L zone as a permitted use (TMC
18.36.020 20 .
gmm
Amend TMC 18.50.xxx (Zoning Code Supplemental Development
Regulations)
Policy 15.1.5 provides for incorporating design for crime prevention
lighting while avoiding glare: The following provisions would
incorporate State and federal crime prevention light levels and apply
the standards normally supported by the Board of Architectural
review to avoid glare.
e velopmen fl ari < >100 feet
nE fac rrng/Industr l i*r t' i' d; '' s't efine
mprehens e: n .
.i:i::Eii3 :'' '; iii? i' Si?"% i''?%:: >i:iii ?i:')ii`.: ? {i %.;`•3iiiii!
"iiiii`:i:4i:�:;i}: {;Y,.i4:i•:; i {:;i::1 :: ?:i::ti:' .....:::::::::.:
:::xnaxitnum:ratio of a:v:...era;
26
Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
mow;
u�o
'0 0:
• CO o
W=
J l-,
LL:
w 0: •
gQ •
=du
w
Zf•-i
1- 0
• Z I-•
D
.0 -,
w w:
1- U'
u. I= •
-0
• z:
• 0-
0~
z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
rant:::::::::::
Amend TMC 18.50.xxx (Zoning Code Supplemental Development
Regulations)
Per Policy 4.6.1 provides for preserving paleontological and
archaeological information. This policy is similar to State statutes
which establishes archaeological and historical buildings as valuable
and subject to regulation by all jurisdictions, requires local
jurisdictions to regulate activities which could damage such
resources, and specifies measures to be take• when such resources are
encountered
clY e f' l r .t.0.0 a t o se tt
....gin a .........� ......... �.....,..,... -- ...... ....... .....
ad Ofie a u < t wa an a
sonse t tan anti Sro' sons for
kae4Jog£si
structioni a s.:essment s1
,.i sl n f nce:o archaeologic
; a s
ai..p�d�`;�: te.
sto rl`rc to ...p se abic a eonto ica
cItt£le re r by the tate A chae • k list > >.
aYY.yt.��:yt f tea g't %C;opiCI;tr a
tchaeott#::::_. <:;: <;,
...............................
et rm a sxxe? arG ae.o. og c •
ur aeo resourccs;
txeavaransn
a'el�aeoto �
:cisratto
pro de •
ensure
preservatio
E cha l gze l xemtz s. •
chaeotogy ac d isto.
ou,:.wnen .in a a>re
........................ ...............................
professio l src tae l
easel >' `r
>o consul wttla #die.:
ervatIon ( p t
rate treat n'e r r ea5ris
e `eavatton witl :acs: f rt er< ><
<rt 'Iezet
d sti €I o su l with? t . rr,.:;<.;:,.;,.;:;:.rr
Lei eI M 1
C
J
7-((65-
K A
c.
77 fvc. c. ow;,VG Pa 0 vrSio,vf
5V -6c-
AT
G
Tukwila Department of Community Development
27
z
~ w
00
CO 0
J
Nw
w0
J
w =.
Wa
=w
H=
z�
I- 0
Z
U�
o1
W
1-U
u_o
o
z.
z
DRAFT Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
oK
nV � . O11
t
•o
f
c
G r;19 uutl fjt'3 e
t`'str dfcs
ch g le t:04 !
u'efirvfe
• •IO s ?
format of
rizisatiast��i
*Ott z:4< : `.`orti g.I
e pri p `set act;on l
1a,GeSr fQT on Qbsery
atri
ien.
It ral re i c � T c
t t d tei ti
ar • 1 »:<paleontolc
ape dlszrban,
Amend TMC 16.34.xxx (Road Bridge and Municipal
Construction Specifications)
Policies 2.1.13, 13.3.2, and 13.3.4, ensure maintenance of area -wide
roadway capacity and safety: The following road standards are
needed to maintain corridor road capacity and safety.
i ?Y..... .iCE;:;:x::: Z::i :::;y :::::;% 2:: `•: %'r <::'t:: <;::':::::2TLYY YYi'' '
auts;lbereiuredoi >?rxncx; rza
caPat
28
Tukwila Department of Community Development
z
z ~.
z
w
re
00
co a
w
w
•
V_ ?.
w
= w
Z�
I-- 0
w~
0
ON
0 H.
ww
I0
F-
U =•
01-
z
Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan
November 12, 1997
Figure 14
Commercial/Industrial Access Spacing and Corner Clearances
6- 7
MINIMUM ACCESS POINT SPACING WHEN DIRECTLY OPPOSING DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT POSSIBLE t-s.
Street
Speed2
(mph)
DIMENSIONS
A3
B4
C4
25
105
105
105
30
125
125
125
35
150
150
150
40
185
185
185
45
230
230
230
1
a
W
DINT
®.J
L—Curb Lint (Typ.)
A
G -7
MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR STOP SIGN INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET)P
DIM
OPERATION SPEED
30
35
40
45
A
115
135
150
180
B
85
105
120
140
C
115
135
160
180
D
115
135
160
180
E
105/0
135/0
160/0
180/0
■
oan
N
ACCESS POINT
4.-- Curb Une (Typ.)
Sheet
c
1
LIS
0
z
0
a
u
MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCES FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CONTROL (FEET)
o
DIM
OPERATION SPEED
30
35
40
45
A
230
275
320
365
B
115
135
160
180
C
230
275
320
365
D
230
275
320
365
E
115/0
135/0
160 /0
180/0
•
0
• 4
J
ACCESS POINT
A
1
E
SIrnnI Sgn�lX
c
NOTES
1. Access point spacing only for public streets. This shall be a guideline for private streets.
2. Refers to posted speed or operating speed, whichever is greatest.
3. Between the nearest edges of two -way access points. Distances between adjacent, one -way access points (with the inbound
access upstream) can be one -half the distances
4. Access points directly opposite from each other when possible. Where it is not possible, these dimensions will apply.
5. Where access points are to be signalized, a minimum spacing of 600 feet to any other signalized intersection should be
maintained.
6. Access points near stop or signal controlled intersections should be checked to determine whether stopping queues will
block the access point.
7. In cases where access spacing is not attainable because existing frontages are narrow or have physical constraints, access
points should be located as close to the tabulated values shown above as possible. The City Engineer may require
investigations to determine what turning controls are appropriate at the access point. The City Engineer shall base all such
decisions on maintaining needed corridor capacity and safety.
eit
A RESOLUTION TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE TUKWILA MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (FILE: L96 -0071)
WHEREAS development of the proposed Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan was directed in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS the general structure and objectives of this plan were supported at various
meetings of the Tukwila City Council and Tukwila Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS extensive opportunities for public participation were made available; and
WHEREAS an environmental impact statement was circulated for public review; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this plan on December
11, 1998 at which time comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and plan were
received; and
WHEREAS Planning Commission did consider all comments and materials during its
deliberations including the Final Environmental Impact Statement, project revisions as a result of
further staff analysis and public input, and further comments from the City of Seattle;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings, The analyses and conclusions in the Tukwila
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan, the associated environmental
impacts statement and the staff responses to comments on the plan and draft environmental
impact statement; are supported. These documents are listed below and incorporated as if fully
stated herein:
A. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan, Draft of
11/12/97,
B. Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement,
C. Planning Commission Workshop Materials (3/597),
D. Planning Commission Minutes for the Workshop of 3/12/97, and
E. Planning Revisions to the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan, Draft of 11/12/97.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan draft of November 12, 1998, as amended by the Planning Commission
herein (Section 1, Document E), is recommended for adoption by the Tukwila City Council.
Section 3. Direction to Planning Staff, Staff is directed to transmit this resolution,
referenced attachments and a completely revised copy of the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Strategic Implementation Plan; to the Tukwila City Council for action.
RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 1998.
Mr. Grant Neiss
Planning Commission Chairperson
= 1.
1— W
6D
0 0'
N 0'
CO W'
W =,
W LL:
W 0 }}}
j
W,
I- O.
id la
U
ON
;0 tr
W W;
X 0
U
O
'Z
To: Steve and Jack
From: Vernon
Date: 12/15/97
MEMORANDUM
Comments to the MIC Plan presented at the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Only two comment letters were received (Seattle and Boeing). Both have been attached.
No verbal testimony was presented except for Elsie Crossman, who summarized the Seattle
letter.
�—z
w:. •
.) w O,
. O, •
;rnw'
W O'
g
O(,
• Z
Di;
oF-'}
•
Zf
'O .H
SCity of Seattle
Norman B. Rice, Mayor
Executive Department - Office of Management and Planning
Judy Bunnell, Director
December 11, 1997
Tukwila Planning Commission Members
c/o City of Tukwila Planning Division Office
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Comments on the City of Tukwila's Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan
ATTN: Steve Lancaster
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The City of Seattle presents comments to the Planning Commission concerning the
boundaries of the area proposed to be included in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial
(MIC) Strategic Implementation Plan, and the content of the Plan. We comment as a
concerned neighboring jurisdiction and a partner in the mediation process over proposed
potential annexation areas.
Plan Boundaries. We request the Planning Commission to change the boundaries of the
Strategic Plan so that it excludes the area outside of Tukwila which is subject to
negotiation under a recent Memorandum of Understanding signed by the our respective
Mayors and the King County Executive. The Strategic Plan should only include
properties where the City of Tukwila has authority to enforce regulations and make
capital investments.
Both Seattle and Tukwila designated in our respective comprehensive plans the South
Park area as a Potential Annexation Area. In July, Tukwila, Seattle and King County
signed an agreement to negotiate a solution regarding the conflicting designation of the
Potential Annexation Area and we jointly hired Mr. Gerald Cormick as a mediator to
facilitate our discussions. By including the disputed area in the proposed Strategic
Implementation Plan, the City of Tukwila is assuming a particular outcome of and
disregarding the mediation process. We urge the Planning Commission to make this
change to allow a productive negotiation process as envisioned in the Memorandum of
Understanding.
Plan Content. We applaud the intent of the Strategic Plan to streamline the permit
process by pre - determining impacts of new development and including mitigating
measures as part of the City's regulations and capital facilities planning. However, the
Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 -1826
Tel: (206) 684 -8080, TDD (206) 684 -8118, FAX: (206) 233 -0085
An equal -employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on request.
draft Plan does not provide adequate level of analysis for decision makers to reach
conclusions that the Plan will in fact mitigate future development in the area. We raise
the following issues:
• Three prototypes are developed to identify potential impacts and mitigation
measures. The prototypes only consider office, research and development, and
laboratory uses. The allowable list of uses in a manufacturing zone is considerably
broader. Under the identification of planned action (page 21), all "permitted uses"
should be subject to the mitigating measures and exempt from further
environmental analysis. Either the analysis should be broader to include a good
sample of "permitted uses" or the proposed action should only apply to the three
uses. Limiting the applicability of the proposed action to only these three uses,
which do not even include manufacturing or industrial uses, would be inconsistent
with the Countywide Planning Policies' emphasis on manufacturing, industrial and
advanced technology uses as the preferred activities in Manufacturing Industrial
Centers.
• Under the same provision in page 21, item (b) (4) (v), a development associated
with the 16th Avenue South Bridge is not subject to the planned action. This seems
inconsistent with the statement that the existing analysis shows the bridge is
adequate to support full buildout in the MIC. If the analysis clearly shows that any •
development in the MIC will not create significant impacts on the bridge, this
provision should not apply. On the other hand, if the provision is in response to
lack•of capacity or structural deficiencies of the bridge, no project should be exempt
from, a determination of impacts on the bridge. If this provision remains, the
planned action would not apply to the Prototype III site since it is adjacent to the
16th Avenue South Bridge.
• The City of Tukwila shares responsibility with the County for maintenance and
operation of the 16th Avenue South Bridge. The bridge is a deficient facility in
need of replacement according to King County. The Strategic Plan must include
this facility and provide for its maintenance and improvement to serve the MIC.
Again, we request to disclose the analysis demonstrating that the bridge is adequate
to support MIC buildout before the Plan is adopted.
• The Strategic Implementation Plan does not include the proposed changes to the
Shoreline Master Program that were included in the earlier draft. We believe this is
a great omission, as the planned action will affect a major portion of Tukwila's
shorelines. In fact, 2 of the 3 prototypes involved development on the shoreline.
Furthermore, the planned action is contingent on establishing standards as
mitigating measures to exempt projects from further environmental analysis. That
cannot be done adequately in this document without knowing and planning for the
outcome of the proposed changes to the Shoreline program. The description of
Prototype Site 3 (page 17) "raises a number of issues regarding including (sic)
large -scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development, and
redevelopment of the shoreline, including replacement of over -water
2
z
i •
�z
6
JU;
U Q; •
.co w
w=
•
w O
J: •
...<:
= O,
.z
• 2•
. 1- O'
z 1-.
D of
1O N.
o �
ww
O
.z:
Al co:
O
z
1
structures" (emphasis added). It appears to propose actions that are in direct
conflict with the State Shoreline Management Act such as development that builds
over water. Again, we believe reconciling this action with the State Management
Act is essential before the Plan can move forward.
• The Existing MIC Land Uses Map (page 7) is inaccurate, it shows Seattle's utility's
proPerties as quasi - public. Those properties should be classified as public services.
Also, the legend shows the same color (blank) for agriculture, vacant and
miscellaneous.
Enclosed is a copy of the comment letter we sent to the Department of Community
Development on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in June. We continue to have
the same concerns, as the proposal you are reviewing does not include any significant
new information regarding the issues raised in our letter. We urge the Planning
Commission to wait until changes to the shoreline regulations are adopted and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement is published before approving the Plan. These
documents are needed for you to make an informed decision.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. I am available to answer any questions of the
Commission and to work with the planning staff on this project. My telephone number is
233 -7809. You may also call Elsie G. Crossman at 684 -8364.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Ousley
Assistant Director, OMP
Enclosure.
cc: The Honorable John W. Rants, Mayor, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive
The Honorable Norm Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle
Seattle City Councilmembers
Paul Schell, Mayor -Elect
Judy Bunnell, OMP Director
Jack Johnson, Law Department
Tom Tierney, OIR Director
3
PERKINS COIE
A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98W1 -3099
TELEPHONE: 206 583-8888 FACSIMILE: 206 583-8500
December 10, 1997
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Steve Lancaster
Director
Tukwila Dept. of Community Dvt.
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
DEC ..
7",
1 1997
lC�dlri N I
Re: Tukwila MIC /Strategic Implementation Plan, November, 1997
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
We have reviewed the draft Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic
Implementation Plan, dated November, 1997. As we understand it, this draft is an
executive summary of the Plan, which will be fully set forth in the FEIS.
We look forward to reviewing and commenting on the FEIS when it is issued.
At this stage of the process we continue to have many of the same comments that we
expressed in our earlier comment letter to you on the DEIS and have a number of new
comments as well. Accordingly, we list below our new comments, followed by a
reiteration of those earlier comments on the DEIS that do not appear to be addressed
by the November, 1997 draft.
A. Comments on November, 1997 Draft Plan
1. It is not clear how the Plan relates to the Boeing Duwamish Corridor
Redevelopment Plan/EIS and Mitigation Agreement. Will the Plan and implementing
regulations take precedence over the Boeing EIS documents and related agreements
when the two are in conflict (i.e., shoreline access requirements; design standards)?
2. Page 21 (2): The consistency checklist is not included with this draft
and must be reviewed before we can fully comment on the planned action criteria and
review procedures.
[03003- 0143/S13973390.259]
ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE DENVER HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES OLYMPIA PORTLAND SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C.
STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL & DuMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA
December 10, 1997
Page 2
3. Page 21 (4)(iii): The meaning of this provision is unclear.
4. Page 21 (iv): This provision states that " ... the following will not be
considered planned actions ...: a development any portion of which includes
shoreline modifications waterward or the ordinary high water mark." As written, this
provision could be used to deny planned action status to any project that involves
riprap replacement or any other shoreline bank work. We request the City to consider
amending the planned action criteria to include these types of projects.
5. Page 22 (c) and (d): If a project is a planned action (i.e., consistent with
applicable plans, policies and regulations), how will it have "significant adverse
impacts" in need of mitigation under SEPA? This aspect of planned action status
should be clarified.
6. Page 27(1.): This provision appears to require a "cultural resources
assessment" to be performed when modifying buildings or structures over 50 years of
age. Please inform us of the basis for this requirement, especially with respect to
buildings and structures.
7. Page A -6 (13.7.2): The City proposes and "environmental mitigation
system" that includes "fair- share" mitigation assessments to MIC applicants to fund
traffic improvement costs. A similar funding mechanism will be used for a water line
upgrade on S. 112th Street, which is adjacent to the Duwamish Office Site. There is
no formula, however, to determine what one's fair share of traffic mitigation costs
could be. If possible, the City needs to specify potential mitigation costs as part of the
Plan.
8. Please clarify what the Plan will look like in fmal form. Will it be a
stand alone document, a compilation of multiple documents, or fully embodied in the
FEIS?
B. Comments From Previous DEIS Comment Letter
1. Clarify Function of Prototypes
The function of the three MIC prototypes is confusing and should be clarified.
Are the prototypes intended to represent a worst case scenario for all environmental
impacts in the MIC or only for transportation impacts? The transportation chapter
(page 5 -12) suggests that the prototypes (in combination ?) represent worst case, but
[03003- 0143/SB973390.259] 12/10/97
December 10, 1997
Page 3
the general prototype description on page 2 -6 does not. If the prototypes represent
worst case impacts, would projects that exceed the "umbrella" of impacts created by
combination of the three prototypes require individual SEPA review? The role of the
prototypes in the DEIS/Plan should be clarified and described in greater detail in
Chapter 2.
2. Mitigation Credits
The section describing assessment of concurrency on page 5 -23 should clarify
that prior SEPA transportation mitigation payments made by Boeing (and others, if
applicable) will be credited against any GMA mitigation payments that may be
required under the City's transportation concurrency ordinance.
3. Consistency With Seattle Neighborhood Plan
As you probably know, the City of Seattle is beginning an effort to create a
neighborhood plan for the Seattle portion of the Duwamish corridor. It would be
helpful to property owners along the Tukwila/Seattle boundary if the MIC Plan and
Seattle's neighborhood plan were coordinated and consistent.
4. Page 2 -2
The second paragraph states that the MIC subarea "has few remaining
undisturbed natural resources (with the exception of the Duwamish River)." This
sentence implies that the Duwamish is an undisturbed natural resource and that the
MIC subarea contains undisturbed natural resources other than the Duwamish. The
sentence should probably be clarified to state that portions of the Duwamish River
represent the few remaining undisturbed natural resources in the MIC subarea.
5. Table 2 -2
Page 2 -15 states that the MIC Implementation Plan would "allow
administrative design review based on clear design guidelines, for projects within the
Shoreline Overlay District, when design review would not otherwise be required."
The meaning of this sentence is confusing and should be clarified.
Page 2 -15 states that guidelines for site specific studies are proposed to be
included in construction design standards for the MIC implementation plan. The
construction design standards for the Plan should be set forth in the Plan/DEIS.
[03003- 0143/SB973390.259] 12/10/97
z
w'
.6
• JU
0IA o;
vI •
to W
W=
W 0,.
aC •
i
E-0
z �.
0
;❑I-
1- V'
IL. Pi
ui
zi
.0 F"
z
December 10, 1997
Page 4
6. Figure 3 -1
The legend for Figure 3 -1 is difficult to read. "Wholesale distribution" and
"retail distribution" are separate line items in the legend but cannot be distinguished
on the basis of color; similarly, "vacant areas," "water areas," "agriculture" and
"miscellaneous" areas are separate line items but cannot be distinguished.
7. Page 3 -14
Why is a "system to notify developers concerning height limitations"
necessary? Won't zoning regulations establish height limitations within the MIC
subarea?
8. Page 4 -16
This page states that "habitat restoration may be provided in lieu of City -
required public or employee access to mitigate increases in impervious surface area,
or for projects not driven by City requirements." The meaning of "projects not driven
by City requirements" is confusing and should be clarified.
9. SMP Status in the MIC Subarea
The status of the Shoreline Master Program ( "SMP ") component of the
Plan/DEIS for purposes of SEPA review and otherwise is unclear. An argument could
probably be made that the City has effectively segmented environmental review of the
SMP for the MIC from the comprehensive, City -wide SMP review scheduled to take
place later this year. Does the City intend that review and appeal of the MIC portion
of the SMP will be limited to appeal of the DEIS/Pian?
10. Shoreline Access
There are multiple and somewhat confusing references to shoreline access
requirements. Is "public" shoreline access only required along the Green River Trail?
If so, is it only required where public shoreline access is part of the Green River Trail
Plan? Is employee shoreline access the only type of shoreline access required along
the east side of the river? If so, we assume that this would supersede prior access
plans, such as the public access plan contained in the 1991 -92 Boeing EIS.
[03003- 0143/SB973390.259]
12/10/97
December 10, 1997
Page 5
11. Page 4 -13
Can the MIC portion of the proposed SMP be meaningfully evaluated without
the proposed guidelines which, according to page 4 -13, have not yet been developed?
12. Appendix B, Table 2, Proposed Shoreline Setback for Non -
Water Uses
The proposed setback for non water related uses is 60 feet, while the proposed
setback for water dependent and related uses is 40 feet. The additional 20 foot
setback non water related uses does not make sense from the standpoint of improving
riparian habitat. The ability to restore the shoreline environment is much greater with
a non water related use, than with a water dependent or related use, and offsets the
need for additional setback. Further, non water related uses along the Tukwila
shorelines outside the MIC are currently not required to set back farther than 40 feet.
13. Appendix B, Page 28, Table 2; Impervious Surface
Other EIS sections indicate that an impervious shoreline trail /path would be
allowed in the setback area, but it is not indicated in this section, which specifically
deal with the issue. Would an impervious shoreline trail /employee pathway be
permitted in the setback area?
14. Appendix B, Figure 3, Shoreline Profiles for Improved
Habitat
The range of potential shoreline profiles should allow for enough rock to
ensure bank stability. Are the profiles intended to be prescriptive or merely guidelines
for enhancing the shoreline bank environment? Shoreline bank structures are
typically designed and warranted by structural engineers. Will the proposed profiles
give engineers adequate flexibility to design systems they are willing to warrant
against possible failure?'
1 At the urging of local government and the State Department of Fisheries, Boeing constructed
a new shoreline bank of the Duwamish Office Tower site similar to that depicted in Figure 3. The
system failed, was washed away and resulted in significant new bank erosion. The replacement
shoreline structure had to be designed with a much greater amount of rock riprap. This agency
experiment was costly for Boeing and illustrates that the desire for habitat restoration needs to be
[03003- 0143/SB973390.259] 12/10/97
t
December 10, 1997
Page 6
15. Appendix B, Policy 5.9.3 and Appendix B -2, Policy 5.9.3
These sections refer to mitigating habitat loss at a ratio of 2:1 when
unavoidable disturbances of significant vegetation occur. These requirements seem to
imply that the habitat restoration requirement is separate and distinct from the
shoreline bank standards relating to the proposed use. For example, could the
construction of a vertical bulkhead accessory to a water- dependent use trigger a need
for habitat restoration or replacement elsewhere? Related questions: Are the habitat
restorations suggested by the Tanner Report required? What if they conflict with
proposed site use, such water dependent development? How will the restorations be
funded - by adjacent project applicants as conditions of their Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits, or by public money?
16. Appendix B, Policy 5.1.2
Section 5.1.2 states the first priority for the MIC Shoreline Environment is
"Redevelopment of under - utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and
industrial activities." However, other than the reference in Goal 5.3 to "economic
vitality," the Goals and Policies do not support the priority for industrial development
within the MIC referenced above. Goals and Policies supporting industrial
development and redevelopment should be added to Section 5.
17. Relationship of Duwamish Coalition Model Ordinance for
Habitat Restoration (Appendix A) to Proposed SMP
(Appendix B)
Is it the City's intent to adopt the Model Ordinance as a separate shoreline
Ordinance in addition to the Shoreline Master Program? Would the ordinance create
any new or duplicative procedures?
balanced with need to design a system strong enough to resist the potentially high erosion forces that
can exist in the Duwamish Waterway.
[03003-0143/S B973390.259] 12/10/97
ZnkGi -i!: .aV.LVia�b,1:sL , '•Ali :. 2A'... e! F: r? w. 6a+^ v,:r.wc
1
mow;
oo
.co 0
:CO w:
w =:
NLL.
w o,.
u. a:
•
.z a`
w:
• _.
z
o
•z
•ww.
. '201. •
• 111
H V'
wz
UN
0
..z
December 10, 1997
Page 7
We hope that these comments are useful to you in the revision process. Boeing
looks forward to working with the City further on this effort and would be available to
offer any appropriate assistance as the City works to finalize the Plan.
Very truly yours,
LLzwL6iWki
Laura N. Whitaker
LNW:ce
cc: Elizabeth Warman
John Crull
Gerry Bresslour
Jeff Zahir
Allan Day
Larry Allen
Dick McCann
[03003- 0143/SB973390.259] 12/10/97
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 12, 1998
Mr. Arthur called the work session to order at 6 :00 p.m. All members were present,
except Mr. Neiss, who was excused. Representing the Planning Division were Jack Pace,
Vernon Umetsu and Mary Bandirola.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19,
1998. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
L96 -0071: Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) and Strategic Implementation
Plan Workshop.
Vice Chair Mr. Bill Arthur opened the workshop.
Vernon Umetsu gave a brief review of the proposed plan, corrections to the plan's
Background section and the current status of Planning Commission review.
MR. MERYHEW MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S POSITION AND
DOCUMENTED RESPONSE AND FORWARD THAT AS AGREED TO BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Umetsu proposed the following changes in the Strategic Implementation Plan from
pages twenty one through twenty seven.
CHANGE IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS III, (Pg. 21) (b)(4)(iii) to read a conditional
or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H Zones.
CHANGE IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS III, (Pg. 21) (b)(4)(v) to read any decisions
about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally
require a SEPA threshold determination.
Mr. Arthur excused Ms. Stetson due to illness.
At 7:25 p.m. Mr. Arthur called for a break
The meeting was reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
MR. MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNED ACTION
STREAMLINE PROGRAM WITH THE CHANGES TO SECTION III, (Pg. 21)
(b)(4)(iii) and III(b)(4)(v). MR. LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Umetsu discussed Capital Improvement Plan Revisions (Pg.24).
MR. LIVERMORE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR CIP REVISIONS AS PRESENTED AND MR.
MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Umetsu discussed the Regulatory Amendments.
In individual motions, the Planning Commission provided the following direction for
plan revisions.
(Pg. 26) TMC 18.36.020(13) &(23) AND TMC 18.38.020(13) &(24). HOTELS AND
MOTELS BE PERMITTED USES IN THE MIC.
(Pg. 26) TMC 18.38.020(xx). THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS THE CHANGES.
(Pg. 26) TMC 18.50.xxx. ESTABLISH THAT THE FIRST FOUR (4)
CONDITIONS WOULD APPLY WHEN WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE MIC
BOUNDARY.
(Pg. 27) TMC 18.50.xxx (1). REPLACE THE WORD "POTENTIAL" IN THE
FIRST SENTENCE WITH "REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ".
(Pg. 27) TMC 18.50.xxx (1), SECOND SENTENCE. REPLACE THE PHRASE
"OVER 50 YEARS OF AGE" WITH "ON THE STATE OR FEDERAL HISTORIC
REGISTERS ".
(Pg. 27) TMC 18.50.xxx (2), LINE 1. DELETE THE WORD "STRONGLY ".
(Pg. 28) TMC 18.50.xxx (5) (C). PLANNING COMMIISSION ASKED MR.
UMETSU TO GO TO LEGAL STAFF TO GET CORRECT WORDING FOR
THIS AREA.
MR. LIVERMORE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AS
MODIFIED BY THIS BOARD AND MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE
MOTION. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
z
re tu
6
JU;
oO;
• In
w z.
J.1-,
� LL'
w o
LL a.
co
_ ('J:
z �.
�o
z F-
D
D p
o N'
= U+
LL 0,
ui
O H:
z
ON PAGE 29 OF THE STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, FIGURE 5 IS
COMPRISED OF THREE DIAGRAMS. THE FIRST DIAGRAM SHOULD
REFER TO FOOTNOTES 1 -5 -6 -7 NOT 1- 5 -7 -8. THE SECOND DIAGRAM
SHOULD REFTER TO FOOTNOTES 6 -7 NOT 7 -8. THE THIRD DIAGRAM
SHOULD REFER TO FOOTNOTES 6 -7 NOT 7 -8.
(Pg. 28) TMC 16.34.XXX and 16.34.XXX. MR. MALINA MADE A
RECOMMENDATION THAT BUS PULLOUTS WILL BE REQUIRED AT ALL
BUS STOPS ON PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS.
(Pg. 28) TMC 16.34.xxx et. seq. MR. MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT
THE DRIVEWAY DESIGN WITH THE MODIFICATION TO 16.34, STRIKING
OUT (SUBSECTIONS) A AND B (AND REQUIRING) BUS PULLOUTS ON
PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS. MR. LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
It was clarified that the provision for City Engineer approval of variations from the
16.34.xxx standards was supported.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. Pace briefed the Planning Commission on Stanford's Restaurant. They have some
minor modifications. They proposed to rotate the restaurant 360 degrees, they also have
a change with the entry. They're using a metal type cover material on the canopy. The
entry feature will be refined a little bit. The sign will be moved in accordance with the
building. There will be some refinement in the landscaping.
Mr. Pace asked the Planning Commission if they had a problem approving this
administratively?
The Planning Commission all agreed that this would not be a problem.
Mr. Arthur adjourned the meeting.
Prepared By,
Mary Bandirola
3
a.
Wiz;
J0
o
CV,
w D'
w
w =:
1-7
w O; •
LL
• l-- w
z�
E-o
z�
•
ww
0
• 'w W .
0:
— O:
Aw
Z co
O
z
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
AGENDA
MARCH 12, 1998
6:00 P.M.
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ATTENDANCE
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 19, 1998
IV. CITIZEN COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items which are NOT
included on the agenda.
V.
VI.
CASE NUMBER: L96 -0071
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Adopt a subarea implementation plan for the Tukwila MIC.
Includes streamlining permit review, capital improvements and regulatory
revisions.
LOCATION: All properties north of the 126th right of way alignment northward to the
City limits and its potential annexation area, but excluding the Allentown
residential neighborhood.
ADJOURN
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEEDINGS.
•.z <
.
mow;
•
' U) W
w =,.
o:•
<:
co
•
1-1a-
z �.
•
ww• •
U "
•,O N'
• w w
_• Vi
iii z; •
O
z
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Jack Pace, Planning Mgr. and Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
Date: March 5, 1998
RE: L96 -0071 -- MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Workshop.
At this work session, the Planning Commission needs to complete its review of the proposed
regulatory revisions in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan and prepare a recommendation to
the City Council.
Background: The Comprehensive Plan's Manufacturing Industrial Center policies call for
facilitating area improvement (11.1.1), streamlining the permit review process while providing
meaningful opportunities for citizen input and environmental protection (11.1.3), and updating
the MIC shoreline master plan for consistency with the City -wide shoreline plan (11.1.4).
The City of Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan was issued as an
integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement on May 20,
1997.
A joint briefing of the City Council and Planning Commission was held on the integrated plan.
Approval was given to separate the MIC shoreline plan update from the remaining MIC Plan
elements. The proposed MIC shoreline provisions would be reviewed as a component of the
City -wide shoreline master plan update. to maximize coordination.
The remaining plan elements were issued as a draft MIC Strategic Implementation Plan
(11/12/97). This plan provided improved clarity on the specific codified proposals contained in
the Plan/DEIS. The Commission was given an introductory briefing on December 11, 1997 and
a public hearing was held later that night.
Two parties spoke at the public hearing, after a brief presentation by the Planning Staff. Both the
Boeing Aircraft Company and the City of Seattle submitted written testimony, which was
summarized in a verbal presentation. The Planning Commission concurred that staff would
respond in writing to the submitted testimony.
Please feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu (206 -431 -3684) or Jack Pace if we can be of further
help. FILE: MICIP \PC \WKSPMEM.DOC
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • TukWashington 98188 (206) 431-3670 $ 206 4313665
z.
W
J 0;
U 0;
� 0
wW
J =
H
ALL:.
W0
g
IL Q.
• N
a
I- _!
ATTACHMENT A
Summarized Public Hearing Testimony and Planning Division Response
The numerous comments by each party related primarily to the clarity and adequacy of the
environmental analysisi. Staff has summarized the comments related to the proposed plan
proposals below. A complete list of comments and responses is also attached.
The comments are referenced to the "Complete List of Comments and Responses" in Attachment
B. Comments referenced first by page location, then by the individual identifier.
cm
1. Pg. 19, Comment A: Change MIC Plan
boundaries to exclude areas to the west of
the Duwamish River, which are claimed as
potential annexation areas by both the cities
of Seattle and Tukwila; until completing a
conflict resolution process.
Include the areas in the Plan, as they are
designated as in the Tukwila MIC by the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Pg. 14, Comment 20.. The MIC Plan must
be consistent with the land use plans of
adjacent jurisdictions (King Co. and the City
of Seattle) and the Countywide Planning
Policies.
The proposed MIC implementation plan is
consistent with the identified plans. They all
designate this Duwamish River valley area as
a manufacturing industrial center.
3. Pg. 10, Comment 7. Coordinate Tukwila
MIC planning with Seattle MIC planning.
The Seattle process is at a very early stage. A
Seattle planning advisory committee co -chair
recommended waiting until the project was
further along. A Planner is on the project
mailing list, met with Seattle representatives
as part of an interjurisdictional committee and
has recognized Seattle development
regulations in its planning work.
4. Pg. 20, Comment D. Include MIC shoreline
plan provisions in this review.
Review draft shoreline provisions as part of
the City -wide shoreline plan per City Council
direction.
1 The decision about the clarity and adequacy of environmental analysis is an administrative decision to
be made by the DCD Director. Further clarification and explanation which has been made is attached.
vten, ,.- .
•
L96 -0071 MIC STRATEGIC IMPLE �TTATION PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSh jP MEMO OF MARCH 5, 1998
5. Pg. 7, Comment 2 & Pg. 19, Comment C.
Include the 16th Avenue South Bridge in the
plan and provide for its continued use.
Do not include the Bridge as it is not needed
to support MIC buildout at the established
level of service. Continue to recognize the
Bridge as an element in the regional road
system which is important to accessing Seattle
areas, and participate in solving this regional
issue in a regional manner.
6. Pg. 13, Comment 12. Consider protecting
views across shoreline properties as is done
in Seattle.
The City of Tukwila does not regulate for
view protection in the MIC shoreline.
7. Pg. 12, Comment 9. Consider prohibiting
redevelopment of over water buildings for
non -water dependent uses..
This is a policy decision since there are no
significant adverse impacts to the proposed
redevelopment provisions. Allow
redevelopment of over -water buildings.
8. Pg. 15, Comment 25. What is the status of
the Boeing Duwamish Corridor
Redevelopment EIS Mitigation Agreement?
This is an agreement between the Boeing
Co., King County, Seattle, and Tukwila.
All provisions continue to apply as the
Agreement is mitigation for past Boeing
projects in other jurisdictions.
Perkins Cole for the Boeing Aircraft Company
9. Comments 2 (Pg. 28), 9 (Pg. 29), 11 (Pg.
29), 14 (Pg. 30), & H (Pg. 35). The
proposed action should be more clearly
described than in the integrated Plan/DEIS.
This was done in the MIC Strategic
Implementation Plan.
10. Pg. 28, Comment 6. Maximize consistency
with the Seattle MIC planning project.
See response to Seattle Comment No. 3 in this
table.
11. Pg. 34, Comment D. Allow projects within
the Duwamish River to be planned actions.
The complexity of required analyses and the
multiple agency reviews which would
eliminate the City's streamlining effects, show
this to be an ineffective use of City resources.
12. Pg.'31, Comment 18. Reduce the shoreline
setback from 60 ft. to 40 ft. for non -water
dependent uses.
Staff concurs. This has been proposed in the
MIC Plan now being reviewed.
13. Pg. 31, Comment 21. Consider not
requiring habitat restoration for new
shoreline bulkheads.
Habitat restoration continues to be proposed.
This loss of shoreline habitat at the river's
edge is a significant adverse impact which
must be mitigated, pursuant to Comprehensive
Page A -2
z
;Fw. •
•
JU
00.
No •
J =`
w O:
g Q;
= w'
H =
z�.
I- o;
Z~
U �
;O N.
13 F-
ww
I
111-- 0.
wz
•
1---
'O F":
z
s
i
L96 -0071 MIC STRATEGIC IMPLEi TATION PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHUP MEMO OF MARCH 5, 1998
Page A -3
.* 7atitestl f�f ' }!j[{/N�f1i�YlMKMat4a.tiegt*INS IR44' .4**WNC HPAir coS p. 9p sYaKSrme r. r' F? HfMhavvnmetr.rr+rImotroome!n.te zvwee! +.
z
•
.w
re`
6
' J V
oo
w=
w • o,
Q'
a.
1— _.
z�.
I- O:
z
• w
u);
SU
wz
o
0
.z
Plan Shoreline policies.
14. Pg. 31, Comment 23. Is the Model Habitat
Restoration Ordinance to be adopted as a
separate, duplicative review process in
addition to shoreline regulations?
They are guidelines which are envisioned to
be adopted within the shoreline master plan.
15. Pg. 31, Comment 20. Are the shoreline
profiles a required design?
They are guidelines which would be
incorporated into the shoreline master plan..
16. Pg. 30, Comment 16. Is public access
required only along the Green River Trail?
Yes.
17. Pg. 31, Comment 19. Can the trail be
developed within the river environment
setback?
Yes.
18. Pg. 30, Comment 17. Clarify the shoreline
design guidelines.
This is a notation of future work to be done.
They are not part of the proposed action.
19. Pg. 29, Comment 13. Why is there a special
system to notify developers of building
height limits?
This refers to FAA height limits around the
King County International Airport, which are
significantly less than allowed by Zoning.
20. Pg. 34, Comment F. What is the basis for a
cultural resources assessment, especially for
structures over 50 years old ?.
Various State statutes declare a State interest
in archaeological and paleontological
resources (RCW 27.53.010 & 040), requires
developing a system to identify the resources
(RCW 36.70A.020), establishes a permit
system (RCW 27.53.060), and identifies the
resources as elements of the environment to
be protected from adverse impacts (WAC
197 -11 -960). Only structures on the State or
Federal historic registers would be subject to
the cultural assessment.
21. Pg. 34, Comment B. The planned action
consistency checklist should be provided for
public review.
This is a routinely prepared application form
whose contents (e.g., defining planned
actions, need for Comprehensive Plan
consistency, and a SEPA environmental
checklist) are identified in State statute and
this Plan.
22. Pg. 34, Comment A. What is the status of
the Boeing Duwamish Corridor
Redevelopment EIS Mitigation Agreement?
See response to Seattle Comment No. 8 in this
table.
Page A -3
.* 7atitestl f�f ' }!j[{/N�f1i�YlMKMat4a.tiegt*INS IR44' .4**WNC HPAir coS p. 9p sYaKSrme r. r' F? HfMhavvnmetr.rr+rImotroome!n.te zvwee! +.
z
•
.w
re`
6
' J V
oo
w=
w • o,
Q'
a.
1— _.
z�.
I- O:
z
• w
u);
SU
wz
o
0
.z
ATTACHMENT B
Complete List of Comments and Responses to
The Integrated MIC Implementation Plan and Draft EIS
Table of Contents
Pg. No.
City of Seattle Comments on the Draft EIS B- 2
Responses to Seattle DEIS Comments B- 7
City of Seattle Public Hearing Comments on the MIC Strategic B -16
Implementation Plan
Responses to Seattle Public Hearing Comments B -19
Perkins Coie Comments on the Draft EIS B -22
Responses to the Perkins Coie DEIS Comments B -28
Perkins -Coie Public Hearing Comments on the MIC Strategic Implementation B -32
Plan
Responses to Perkins -Coie Hearing Comments B -34
ui+'�`vcih' _ -:14: 1911,,t? i' i. 1" Li`.' itii} �t7i::: I: RG. iG12L.[ 1N:::• nO' y�i `. ".:u':3Y_)b;i£j ^L + ".�CYt:,'<: $::«Ctil
:wTUtt'u1Y.l
Q
2f
J U;
U 04.
o
cn w;
=
w 0t
IL Q.
Zvi
1-0?
Z F-4
w'W;
ww.
;CVs
Oi
•
City of Seattle
Norman B. Rice, Mayor
Executive Department - Office of Management and Planning
Judy Bunnell, Director �. Q
mow.
UO
June 19, 1997 . N W
wz
Steve Lancaster, Director uj O
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 .g ¢;
Tukwila, WA 98188 a`
RE: Comments on the City of Tukwila's Draft Environmental Impact z =
Statement for the Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan p.
• z�
ILI La
ATTN.: Vernon Umetsu
U�.
Om
Dear Mr. Lancaster: o
=w
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan. Seattle also has -u-- 0
z;
received a state grant from the same PERF fund as Tukwila to help demonstrate the value v cn'
of combining SEPA with plan preparation, and we appreciate the complexity and difficulty o'-
of this effort. Still, after reviewing the document we find that the level of the impact
analysis does not correspond with the scope of the proposed action. In particular, the
DEIS does not adequately disclose the impacts associated with changes to the shoreline
master program or the impacts to the adjacent areas in Seattle and unincorporated King
County.
Project Description. The purpose of the project is to "maximize the vitality of the
industrial uses in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center" (p. 2 -1). However,
Figure 2 -1 includes land in unincorporated King County which is not subject to Tukwila's
Comprehensive Plan, and the prototype analysis of Site 3 includes land within Seattle's
jurisdiction. This could mislead the reader and decision makers into thinking that the
proposal will apply to areas outside Tukwila's jurisdiction.
Actions Outside the Scope of this Plan. The DEIS lists actions outside the scope of the
implementation plan and planned action. The list includes past and on -going plans as well
as a specific facility - the 16th Avenue South Bridge. It is inappropriate to list the 16th
Avenue South Bridge as an "action" outside the scope of the proposal. Regardless of
what jurisdiction has responsibility for a facility, the DEIS should disclose the impacts-on: rV �'�1 y
i
Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1826
Tel: (206) 684 -8080, TDD (206) 684 -8118, FAX: (206) 233 -0085
An equal-employment o PP ortuni N- afirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities P rovid -edor eOuest.
Steve Lancaster
June 19, 1997
Page 2
the bridge. If no analysis is provided on these facilities, future projects in the MIC should
be subject to SEPA to review transportation impacts. This should be stated in the
document. Our concern is that the document indicates that no further SEPA review will
be necessary for projects "consistent with the plan"; although the plan does not address
the impacts of the proposed action on key facilities.
We also question the effectiveness of this EIS in meeting the intend of HB 1724 for
planned actions if no analysis is provided of alternatives dealing with the future
development pattern envisioned by the plan or "full built out ", or the applicability of the
earlier master plan for the Duwamish Corridor.
Pages 2 -13, 3rd paragraph - redevelopment is assumed to have no new impacts, and as
such will not be subject to SEPA review even though they can increase impacts and the
EIS has not disclosed the impacts. The FEIS should disclose impacts of redevelopment as
well as of new projects and at least in a general manner for the entire area, not only the
prototype sites.
Materials Incorporated by Reference. The materials referenced in the Fact Sheet are
documents prepared to support the Comprehensive Plan from 1991 to 1995, and the
Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS published in 1992. We question the
applicability of these documents for disclosing the impacts of the proposed action given
that 1) the proposal includes significant changes to the shoreline program from what was
in place at the time those documents were prepared; 2) the statement on page 2 -13 saying
that "Recent corporate mergers and acquisitions have resulted in a degree of uncertainty
about applicability of the earlier master plan and the ultimate role of the Duwamish
Corridor. as an employment and manufacturing center for Boeing. "; and 3) uncertainty
about the Boeing Duwamish Corridor and the corresponding mitigating measures
previously approved, but not necessarily implemented. The Final EIS, if it continues to
rely on those previous documents, should detail the portions of those documents that are
still valid and those that are not.
Alternatives. The DEIS discussion of the No Action Alternative under Direct Land Use
Impacts (p 3 -11 to 3 -14) provides no clear comparison of the changes that the alternatives
would produce throughout the M1C. In addition, no alternatives are presented for the
policies and regulatory changes to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The changes to
the SMP are not merely implementing measures, but are a part of the proposal. The FEIS
should include alternatives that modify the SMP in different ways. Coordination of
improvements and regulatory process in the two Duwamish Manufacturing Centers in
Seattle and Tukwila could be a guiding principle that helps shape one such alternative.
Prototype Analysis. Using prototypes to conduct analysis that would lead to the
designation of "planned actions" seems like a good approach. In a complicated
environment, such as the Tukwila MIC, however, it raises a number of questions about 1)
the reasonableness of generalizing to other sites in the area from the conclusions about the
prototype sites, 2) the adequacy of the description of impacts on the prototype sites.
Co NT.
1
i
1
1
1
1
Steve Lancaster
June 19, 1997
Page 3
Decision makers should be cautious in generalizing from the prototype sites to other
potential development sites in the area. Because sites in the area display a variety of
characteristics, it may be difficult to capture all of the existing conditions and potential
developments and their impacts by examining closely only three sites. For instance, no
prototype on the west side of the river was examined. But it is obvious that projects on the
west side would cause traffic impacts on different streets than those affected by the
prototypes. It also seems likely that sites on the west side contain different shoreline and
habitat conditions than those described for the prototype sites. Contaminated soils could
also vary substantially from site to site, depending on previous uses.
It would be helpful for the Final EIS to contain sufficient information about the prototype
sites to enable reviewers to determine whether those sites are similar to, and representative
of the remaining sites within the MIC area. For instance, the FEIS should compare sites
within the MIC area relative to the following factors: size of site, developed/vacant,
shoreline or not, current and past use, proposed use, location, applicable regulations. This
could help demonstrate the validity of using the selected prototypes as surrogates for
analyzing every site in the area individually.
Regarding the adequacy of analysis on the prototype sites, it appears that significant
impacts to at least three of the elements of the environment are not adequately described:
Habitat.
• References to the habitat impacts at Site 3 do not mention the fact that these impacts
are avoidable, since "redevelopment" of the existing structure implies a possibility to
locate the future building so that it no longer covers the water. This is of particular
interest, since a portion of this structure lies within the City of Seattle. Given that the
use is not water - dependent, there is no need to permit construction of a new building
over the water, giving up an opportunity to improve habitat conditions along the site's
shoreline.
• The description of habitat impacts associated with a higher height on this site says that
the shading of the river caused by a taller building would be less than the impact of an
increased over -water building footprint. This is a non - sequitur. Is the implication that
without a higher height limit, the owner of the proposed structure would require more
water coverage? This section of the EIS needs to describe the impact of increased
river shading on habitat; if there are trade -offs, they can also be described, but the
impacts must be disclosed.
• Related to the subject of habitat impacts, Appendix B -2 "cumulative impacts" section
says that "...construction of new or redeveloped water dependent use facilities should
have minimal impact under the new policies set forth in the revised SMP. These
revised policies provide for riverine habitat restoration, mitigation, and/or
enhancement to the extent that on -site habitat improvements are possible, and where
off -site mitigation is necessary." Since the DEIS does not analyze a prototype that
includes a water dependent use, it is difficult to see the basis for the conclusion about
the impacts of such a use. Also, since (according to p. 4 -20) habitat restoration is
1 iS .,.`liWne??Nev 'flco S"5r*J vfift+.rtigYol•,','ki' ".' 'M3'f�oa'_"Mtzy." aai' S' Si-o sowroei'Awxv,wri,mwe!-,Pnrz.«+. s+< irwe Ink`: ,vn .,;•.arfenttrawr.xlox+.'»aa -.ss: z!tr,Mt
i
i
i
Co K
z
•
=-w
te
6
,U 0
W • =.
Y2
'w o,
J
• ?.
id
I- w
z�
I- o
Z �-
w
�oa
W'.
z
.w
0 -;
H=
z
Steve Lancaster
June 19, 1997
Page 4
voluntary under the proposed regulations, it is not logical to rely on that restoration to
conclude that the proposal will result in minimal impacts.
View Corridor.
• There is no discussion in the EIS of the impacts to shoreline view corridors that would
be caused by the proposed increase in building heights in this area, particularly at
prototype Site 3. Nor is there any discussion of how the proposed height limit relates
to the Shoreline Management Act. While the discussion of Land Use impacts suggests
that design review will mitigate the visual impacts of buildings on the prototype sites,
that conclusion does not seem justified in light of the fact that the design guidelines
that would be used in the review have not been developed yet. For development of
prototype Site 3, there is potential for significant view corridor impact that is not
consistent with regulations within the City of Seattle, where a portion of that building
would be located.
Hazardous Materials.
• While it is true that federal and state authorities have primary responsibility for
regulating the use and disposal of hazardous materials, it is the lead agency's
responsibility to ensure that impacts associated with these materials have been
adequately disclosed through environmental review prior to issuance of development
approvals.
• The brief "hazardous waste" section in the DEIS does not describe the nature of
contaminants known, or likely to be found, on the prototype sites. Nor does it explain
the potential impacts of developing contaminated sites and ways to mitigate those
impacts. By not addressing the potentially significant impacts of hazardous materials
and contaminated soils on the prototype sites, the DEIS ignores a fundamental
principle of the planned action concept -- that waiving of future project - specific
environmental review is contingent on adequately analyzing the planned action's
impacts as part of the area -wide EIS.
Power Load.
• No data have been provided on Seattle City Light's portion of the MIC load, nor are
any projections of new MIC load given. It would be useful to obtain estimates of new
MIC load to be served so that the utility can determine the need for expanded
substation capacity and new feeders.
• There is an error in the last line on page 6 -6. It says that industrial customers in the
Duwamish consume 1,500,000 MW (megawatts) annually. This figure should be
1,500,000 Mwh (megawatt hours).
Public Access Requirements.
• Clarification: p.4 -20: What is "employee public access "? Is it the same as
"public/private" access" found on the last page of Appendix B?
i
1
z
JU
0 O'
•
co w.
w =:
CO
w
u -.
gQ
`1 a
•
Oa
. z i--
U
:0 H.
ww
O;
iu z:
ON
O
z
Steve Lancaster
June 19, 1997
Page 5
• Figure 2 is unclear as to how the public may access the deck of a "redeveloped
building.
Other Issues that should be addressed in the FEIS:
• Analysis of cumulative impacts.
• Proposal's consistency with comprehensive plans, shoreline programs and regulations
of the State, King County, Seattle or other adjacent jurisdictions, as well as the
Countywide Planning Policies,.
• Fiscal and service impacts to surrounding unincorporated areas, particularly the
isolated area north of the proposed annexation area between the City of Seattle and the
Duwamish river.
• Land use impacts on surrounding industrial areas and the Duwamish Manufacturing
Industrial Center in Seattle, King County and other jurisdictions.
• Housing demand due to increased employment activity, and provision of affordable
housing by City of Tukwila, as defined in the Countywide Planning Policies for King
County.
• Specific impacts to the Seattle City Light property.
• Duwamish Corridor negotiated mitigation agreement.
I appreciate your attention and cooperation on this project. Please call me at 233 -7809, or
Elsie G. Crossman at 684 -8364 if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Nancy Ousl } y.
Assistant Director, OMP
cc: Judy Bunnell, OMP Director
Elsie G. Crossman, OMP
Stephen Hagen, Seattle City Light
Rebecca Herzfeld, DCLU
Rick Krochalis, DCLU
Ethan Melone, OMP
Sandy Watson, Law Department
1
I 09
1
1
1
1
� "- �4�w�T'b:.Xi i:YwN �^..1�.NrY.•E5`:Nel'
Uv
w.
z o.
ww
o.
ON
0 I-
wal
V;
0
al co
H 1'
O !- ;
..z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Responses to City of Seattle Office of Management and Planning
1. Tukwila acknowledges that it has no direct land use jurisdiction beyond its corporate
limits. The MIC boundaries shown in Figure 2 -1 are those designated in the City's
adopted 1995 Comprehensive Plan and contain small areas within unincorporated King
County. These lands were included in the implementation planning area because they H
are within the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's designated MIC subarea, are contiguous z
with the MIC, contain compatible uses, and are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as 6
a "Potential Boundary Adjustment and Annexation Area" may be considered for -J 0
annexation by the City of Tukwila at some time in the future. The decision to plan for co o
the area in a comprehensive manner with the remainder of the designated MIC, is both
an accepted professional planning practice and strongly encouraged by the Growth
Management Act. w O
As noted in the DEIS, page 2 -13, annexations or boundary adjustments with adjacent g ¢'
jurisdictions are not proposed as part of the MIC implementation and are being pursued 0) a independently. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was recently signed by I" W
Tukwila, Seattle, and King County to resolve potential annexation and other issues in z
this South Park area. Planning for the area does not conflict with the spirit or letter of z 0
this agreement. L
U
Using Boeing Plant 2 as Prototype Site 3, which lies partially within the City of Seattle, p N,
was intended to test certain provisions of the Tukwila MIC zoning code and is not 01-
intended to represent an actual development proposal. Tukwila recognizes that any = v:
development proposal by the Boeing Company to redevelop its properties within Seattle ti
city limits would require obtaining Seattle permits, as appropriate. z.
LIJ
2. The discussion of the 16th Avenue South bridge in Chapter 2 refers to future actions that j _`
might be taken to maintain, replace or close the bridge, to the extent that such actions z
are subject to SEPA review. Such actions involve uncertainties in design and timing
that are beyond the scope of the MIC EIS to address. The City acknowledges that
independent environmental documentation are likely to be required when bridge
alternatives are evaluated in the future. Interjurisdictional issues regarding
responsibility for 16th Avenue South bridge improvements are being addressed in the
MOU described in the response to comment 1 above.
Existing traffic volumes are shown in DEIS pages 5 -2 and 5 -3. No concurrency level of
service standard is established for the 16th Avenue Bridge by the City of Tukwila or
King County who control the bridge structure, or by the City of Seattle who controls the
bridge landings, associated approach intersections and adjacent lands.
Overall, the prototypes would contribute 3 to 4 percent of total traffic volumes on the
bridge in future peak hours. This increase must be considered in the context of the
bridge's role in the regional transportation system and recognizing the overwhelming
majority of bridge traffic is not moving toward Tukwila. The MOU reflects a King
County /Seattle /Tukwila cooperative approach to resolving this issue. A more detailed
response is presented below.
Additional analysis of impacts to the 16th Avenue South bridge has been conducted for
this FEIS. These impacts are summarized in Table 4 -1 for each peak period in 2010.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -7
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Between 1997 and 2010, traffic volumes on the bridge will increase 14 percent for the 5
to 6 p.m. peak hour and 13 percent in the 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. peak hour. These increases
reflect the cumulative growth associated with through traffic, background increases,
and the impacts of the prototype projects. Most traffic using the 16th Avenue South
bridge connects to the north along East Marginal Way. Existing intersection traffic
counts indicate that less than 15 to 19 percent of bridge traffic connects to and from the
south of East Marginal Way. For prototype site 3, about 10 percent of project traffic
would use the 16th Avenue South bridge. No traffic from prototype sites 1 or 2 is
projected to use the bridge.
For the transportation analysis, the cumulative impacts of growth through traffic,
increases in background traffic, and added project traffic were addressed. These
analyses consider a buildout condition within the MIC. Other impacts of full buildout to
levels allowed under the MIC zoning code are discussed qualitatively in the Land Use,
Shoreline Use, and Other Elements of the Environment chapters, recognizing that a
wide variety of actual development outcomes is possible within the limitations of the
code.
Table 4.1
Year 2010 Traffic Impacts on 16th Avenue South Bridge
Time Period
Site Trips on Bridge
Prototype Sites Total Site Trips
Site 1 nla
Site 2 nla
Site 3 n/a
Background n/a
Site 3 n/a
Background
Total
Percent of Total
Notes:
For 5:00 -6:00 p.m. peak, traffic growth from 1997 -2010 is estimated at 14 percent; 85 percent is attributed to East Marginal Way northbound and 15
percent to East Marginal Way southbound.
For 2:30 -3:30 peak, traffic growth on the bridge from 1997 -2010 is estimated at 13 percent; 81 percent is attributed to East Marginal Way northbound and
19 percent to East Marginal Way southbound.
3. Alternative full buildout scenarios were developed for the MIC subarea while
developing the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Analyses at that time showed
adequate infrastructure support for the full buildout scenarios. This analysis was
updated in the DEIS, where adequate infrastructure support was determined to be
available for full buildout.
4. Increased shoreline impacts are not foreseen when replacing existing rip -rap or other
bank stabilizing structures in like kind, where work is located landward of the water
line. This determination is supported by the more liberal exemption of actions which
maintain or replace bank stabilizing structures in or out of the water, from the need for a
shoreline substantial development permit. The impacts of shoreline redevelopment
proposals are discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, both on a site specific and corridor -
wide basis.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B-8
MARCH 4, 1998
z
_ 1—
•j0.
00
cY
, co
w =;
J I..,
N Lt;
w a
w z,
-a.
zF
I-0.
Z I--
w w;
Oft
CI I—,
w
•I H�
u- 0:
WZ
H =`
0~
Z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
The foreseeable impacts of this and the more extensive shoreline development proposals
represented in prototypes 1 and 3 have been identified and mitigated by the regulations
proposed in the DEIS and further landscaping mitigation for water dependent
developments in the river environment (FEIS Table 3 -1, "Landscaping "). A planned
action (SEPA) checklist would also be administratively reviewed to ensure no
significant adverse impacts occur per RCW 43.21C.031, and specifically discussed in the
Appendix D (MIC Plan, page 21(b)(2)). Redevelopment of shoreline areas continue to
be subject to all applicable permit requirements.
5. Documents referenced in the fact sheet are incorporated by reference to the extent they
are applicable. For instance, all findings of fact and conclusions in the 1992 "Boeing
Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS," would be applicable (e.g., the need for road
improvements along E. Marginal Way). However some conclusions and
recommendations may have been superseded (e.g., the identified E. Marginal Way road
improvements have been completed, more specific policies on levels of service were
adopted in the 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and road design specifications have
been adopted in TMC 16.34 and 16.36). Alternatively, other provisions such as trail
access which is mitigation for developments in King County and the City of Seattle,
would still apply as part of a regional mitigation agreement. Collectively, these
documents represent the initial planning data base for the MIC, which the planned
action EIS updated as needed.
As noted in Chapter 2 of this FEIS, impacts of proposed revisions to the City's shoreline
master plan for the MIC area are evaluated in this document, and they will be subject to
further environmental review during the shoreline master plan adoption process. The
DEIS provided an update of infrastructure capacities and of relevant current conditions
that have changed since previous analysis was incorporated by reference (for example, a
new discussion of existing traffic volumes in the MIC was prepared).
The DEIS statement concerning "uncertainties" related to activities by the Boeing
Company in the Duwamish Corridor referred to potential reductions in Boeing's work
force in the area. The employment levels analyzed in the 1992 EIS remain the worst -case
scenario for the Boeing properties and are assumed as part of buildout conditions for
this analysis. As mitigation for traffic impacts identified in the 1992 EIS, Boeing has
provided $3.5 million for improvements along East Marginal Way, which meets all City
of Tukwila concurrency requirements for Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Master Plan.
These dollars, along with local, State and federal funds have provided sufficient overall
infrastructure capacity to support the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan vision for MIC
development.
Uncertainty about the nature of the Boeing Company's full buildout quoted in the
comment has been acknowledged. However it is important to continue the paragraph
to its conclusion which reads: "The City's intent in pursuing the MIC implementation
plan is less to provide a specific physical plan for the MIC than to help facilitate its
vision of the corridor as a world -class industrial center, capitalizing on the availability
of its infrastructure and incorporating environmental protection into development
standards for the variety of uses that together make this subarea such an important
regional resource." (DEIS, p. 2 -13)
Please also see response to Comment 3.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -9
z •
i ~:
rew
uj D
J U.
00
CO .
W =.
J
n w.
0
w =:
= •
I- _,
Z�.
I— 0
Z I.
UCa
w w.
U-
0'
Ili Z
--
0
Z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
6. As noted on page 3 -13, "...impacts of the No Action alternative would generally be as
described for the implementation plan."
7. The alternatives analysis for a shoreline master plan was done within the
Comprehensive Plan development process. The proposed shoreline master plan
policies are those adopted in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for shoreline regulation.
Use of these policies reflects the subordinate nature of this subarea plan to the City -wide
Comprehensive Plan and the State requirement that shoreline master plans be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. FEIS Chapter 3 ( "Recommended Regulatory
Revisions ") discusses the City's process for amending the shoreline master plan.
8. The prototype approach was used to: test the existing regulatory system's ability to
mitigate all significant adverse impacts, identify possible permit streamlining
opportunities, and test the viability of resulting regulatory proposals. The three
prototype developments were created based on the criteria that they must reflect
realistic future expectations of MIC development and be broadly applicable to future
MIC development proposals. Broad applicability is achieved by having the prototypes
include the breadth of MIC "permitted" uses and provide the depth of detail to
represent the range of foreseeable MIC regulatory issues.
The appropriate breadth of uses is achieved by having the prototypes represent
industrial office support (Prototype Site 1), warehouse /distribution (Prototype Site 2)
and manufacturing /research (Prototype Site 3) developments. This is the range of uses
envisioned in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and allowed as "permitted,uses" in the
MIC /L and MIC /H zones of the Tukwila Zoning Code. The realistic nature of this
range of uses is demonstrated in the "Existing Land Uses" map (DEIS, Fig. 3 -1), which
shows them as the, overwhelming majority of current subarea uses.
The appropriate depth of detail is achieved by using prototype development scenarios
which reflect a realistic market response to the successful implementation of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan policies for economic development. Scenario definition
emphasized maximizing industrial oriented employment and facility investment to
simulate the higher probable development levels which might be proposed? The
prototype developments are described at a level of detail which allow evaluating
foreseeable project impacts, the regulatory system which mitigates these impacts with
adopted development standards and mitigation, and identifying further required
mitigating measures. This maximized realistic market response and impact analysis
allows the prototypes to be considered as probable "worst case" situations for SEPA
purposes. Prototype use to satisfy the linked purposes of regulatory analysis and SEPA
impact analysis was discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS.
The SEPA impact analysis based on the prototypes is determined to be applicable to
other "permitted uses" in the MIC /L and MIC /H zones for the purposes of
environmental impact evaluation and mitigation. This determination is made based on
similarity of project characteristics, geographic proximity, similar environment within
1 See Appendix A of the Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan for a list of MIC goals and policies,
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -10
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
which the actions occur and impact similarity which may vary in degree, but not range
(see WAC 197 -11 -060).
It should be noted that the commentator's assertions that the MIC presents a
"complicated environment" is not supported by a field survey of the MIC. The subarea
is a former river delta which has been extensively filled to its current flat topography.
Essentially all upland areas have been subject to human mechanical manipulation from
agriculture to current industrial uses. The riverine /wetland environment is composed
of the channelized Duwamish River and several well defined, remnant streams /and
sloughs. Infrastructure systems (transportation, sewer, water, storm drainage and
power have been extensively analyzed in the recent past and shown to be sufficient to
support MIC buildout (DEIS, chapters 5 and 6). It is difficult to imagine a more straight
forward planning environment where the existing environment is more clearly defined.
The commentator's concern over a lack of prototype sites to the west of the Duwamish
River is understandable. However, a careful review of the existing prototype
evaluations shows that they include the environmental conditions present on the west
of the Duwamish River and reflect the regulatory issues to be dealt with on the west
side.. This is especially the case of Prototype Site 2 which includes an undeveloped
bank, a slough which is a potential habitat restoration site, and an undeveloped "river
environment" area. Impact analyses of development on this type of site (DEIS Chapters
3 -6) are determined to be applicable to the western areas.
Responses to other comments on prototype sites are presented below:
Site area is shown as "Site Data" below each prototype diagram (e.g., DEIS Pgs. 2 -8
through 2 -10.
The shoreline status at each prototype site has been extensively discussed in DEIS
Chapter 3 (Shoreline Impacts), pages 4 -19 through 4 -22.
The existing land use on each site is identified in the DEIS Chapter 3: "Land Use At
Prototype Sites" (DEIS, Pg. 3 -3).
The regulations regarding the prototype sites have been presented in DEIS Chapter 2.
The impacts of development and the effectiveness of the existing regulatory structure to
adequately mitigate all significant adverse impacts have been presented in the
respective impact sections for each prototype site.
The City of Tukwila shares the commentator's concern that prototype impact analysis
be adequate, especially in light of the proposed "planned action" approach which
eliminates a SEPA threshold determination at the project level. The City is confident
that the proposed regulatory provisions, combined with State and federal statutes, will
mitigate all significant adverse impacts. For example, contaminated sites proposed for
development would be subject to the standards of the Washington State Model Toxics
Control Act as described in DEIS page 6 -12; proposals in the shoreline management area
must satisfy the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit, and
Tukwila's concurrency ordinances require a demonstration of adequate road, sewer,
water, storm drainage system capacity.
A further administrative verification would be provided by a "consistency checklist and
review" in which a project is reviewed under the substantive aspects of SEPA and the
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B -11
MARCH 4, 1998
z
_ 1-
~ w'
.6
JO.
UO
CO
I
w • �
J'
w =.
u)
=w
z�
zI-
ILI La.
.0
O
o
;w
tej
ter
z..
•
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
City Comprehensive Plan, to determine that all significant adverse impact have been
mitigated (MIC Plan, Pg. 22 (c) "Consistency Check "). Projects which could not
demonstrate consistency would be denied planned action status and required to
proceed through normal SEPA review (ibid.).
9. The habitat impacts of redevelopment at Prototype Site 3 are negligible since the
building's over -water footprint would not be increased, and the north -south river
orientation makes any shadow impacts insignificant. This determination has been
confirmed by the Tukwila staff Urban Environmentalist, the independent fisheries
biologist retained to evaluate the proposed shoreline plan, and during informal
discussions with State and County, shoreline /habitat management staff.
The decision to allow reconstruction within the existing building footprint is a policy
decision to be evaluated by the Tukwila City Council. The Council will also be apprised
of the policy option to pull back the building approximately 100 feet, to eliminate
building areas over the water and within the existing river environment area (where no
new construction is allowed) which would potentially enhance site habitat.
The portion of Prototype Site 3 within the City of Seattle lies outside the 200 - foot -wide
shoreline zone.
10. Tukwila staff concurs that the statement is a non - sequitur. It is herewith withdrawn.
Please see the response to comment 9 for a discussion on over -water coverage and
shadow impacts.
11. The analysis of water - dependent uses assumed full paving within the 40 -60 foot area
(where most habitat impacts would occur) immediately adjacent to the river.
Additional river environment landscaping has been incorporated for water dependent
uses to avoid loss of vegetated areas and habitat value (see FEIS, Table 3 -1,
"Landscaping "). Envisioning the physical characteristics of this situation was not
difficult given the general experience of the fisheries biologist (Partee), his ongoing
experience with fisheries enhancement projects in this immediate river area, and the
numerous examples of paving to the top of bank as represented by shorelines with sheet
piling, pier aprons, and many rip- rapped banks as shown in Figure 4 -1 of the DEIS.
Habitat areas next to the river are largely characterized by dense blackberry thickets
(DEIS, page 4 -4). These areas have marginal habitat value. Their loss, even on an
extreme basis where the bank of the entire navigable channel is paved (such as along the
Duwamish River mouth is improbable, largely due to shoreline master plan provisions
to maintain or replace vegetated areas adjacent to the river and severely limiting new
development in the river environment. The probable scenario of mixed, water -
dependent, water - related, and non - water - related uses would result in the following
probable impacts:
• The loss of some stretches of blackberry thickets and
• Net improved habitat value due to replacement of blackberry thickets with dense
trees (35 -ft on center) and shrubs
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B -12
MARCH 4, 1998
z
z• .
QQ• om.
JU
U O;
cn • w
W s:
JF-
WO
g -.
w =.
S2 a
• z:
z�..
►= o
Z a-
W
.)
C)
O�
CI I-
11.1 W.
H U';
LL la
O.
• Z.
=:
O f-
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Significant large trees provide usable habitat in other areas (DEIS, page 4 -5). These areas
are associated with non -water dependent uses and are expected to remain stable for the
foreseeable future.
The most important habitat is the river itself, as a corridor for salmonids (DEIS, page 4- z
5). Please note that developments which involve construction waterward of the Q
z I=
ordinary high water mark are excluded from being planned actions (DEIS page 2 -13, w
re 2
paragraph 3). Maintenance, repair, and like replacement are identified as exempt from 6
shoreline permits, but would be subject to normal environmental review, as applicable. v v
0
CO o'
12. The City of Tukwila does not regulate for the preservation of view corridors across , cn W.
private property, nor are there residences in the immediate area, except a few along the
river (DEIS, Fig. 3 -1), where a 35 -ft building height limitation by the state Shoreline U) LL
w 0'
Management Program might be of concern. The state shoreline master plan allows 2
using the underlying zone height standards in cases such as the Tukwila MIC. ga n
J
The City of Tukwila recognizes that: CO d
• a portion of Prototype Site 3 (Boeing Corporate Offices), out side of the shoreline z 1'
zone, is in the City of Seattle, E- o,
z ►-
• all improvements in Seattle are subject to Seattle development standards, including W uj
any view protection provisions and D o
• splitting the site with portions in Tukwila and Seattle will make redevelopment 0 F..`.
more complex. i W
Discussions with Seattle DCLU show that both cities allow office and industrial uses,
and that the Seattle 85 -ft building height limit contrasts with the Tukwila 125 -ft height ";
limit. N
H H;
Tukwila acknowledges that future design review guidelines specific to the shoreline z
area are not presented in this document. Any and all analyses based on these future
shoreline guidelines are herewith withdrawn. Such shoreline guidelines are currently
being developed and will be evaluated in a separate environmental process.
The visual impacts of all developments requiring a shoreline substantial development
permit are currently addressed by the existing Board of Architectural Review process
(Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60). This process has been used for all such developments
in the City of Tukwila. The scope of Tukwila design review includes detailed site
planning, building design, and landscape design.
13. The City's responsibility to disclose impacts adequately is most appropriately satisfied
by ensuring compliance with state and federal standards, as administered by the agency
staff with the technical expertise in this field. Tukwila will include a hazardous
materials section in the consistency checklist submitted for each project to validate its
status as a planned action. Please see response to comment 8.
14. Chapter 2 of the DEIS and the response to comment 8 above describe the nature of the
prototype sites, which are not intended to represent actual development proposals. As
described on page 6 -12 of the DEIS, the Model Toxics Control Act would require the
assessment of soil quality on sites proposed for development in the MIC, including the
need for removal, treatment, or disposal of contaminated soils. The quality of
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B -13
MARCH 4, 1998
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
groundwater on a site or the presence of subsurface objects, such as undocumented
underground storage tanks or utility pipelines, must also be assessed.
If contamination is found, Ecology must be notified and a cleanup plan developed.
Compliance with these requirements would be ascertained as part of the planned action
permit process to be adopted with the MIC implementation plan. Future project - specific
environmental review is thus not waived and will be accomplished without duplication
under regulations specifically designed to address the impacts of developing
contaminated sites.
Please note that the planned action approach does not require a project by project SEPA
threshold determination. Substantive environmental review is still required through the
planned action consistency checklist, which must be substantially equivalent to the
substantive SEPA analysis done for a threshold determination. The no significant
impact determination made in the planned action EIS must be administratively
validated in this consistency check process.
FEIS Chapter 3.2 provides more detailed discussion and a flow charted comparison
between the standard SEPA threshold determination and a planned action processes.
This material is also presented in the associated MIC Strategic Implementation Plan
(Nov. 1997) on pages 21 -23.
15. Industrial development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code will
be permitted in the MIC. The EIS assumes that Seattle City Light will continue to
coordinate with Tukwila to phase in infrastructure improvements as needed to
accommodate growth. Estimates were not prepared for growth in demand for
electricity in the MIC based on the City Light assertions that they are a demand driven
utility which, in general, will provide the electricity demanded; and the Comprehensive
Plan EIS (1996) documented plans to double distribution capacity in this area (ibid.,
DEIS pg. 95 -96).
16. Comment acknowledged. The figure should be changed to read "1,500,000 Mwh."
17. Employee access is the same as private access. The general public need not be allowed
in such areas. Provision for public access is only required to accommodate the
Duwamish /Green River Trail.
18. Figure 2B in Appendix B -2 of the DEIS is a cross - section of an over water building
which presents redevelopment options, including:
• Converting a portion of the building area to a public or private access walkway (as
shown in the 1992 Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS) and
• Not providing the walkway, but incorporating that area of the old building within
the new building's envelope.
Access to the potential walkway could be physically accommodated along the south
perimeter and thence along the water to the walkway (see Figure 2A, Appendix B -2 for
an orienting site plan) or directly from within the building if it was employee access.
19. Infrastructure capacities, nature resources and development review processes were
reviewed in the EIS. Impacts related to these issues will occur individually and
cumulatively over time. The EIS reviewed both types of impacts.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -14
z
,,F -w..
re 2
m
J U;
0
co CI,
w =.
w O:
• -J
=0:
I— w
z�
E- 0
Z I-
D• �
;O u)
w W
Z
1-
w E-;
- O•
ui Z.
c,
t-- FL,
0
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
20. The MIC Implementation Plan is consistent with, and reaffirms, Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan policies for the MIC subarea. No changes are proposed that would
affect MIC policy consistency with other plans. The relationship between the proposed
regulatory structure and adopted Comprehensive Plan policies is presented in FEIS
Appendix E. It is also shown in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan, Appendix A.
21. No annexation is proposed as part of the MIC implementation plan. No fiscal or service
impacts are expected that differ from impacts related to the MIC's long- established
industrial designation.
22. Adjacent areas (in King County and the City of Seattle) are part of the Duwamish
Manufacturing Industrial Center designated in the Countywide Planning Policies. No
change in the existing industrial land use designations of the Tukwila Comprehensive
Plan or Zoning Code has been proposed. Therefore, no direct land use impacts are
anticipated.
Indirect land use impacts on surrounding industrial areas will be those related to the
implementation plan's success in facilitating MIC development as a manufacturing and
industrial center. Area improvement would tend to encourage industrial oriented
development as envisioned by Seattle and the Countywide Planning Policies.
23. There are few housing units in the MIC, as shown in Fig. 3 -1 (Pg. 3 -2). No displacement
is proposed or likely as a result of the MIC implementation plan. The City of Tukwila
will fulfill its responsibility for housing as established in the Countywide Planning
Policies, just as it is herewith fulfilling its mandate to streamline regulations and
facilitate development in the MIC.
24. Specific impacts to the Seattle City Light property are the same as for other properties in
the MIC. These impacts are discussed throughout the EIS. The proposal would not
prohibit site use for habitat restoration or for power generation and distribution as
discussed with City Light representatives, or for other light and heavy industrial uses as
identified in the Tukwila Zoning Code.
25. As a result of the 1992 "Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIS ", Boeing King
County, Seattle and Tukwila negotiated an agreement to mitigate development impacts.
This document does not affect the Mitigation Agreement, as Tukwila is but one of four
signatories. See response to comment 16 of the Perkins Coie letter.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B-15
MARCH 4, 1998
z
w
-I
o Oi
J ▪ 1—
w O� .
u-Q,
I- w:
z�.
I- o
zt- ::
af
C:==f11'::
w w
_z
Ham::.
z
City of Seattle
Norman B. Rice, Mayor
Executive Department - Office of Management and Planning
Judy Bunnell, Director
December 11, 1997
Tukwila Planning Commission Members
c/o City of Tukwila Planning Division Office
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Comments on the City of Tukwila's.Draft Manufacturing Industrial Center
Strategic Implementation Plan
ATTN: Steve Lancaster
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The City of Seattle presents comments to the Planning Commission concerning the
boundaries of the area proposed to be included in the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial
(MIC) Strategic Implementation Plan, and the content of the Plan. We comment as a
concerned neighboring jurisdiction and a partner in the mediation process over proposed
potential annexation areas.
Plan Boundaries. We request the Planning Commission to change the boundaries of the
Strategic Plan so that it excludes the area outside of Tukwila which is subject to
negotiation under a recent Memorandum of Understanding signed by the our respective
Mayors and the King County Executive. The Strategic Plan should only include
properties where the City of Tukwila has authority to enforce regulations and make
capital investments.
Both Seattle and Tukwila designated in our respective comprehensive plans the South
Park area as a Potential Annexation Area. In July, Tukwila, Seattle and King County
signed an agreement to negotiate a solution regarding the conflicting designation of the
Potential Annexation Area and we jointly hired Mr. Gerald Cormick as a mediator to
facilitate our discussions. By including the disputed area in the proposed Strategic
Implementation Plan, the City of Tukwila is assuming a particular outcome of and
disregarding the mediation process. We urge the Planning Commission to make this
change to allow a productive negotiation process as envisioned in the Memorandum of
Understanding.
Plan Content. We applaud the intent of the Strategic Plan to streamline the permit
process by pre - determining impacts of new development and including mitigating
measures as part of the City's regulations and capital facilities planning. However, the
Seattle Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1826
Tel: (206) 684 -8080, TDD (206) 684-8118, FAX: (206) 233 -0085
An equal-employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on request.
A
z.
z
•
.J U;
U 0:
'En CY
w =.
w 0: •
uQ
= v;
Z
.zr-.
▪ 0,
zI-.
U • � till
= U'
0.
LLi
• =i
0 t- .
draft Plan does not provide adequate level of analysis for decision makers to reach
conclusions that the Plan will in fact mitigate future development in the area. We raise
the following issues:
• Three prototypes are developed to identify potential impacts and mitigation
measures. The prototypes only consider office, research and development, and
laboratory uses. The allowable list of uses in a manufacturing zone is considerably
broader. Under the identification of planned action (page 21), all "permitted uses"
should be subject to the mitigating measures and exempt from further
environmental analysis. Either the analysis should be broader to include a good
sample of "permitted uses" or the proposed action should only apply to the three
uses. Limiting the applicability of the proposed action to only these three uses,
which do not even include manufacturing or industrial uses, would be inconsistent
with the Countywide Planning Policies' emphasis on manufacturing, industrial and
advanced technology uses as the preferred activities in Manufacturing Industrial •
Centers.
• Under the same provision in page 21, item (b) (4) (v), a development associated
with the 16th Avenue South Bridge is not subject to the planned action. This seems
inconsistent with the statement that the existing analysis shows the bridge is
adequate to support full buildout in the MIC. If the analysis clearly shows that any '
development in the MIC will not create significant impacts on the bridge, this •
provision should not apply. On the other hand, if the provision is in response to
lack•of capacity or structural deficiencies of the bridge, no project should be exempt
from a determination of impacts on the bridge. If this provision remains, the
planned action would not apply to the Prototype III site since it is adjacent to the
16th Avenue South Bridge.
• The City of Tukwila shares responsibility with the County for maintenance and
operation of the 16th Avenue South Bridge. The bridge is a deficient facility in
need of replacement according to King County. The Strategic Plan must include
this facility and provide for its maintenance and improvement to serve the MIC.
Again, we request to disclose the analysis demonstrating that the bridge is adequate
to support MIC buildout before the Plan is adopted.
• The Strategic Implementation Plan does not include the proposed changes to the
Shoreline Master Program that were included in the earlier draft. We believe this is
a great omission, as the planned action will affect a major portion of Tukwila's
shorelines. In fact, 2 of the 3 prototypes involved development on the shoreline.
Furthermore, the planned action is contingent on establishing standards as
mitigating measures to exempt projects from further environmental analysis. That
cannot be done adequately in this document without knowing and planning for the
outcome of the proposed changes to the Shoreline program. The description of
Prototype Site 3 (page 17) "raises a number of issues regarding including (sic)
large -scale demolition, driveway standards, scale of development, and
redevelopment of the shoreline, including replacement of over -water
2
*rseatm.r.v..ovist.Y•
C
D
z
z
00
N O'
�n w°
W I
CO u.
w O.
g
w ?'
— a,
=w
H =.
z�,
HO
Z F-;
LL/ uj
Do
o m,
O
ww
=- U
u'~O.
wz
u)
O
z
structures" (emphasis added). It appears to propose actions that are in direct
conflict with the State Shoreline Management Act such as development that builds
over water. Again, we believe reconciling this action with the State Management
Act is essential before the Plan can move forward.
• The Existing MIC Land Uses Map (page 7) is inaccurate, it shows Seattle's utility's
properties as quasi - public. Those properties should be classified as public services.
Also, the legend shows the same color (blank) for agriculture, vacant and
miscellaneous.
Enclosed is a copy of the comment letter we sent to the Department of Community
Development on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in June. We continue to have
the same concerns, as the proposal you are reviewing does not include any significant
new information regarding the issues raised in our letter. We urge the Planning
Commission to wait until changes to the shoreline regulations are adopted and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement is published before approving the Plan. These
documents are needed for you to make an informed decision.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. I am available to answer any questions of the
Commission and to work with the planning staff on this project. My telephone number is
233 -7809. You may also call Elsie G. Crossman at 684 -8364.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Ousley
Assistant Director, OMP
Enclosure.
cc: The Honorable John W. Rants, Mayor, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive
The Honorable Norm Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle
Seattle City Councilmembers
Paul Schell, Mayor -Elect
Judy Bunnell, OMP Director
Jack Johnson, Law Department
Tom Tierney, OIR Director
3
21;
6=
J 0;
00:
w =`
J�.
N �.
w 0 :,
2
g J.
u..<
=a.
2.
Z�
I- 0i
Z
U• �
Ill Ili
z:.
ui�
2;
O ~'
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
RESPONSES TO CITY OF SEATTLE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
A. See response to City of Seattle DEIS Comment 1. The City of Tukwila is not in violation of any
Memorandum of Understanding provisions. The City's MIC planning activities predate this
Memorandum and City staff made it very Lear that MIC planning would continue to completion.
The City of Tukwila will continue its good faith efforts to successfully complete the joint
negotiations on interjurisdictional annexation and infrastructure issues.
B. The MIC Strategic Implementation Plan contained an error is the "Site Data" associated with
each prototype graphic where the data of Site 1 was used for all prototypes. Correct site data is
entered for each prototype on DEIS pages 2 -8, 2 -9 and 2 -10. The Planning Division apologizes
for any resulting confusion.
A review of the correct prototypes in the DEIS and FEIS (pgs. 2 -4, 2 -5 and 2 -6), shows that a
they represent the full range of uses permitted in the MIC. Prototype Site 3 is described on DEIS
pages 2 -6 and 2 -10, with land use impacts being discussed on pages 3 -12 to 3 -13. The Site 3
description includes "housing 750,000 square feet of high -bay manufacturing space" (DEIS, pg.
3 -12) in a new building whose height has been increased from 80 ft. to 125 feet. The Site 1
office use, Site 2 warehouse distribution use and the Site 3 manufacturing and research and
development use reflect the full range of "permitted uses" and development intensities allowed
in the MIC/L and MIC/H zoning districts. Please note that office uses are allowed only if they
are "...associated with another permitted use, e.g., administrative offices for a manufacturing
company present in the MIC) (TMC 18.36.020.24 in the MIC/L zone and TMC 18.38.020.25 in
the MIC/H zone).
The range of permitted uses in the MIC/L and MIC/H zones are consistent with the Countywide
Planning Policies which emphasize manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses.
These prototype analyses are at a level of detail to allow evaluating the foreseeable impacts and
required mitigating measures. The prototype impact analyses are applicable to similar actions
for the purposes of environmental impact evaluation and mitigation due to similar substantive
aspects, geographic proximity, similar environment within which the actions occur, and impact
similarity which varies in degree, but not range (WAC 197 -11 -060).
C. The intent was that any decisions about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition,
which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination, would not be a planned action.
The item on page 21 section (b)(4)(v) is recommended to be revised to read as follows to better
implement the intent:
any decisions about the
16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally require a
SEPA threshold determination."
The MIC Plan has provided for the transportation system needed to serve the Tukwila MIC at the
levels of service established in the Comprehensive Plan and pursuant to City infrastructure
improvement ordinances. The 16th Avenue Bridge is not required to support Tukwila MIC
development pursuant to City standards. Analyses show that traffic volumes generated from the
MIC are very low and that alternative routes to the bridge provide more than sufficient capacity
with no significant delay (DEIS Chapter 5 and response to comments 2 and 3).
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B -19
MARCH 4, 1998
z
mow:
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
The regional role of the 16th Avenue Bridge in serving City of Seattle businesses, which begin
immediately adjacent to both bridge landings, is recognized. The City of Tukwila supports a
regional approach to improving and maintaining the bridge's regional role. Negotiations
between the King County, the City of Seattle and the City of Tukwila are being held to provide
further resolution to this matter.
D. Response to this comment on the status of proposed shoreline plan revisions and
associated impact analyses, requires recognizing three characteristics:
• Proposed substantive shoreline plan update provisions
• SEPA review status and
• Public review status.
Proposed substantive shoreline plan update provisions. Proposed shoreline plan
update provisions have been developed and incorporated as part of the "Proposed
Action ". Initial proposals are presented in DEIS Chapter 2, revisions based on DEIS
comments to require replacement of lost vegetated area and habitat value in the "river
environment" are presented in FEIS Chapter 1, and the cumulative update provisions of
the proposed action are presented in FEIS Chapter 3.
The MIC shoreline master program update has been developed separately from the
citywide shoreline master plan update, which is still being prepared. The two
documents will be combined into one document for the public review process. The MIC
provisions will be a component of the citywide shoreline master plan. This approach
has been endorsed by the City Council.
The separate preparation of the MIC shoreline master plan was done in recognition of
the following elements:
• Both the MIC shoreline master plan and the City -wide master plan will take overall
policy direction from the Comprehensive Plan and should have a generally high
level of coordination,
• The Comprehensive Plan recognized the MIC as a regional industrial area, which has
a different balance of habitat /recreation /aesthetic /economic development priorities
from the City as a whole (see DEIS Appendix B -2) and is appropriately a separate,
but subordinate, component of the citywide shoreline master plan,
• Maximum integration with the implementing regulations of this subarea plan make
it appropriate to develop the MIC shoreline master plan now, even though it is ahead
of the overall citywide shoreline master plan, and
• Conflicts between the MIC shoreline master plan and the citywide master plan are
best resolved during that future planning project.
The current proposed "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan" relies on the existing King
County "Shoreline Master Plan." The impacts of this regulatory option have been
reasonably disclosed in the DEIS. The FEIS has specifically evaluated the proposed
regulations with respect to implementation with the existing shoreline master plan and
found no significant adverse impacts. Any conflicts between the proposed GMA
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREAPLANAND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE 8 -20
z
Wr
JU
00
coo
w z
LL •
W �}�
g
<:
.N d'
F7* w.
Z
1= 0
Z �.
LJJ
U• �
0 D;
=w
1-
LI O.
w z.
O 17
z
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
implementation plan regulations and the existing shoreline plan would be resolved in
favor of the more restrictive regulation. No such conflicts have be identified.
SEPA review status. SEPA review of the MIC portion of both the existing and the
proposed shoreline master plan is presented in this document, as part of an integrated
GMA subarea plan, shoreline master plan, and environmental review process. SEPA
review of the GMA subarea plan and the shoreline master plan will be completed with
this FEIS.2
Further SEPA review of the MIC shoreline master plan will be done as needed when the
City -wide shoreline master plan undergoes SEPA review (see below). This SEPA
analysis is anticipated to be incorporated by reference into the environmental review for
the City -wide shoreline plan.
Public review status. Public review of the MIC shoreline plan will be postponed until it
can be evaluated as a component of the citywide shoreline master plan. This review
will include a future public participation program, and public hearings before the
Tukwila Planning Commission and City Council. The "MIC Strategic Implementation
Plan" now before the City Planning Commission incorporates proposed regulatory
revisions, capital improvement revisions, and the existing King County Shoreline
Master Plan.
The specific regulatory concern of allowing shoreline redevelopment and reconstruction
of overwater buildings have been evaluated (see response to Comment 4). Earlier
discussions with State Department of Ecology, Shorelines Division staff provided the
City with assurances that shoreline redevelopment proposals for sites and buildings
were not in conflict with the State Shoreline Management regulations.
2 Integration of these planning documents is encouraged by the State. Grant funding was made available for Tukwila to facilitate a
prototype application of this plan development process. The option to simplify the SEPA analysis by deleting the shoreline component is
not possible due to grant contractual obligations. Separating the proposed MIC shoreline plan from the GMA subarea plan components
for public review purposes is allowed and has been done after discussion with the City Council and Planning Commission.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE 9 -21
MARCH 4, 1998
z
_ 1-.
;�-z:
• re 11
6
Jo
00
CO 0
co
w=.
;
N LL
W
O;
:2�'
u_
co a.
t— w,
•
z�
1_- CY
Z l•.
D D;
0 �`.
;0
'w w.
H V;
U co
- I
0
z
.SENT BY: PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; �-+
9 -97 1 =43P�1 ;PERKINS 45 RECEPI 1 2064313665 ;# 2/ 8
PERKINS COIE
A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING: PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40Th FLOOR • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.3099
TELEPHONE: 206 583.8888 • FACSIMILE: 206 583 -8500
June 19, 1997
VIA FACSIMILE
Steve Lancaster
Director
Tukwila Dept. of Community Dvt.
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental
Statements
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
As you know, we represent the Boeing Company. Along with Boeing, we have
reviewed the City's Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement ( "Plan/DEIS "), dated May 20, 1997 and met with members of your
staff (Jack Pace and Vernon Umetsu) on May 29, 1977 to discuss it. As we told Jack
and Vernon at the May 29 meeting, we commend the City for its progressive role in.
developing a planned action subarea for the City's MIC and are generally supportive
of the Plan/DEIS as proposed. In short, Boeing greatly appreciate the City's efforts to
streamline the regulatory process in the MIC. We do, however, have the following
comments:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Clarify Function of Prototypes
The function of the three MIC prototypes is confusing and should be clarified.
Are the prototypes intended to represent a worst case scenario for all environmental
impacts in the MIC or only for transportation impacts? The transportation chapter
(page 5 -12) suggests that the prototypes (in combination ?) represent worst case, but .
the general prototype description on page 2 -6 does not. If the prototypes represent
worst case impacts, would projects that exceed the "umbrella" of impacts created by
combination of the three prototypes require individual SEPA review? The role of the
prototypes in the DEIS/Plan should be clarified and described in greater detail in
Chapter 2.
(03003.01 43 /S D9715 50.175 j
___ LFki RF •
i
z
Hz
IQrw:
JV.
C.) 0:
0 0:
w=
J f-t
0 u-;
w Of
2
¢
IL a,
CO D'
I w.
Z 1,
I- O
Z I-
w
w
2 0;
.2 w'
ILL
o
W Z
N.
0
• SENT BY :PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; �i9 -97 ; 1 :43PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEP7 -'N-,
June 19, 1997
Page 2
2064313665 ;# 3/ 8
2. Plan Appendix
As we understand it, the Plan and the DEIS were combined for purposes of
drafting efficiency. However, combination of the two documents tends to obscure and
confuse the Plan's components. It would be very helpful if an appendix were created
setting forth the Plan independent of the DEIS analysis (especially the Plan's
regulatory components), or if the Planned Action Ordinance adopting the Plan were to
include the Plan as a stand alone document. Is public review of the Plan limited to
review of the DEIS/Plan?
3. Final Plan
The DEIS/Plan often describes the Plan component as "proposed." See,
page 2-6; page 2 -12; and Table 2 -2 (title). For clarity, we assume that the term
"proposed" will be dropped from the document after the DEIS is finalized and the
Plan is approved.
4. Mitigation Credits
The section describing assessment of concurrency on page 5 -23 should clarify
that prior SEPA transportation mitigation payments made by Boeing (and others, if
applicable) will be credited against any GMA mitigation payments that may be
required under the City's transportation concurrency ordinance.
5. Consistent Terminology
The DEIS /Plan describes its Plan component variously as the "subarea plan"
(e.g., page 3-6); the "MIC implementation plan" (e.g., page 3 -6); and the
"implementation plan" (e.g., page 3 -7).. For clarity, the Plan should be consistently
described.
6. Consistency With Seattle Neighborhood Plan
As you probably know, the City of Seattle is beginning an effort to create a
neighborhood plan for the Seattle portion of the Duwarnish corridor. It would be
helpful to property owners along the Tukwila/Seattle boundary if the WC Plan and
Seattle's neighborhood plan were coordinated and consistent.
(03003-0143/S13911550.1751 6/19,97
i
1
1
z
=1-
w;
ce Jo
•o O
CO 0`
• CO w
w =:
N LL
w
co
= a.
z�
I- o;
z
w w:.
13
U
o -i
I-
w w'
LL
•
_ z.
Uo•
z
SENT BY:PERKINS CO[E SEATTLE ; i9-97 ; 1:44PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEFV-i
June 19, 1997
Page 3 .
PLANNED ACTION/DEIS COMMENTS
2064313665 ;# 4/ 8
1. Page 2 -2
The second paragraph states that the MIC subarea "has few remaining
undisturbed natural resources (with the exception of the Duwamish River)." This
sentence implies that the Duwamish is an undisturbed natural resource and that the
MIC subarea contains undisturbed natural resources other than the Duwamish. The
sentence should probably be clarified to state that portions of the Duwamish River
represent the few remaining undisturbed natural resources in the MIC subarea.
2. Page 2 -2
The last paragraph states that Boeing owns "about 650 acres" in the MIC
subarea. Page 3 -1, however, states that Boeing owns approximately 750 acres of land
within the subarea. These estimates conflict and should be made consistent. As noted
in the 1991 -92 Boeing EIS, Boeing owns or leases approximately 650 acres in the
MIC.
3. Page 2 -4
The fourth paragraph of the section entitled "MIC Implementation Plan
Development" mentions a "new planned action permit process." The P1an/DEIS
should set forth the proposed permit process.
4. Table 2 -2
Page 2 -15 states that the MIC Implementation Plan would "allow
administrative design review based on clear design guidelines, for projects within the
Shoreline Overlay District, when design review would not otherwise be required."
The meaning of this sentence is confusing and should be clarified.
Page 2 -15 states that guidelines for site specific studies are proposed to be
included in construction design standards for the MIC implementation plan. The
construction design standards for the Plan should be set forth in the Plan/DEIS.
5. Figure 3 -1
The legend for Figure 3 -1 is difficult to read. "Wholesale distribution" and
"retail distribution" are separate line items in the legend but cannot be distinguished
[03003-0143/513971550.175] 6/19197
.SENT 3Y :PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; :9 -97 ; 1 :44PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPT - -`I-+
June 19, 1997
Page 4
2064313665;# 5/ 8
on the basis of color; similarly, "vacant areas," "water areas," "agriculture" and
"miscellaneous" areas are separate line items but cannot be distinguished.
6. Page 3 -14
Why is a "system to notify developers concerning height limitations"
necessary? Won't zoning regulations establish height Imitations within the MIC
subarea?
7. Page 416
This page states that "habitat restoration may be provided in lieu of City -
required public or employee access to mitigate increases in impervious surface area,
or for projects not driven by City requirements." The meaning of "projects not driven
by City requirements" is confusing and should be clarified.
SMP/DETS COMMENTS
1. SMP Status in the MIC Subarea
The status of the Shoreline Master Program ( "SMP ") component of the
Plan/DEIS for purposes of SEPA review and otherwise is unclear. An argument could
probably be made that the City has effectively segmented environmental review of the
SMP for the MIC from the comprehensive, City -wide SMP review scheduled to take
place later this year. Does the City intend that review and appeal of the MIC portion
of the SMP will be limited to appeal of the DEIS/Plan?
2. Shoreline Access
There are multiple and somewhat confusing references to shoreline access
requirements. Is "public" shoreline access only required along the Green River Trail?
If so, is it only required where public shoreline access is part of.the Green River Trail
Plan? Is employee shoreline access the only type of shoreline access required along
the east side of the river? If so, we assume that this would supersede prior access
plans, such as the public access plan contained in the 1991 -92 Boeing EIS.
3. Page 4-13
Can the MIC portion of the proposed SMP be meaningfully evaluated without
the proposed guidelines which, according to page 4 -13, have not yet been developed?
(03003-01434B9713343.17.11 6/19/97
1
SENT.BY :PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; '9 -97 ; 1:45PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPT"'`1 -+ 2064313665 4 6/ 8
June 19, 1997
Page 5
4. Appendix B, Table 2, Proposed Shoreline Setback for Non -
Water Uses
The proposed setback for non water related uses is 60 feet, while the proposed
setback for water dependent and related uses is 40 feet. The additional 20 foot
setback non water related uses does not make sense from the standpoint of improving
riparian habitat, The ability to restore the shoreline environment is much greater with
a non water related use, than with a water dependent or related use, and offsets the
need for additional setback. Further, non water related uses along the Tukwila
shorelines outside the MIC are currently not required to set back farther than 40 feet.
5. Appendix B, Page 28, Table 2; Impervious Surface
Other EIS sections indicate that an impervious shoreline trail/path would be
allowed in the setback area, but it is not indicated in this section, which specifically
deal with the issue. Would an impervious shoreline trail/employee pathway be
permitted in the setback area?
6. Appendix B, Figure 3, Shoreline Profiles for Improved
Habitat
The range of potential shoreline profiles should allow for enough rock to
ensure bank stability. Are the profiles intended to be prescriptive or merely guidelines
for enhancing the shoreline bank environment? Shoreline bank structures are
typically designed and warranted by structural engineers. Will the proposed profiles
give engineers adequate flexibility to design systems they are willing to warrant
against possible failure ?'
1 At the urging of local government and the State Department of Fisheries, Boeing constructed
a new shoreline bank of the Duwamish Office Tower site similar to that depicted in Figure 3. The
system failed, was washed away and resulted in significant new bank erosion. The replacement
shoreline structure had to be designed with a much greater amount of rock riprap. This agency
experiment was costly for Boeing and illustrates that the desire for habitat restoration needs to be
balanced with need to design a system strong enough to resist the potentially high erosion forces that
can exist in the Duwamish Waterway.
(03003- 0143/S13971550.175) 6/19197
i
1
i
z
• Z,
r4 2
.�O.
U O
U)o.
w =,
J �
CO u_
w o,.
u-Q
CO Dew'
H w =:
z�
Z
ww
U1],
o N,
w`
o,
• z:
U
H =:
O 1' ;
•SENT BY :PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; i9 -97 ; 1 :45PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEP'
June 19, 1997
Page 6
2064313665 ;# 7/ 8
7. Appendix B, Policy 5.9.3 and Appendix B -2, Policy 5.9.3
These sections refer to mitigating habitat loss at a ratio of 2:1 when
unavoidable disturbances of significant vegetation occur. These requirements seem to
imply that the habitat restoration requirement is separate and distinct from the
shoreline bank standards relating to the proposed use. For example, could the
construction of a vertical bulkhead accessory to a water - dependent use trigger a need
for habitat restoration or replacement elsewhere? Related questions: Are the habitat
restorations suggested by the Tanner Report required? What if they conflict with
proposed site use, such water dependent development? How will the restorations be
funded - by adjacent project applicants as conditions of their Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits, or by public money?
8. Appendix B, Policy 5.1.2
Section 5.1.2 states the first priority for the MIC Shoreline Environment is
"Redevelopment of under - utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and
industrial activities." However, other than the reference in Goal 5.3 to "economic
vitality," the Goals and Policies do not support the priority for industrial development
within the MIC referenced above. Goals and Policies supporting industrial
development and redevelopment should be added to Section 5.
9. Relationship of Duwamish Coalition Mode) Ordinance for
Habitat Restoration (Appendix A) to Proposed SMP
(Appendix 13)
Is it the City's intent to adopt the Model Ordinance as a separate shoreline
Ordinance in addition to the Shoreline Master Program? Would the ordinance create
any new or duplicative procedures?
[03003-0143/313971550.1751
* * *
6119,7
1
i
z
w
zI-:
•
ce
J U
U O"
moo.
LIJ
1.-_
(0 o;
w
g '
u. cc'
-d
1- w
z E,
z
2 Di
U
CI
--i
of
i w.
1— V
u• Z'
U -i
z
SENTW:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 9-97 ; 1:46PM ;PERKINS 45 RECEPT--N-,
June 19, 1997
Page 7
2064313665;g 8/ 8
Boeing appreciates and applauds the City's effort to create the Plan/DE1S and
hope that these comments are useful to you in the revision process. Boeing looks
forward to working with the City further on this effort and would be available to offer
any appropriate assistance as the City works to finalize the Plan.
LNW:ce
cc: Elizabeth Warman
John Crull
Gerry Bresslour
Jeff Zahir
Allan Day
Larry Allen
Dick McCann
[03003-0143/SB971550. 175]
Very truly yours,
Laura N. Whitaker
6/19/97
II-
Z
Quj
oo
w
w
uj
2
g =i!
CO
I-- al
Z
Ir
I-0
Z
uj
uj
:x
.•
LIJ z?
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Responses to Perkins Coie%The Boeing Company
1. Please see the response to comment 8 by the City of Seattle.
2. The MIC implementation plan is neither a physical plan nor a new comprehensive plan
designation for the MIC. Rather, it is a plan to more effectively implement previous
policy direction. The specific proposed regulatory changes have been more clearly Q
identified and grouped in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan and FEIS Chapter 3. w;
Also, see response to City of Seattle Public Hearing Comment D. 2;
3. The term "proposed" refers to the fact that the MIC implementation plan has not been v O
adopted by the Tukwila City Council and will be dropped after plan adoption. ; w =%
4. Prior mitigation payments were made by the Boeing Aircraft Company to mitigate the N LL
impacts of previous development. No additional SEPA payments would be required to w 0
the extent that no increase in the modeled level of development is exceeded. This
would apply to new developments and redevelopments. Prior SEPA mitigation g Q
payments made by Boeing and others will be credited against any GMA mitigation a'
payments that may be required under the City's transportation concurrency ordinance, w:
to the extent that such payments would be duplicative of said impact mitigating ? F=--
measures. z 0
z �-:
All developments would be subject to site specific mitigation, such as turning o.
movement improvements needed to maintain corridor capacity and other access �;
regulations. The nature of future site - specific traffic mitigation will be determined o
following City review of a proposal's traffic study. = w
I- U
5. Comment acknowledged. The correct term is "MIC Strategic Implementation Plan," LI p
sometimes referred to for brevity simply as the "implementation plan."
al Z
▪ co
6. Comment acknowledged. Tukwila looks forward to coordinating with the City of
Seattle during development of a neighborhood plan for the Seattle portion of the
Duwamish Corridor. Coordination at this time is problematic as Seattle is in the process
of selecting a consultant to begin assisting in neighborhood plan development, while
the City of Tukwila adopted a detailed plan and implementing regulations for the MIC
subarea during the GMA comprehensive planning process, and has begun public
review of these further implementing regulations.
Coordination with the Seattle planning process to date has included:
• telephone discussions with the contact member of the advisory committee and an
interim, consultant staff member,
• a joint staff meeting with King County and the City of Seattle on coordinated
Duwamish restoration policies,
• ensuring compatible industrial /office land uses; water, sewer and road system
development; and
• initiating work on coordinated capital improvements and annexation boundaries
between King County, Seattle and Tukwila.
7. The text in question is revised to read as follows:
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B -28
MARCH 4, 1998
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
"The Duwamish River, although confined within a channel, is a valuable
habitat for the salmon fishery and other species. Its bottom is a relatively
natural mud /silt, and water quality has been rated as "A" by the State of
Washington.
River banks in the MIC are highly altered, with most navigable channel
banks being clad in a combination of riprap, pier, and vertical bulkheads
(Fig. 4 -1). There are few places where banks have the natural vegetation and
gentle slopes conducive to fisheries habitat enhancement. Bank treatment
and potential habitat restoration sites have been shown in Figure 4 -1."
8. Comment acknowledged. Further analysis shows the area to be about 1,370 acres, of
which the Boeing Aircraft Company owns or controls 650 acres or 47 %. A corrected
land use table is shown in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan Table A (pg. 6). A
textual discussion is presented in FEIS Chapter 2 (pg. 2 -1).
9. The new planned action permit process is was summarized on page 2 -4 of the DEIS. A
more detailed description has been provided in the MIC Strategic Implementation Plan
and FEIS Chapter 3.
10. Administrative design review is identified as a direction for future work, but is not
presented here as a substantive regulation or product. The future design guidelines and
administrative process are currently being prepared. They will be reviewed as a
separate set of regulatory revisions with a separate SEPA process.
11. Guidelines for site - specific traffic studies will not be incorporated into this planned
action process due to the wide variability of impacts and road situations within which
those impacts may occur and the great latitude given the City Engineer in defining
traffic study parameters in the traffic concurrency ordinance superseding any planned
action provisions which might be adopted. Traffic studies now broadly include items
described on DEIS page 5 -22: a site plan, traffic counts at the closest arterial
intersection(s), trip generation and distribution estimates, traffic assignments,
intersection capacity analysis, and discussion of site access and frontage improvement
needs.
The planned action forms would assist the development community by identifying
adopted Tukwila construction standards (TMC 16.34) and specifically identify driveway
design standards (DEIS Fig. 5 -12). Development standards are shown as part of the
proposed action and as mitigating actions /standards throughout the document. They
are anticipated to be administratively collected in an information summary for future
developers.
12. Comment acknowledged. For purposes of clarification, there are no "Agriculture"
areas, over 99% of "Miscellaneous" areas are road right of ways, and the MIC "Water"
area is the Duwamish River. Future maps will use shading to further distinguish
between "Wholesale Distribution" and "Retail Distribution."
13. As described on pages 3 -10 and 3 -11 of the DEIS, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) imposes height restrictions in height above sea level, on buildings within certain
distances of airport takeoff and landing approach pathways. The Zoning Code
measures height from finished grade, regardless of the site's elevation above sea level.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -29
z •
�Z.
.6
.0 0
CO o.
J _•
F.
w0
2
J.
LL j.
w d.
H=
z�..
I- 0
:z
LtJ
U • 0
o I--. '
,w • w.
L 0 z •
iui
.0
• .F=_,
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Sites nearer the runway ends will have dramatically lower allowed structure heights
than the 125 ft. Zoning Code limit. The mitigation measure on page 3 -14 refers to these
FAA regulations, rather than the height restrictions established in the MIC zoning
regulations.
14. This sentence in Paragraph 2 is merely intended to note a few of the situations where
habitat restoration may be undertaken. The situation of: "... projects not driven by z
City requirements" would include philanthropic projects and restoration resulting from 1
a regional legal consent decree, outside the City of Tukwila s purview. This sentence J ci
has been reworded to reflect new landscaping requirements in the "river environment" 0 O
co
in Table 3 -1 and more clearly implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.6.93. w
W
15. See response to City of Seattle Public Hearing Comment D. N u
This EIS is envisioned to be incorporated by reference into the SEPA review for the City-
wide Shoreline Master Plan. SEPA review and appeal of the MIC portion of the g Q
Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan for specific MIC impacts would be done in this process4.
ED 3
Reviewers should expect that incorporation of this document into the programmatic = w'
SEPA review for the City -wide Shoreline Master Plan would effectively complete site Z
specific impact analyses, although cumulative impact analysis would be further z O.
evaluated. A similar process and set of considerations would be applied to the w w:
incorporation of the MIC shoreline master plan provisions into the City -wide shoreline
master plan revisions. o w;
16. The proposed MIC shoreline master plan provisions require public access only along the w w
Green River Trail without exception. Required shoreline access along other areas (e.g., �?
almost all of the east side of the river) is limited to private /employee access. Either
river access and /or habitat restoration may be provided at the property owner's option iii Z`
if not on the Green River Trail. t) y .
0 F-
The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS (1992) is an interjurisdictional z .
document between the Boeing Aircraft Company and the City of Tukwila, the City of
Seattle, and King County for previous construction in the three jurisdictions. Tukwila
was given the role of /SEPA lead agency for the EIS.
Mitigation Agreement access provisions which are solely a result of Tukwila
requirements would be superseded. However, trail provisions also reflect the
requirements resulting from the other jurisdictions, including but not limited to the City
of Seattle and King County. Access on the east side of the river must be provided
pursuant to the Mitigation Agreement.
Superseding of the Mitigation Agreement shoreline access provisions with the Tukwila
MIC shoreline provisions may only be done with all parties amending.the Agreement.
Such a revision may be proposed by Boeing to all parties.
17. See the response to Comment 10 above.
3 This policy requires providing for public access along the river where designated on the King County Green River Trail Master Plan.
4 Incorporating the public review of MIC shoreline provisions with the City -wide Shoreline Master Plan revision, to be done later in 1998,
would not affect the validity of this SEPA impact analysis. Staff recognizes the added dimension of potential cumulative (City -wide)
impacts.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B -30
MARCH 4, 1998
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
18. Staff understands the comment that developments which make higher use of the river
and having greater impacts, seem to be providing lower levels of impact mitigation in
the DEIS. The proposed shoreline master plan has been revised to reflect 40 ft. setbacks
for both water related and non -water related uses and greater landscape /habitat
requirements for water dependent and water related uses in the river environment to z
avoid significant adverse impacts. This is shown in Table 3 -1, "Landscaping ". 4z
re 111
19. Trails are specifically allowed as a footnote under the "Impervious Surface" column. �'
20. The bank treatments are guidelines. Revised bank treatment figures (FEIS figures 1C, v 0
2C, 3B , 4B and 5B) , are based on bank treatments in the immediate area. They also note w w
the need for engineering and consistency with various agency requirements.
• w
21. See new landscaping requirements in the river environment in FEIS Table 3 -1. The new w 0
provisions would require replacement habitat for bulkhead construction.
g J;
The habitat restoration sites are not required uses or a use overlay zone. They are • <' co
merely potential sites for habitat restoration which are part of a recognized restoration I W
State program, making restoration actions generally exempt from a shoreline substantial z
development permit (specific restoration design is subject to administrative approval). z 0`
Developers who are required to provide habitat replacement will be encouraged to • D
participate in improving an identified restoration site. However, participation will be D �.
on a strictly voluntary basis. '0
o '-
Restoration sites do not enjoy added regulation. They might be developed as part a = v
water dependent use's pier apron (subject to normal replacement with an equivalent IL 0`
habitat value per Table 3 -1), left as part of a water related use's undeveloped river
environment, or developed as part of an off -site habitat mitigation program with the 0 w.
property owner's permission. The costs of habitat restoration would be borne by the 1
impacting developer or other party, including the public, as appropriate.
22. Appendix B -1 of the DEIS is a draft shoreline master plan for the MIC. As such, most
policies are oriented toward the need for responsible shoreline development. Policies
about general MIC development are found in the "Manufacturing /Industrial Center"
Comprehensive Plan Element, policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.11.
The proposed regulations for redeveloping properties in FEIS Table 3 -1 allow a dramatic
increase in building replacement, expansion and site improvements than now allowed.
It also represents the permissive approach to redevelopment possible and still be
consistent with Tukwila Comprehensive Plan environmental policies.
23. The model ordinance for habitat restoration (Appendix B -1 of the DEIS) provides
criteria for developing a restoration plan. It does not specify plan goals or performance
standards. A version of this model ordinance is envisioned to be adopted with the
citywide and MIC shoreline master plan as it will likely be used by funding and permit
issuing agencies in their evaluation of restoration projects. This and other shoreline
master plan components would be reviewed in the consolidated, citywide shoreline
master plan update.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS PAGE B -31
MARCH 4, 1998
-Th
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
SPACE HOLDER FOR P -C HRNG LTR 1/2
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
:rt •
PAGE B -32
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
SPACE HOLDER FOR P -C HRNG LTR 2/2
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
•
u� �r
O;.
uO' •
•Z I-I.
• ;WLa!
'c.)
;� IH
:11J W
• :111
:I =.
•
Oi
PAGE B-33
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Responses to Perkins Coie Public Hearing Comments
A. The Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Mitigation Agreement would remain
as a set of additional requirements pursuant to the agreement between Boeing, King
County, the City of Seattle, and the City of Tukwila. Please see response to Comment
16. In the case of overlapping standards, the more strict would apply.
B. The consistency checklist was not included since application forms are typically an w
administrative decision and the substantive content of the form was identified (e.g., 6 =
what developments are potentially a "planned action ", need for consistency with the v p
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and an environmental consistency checklist which is ; N W
equivalent to the current SEPA checklist). An illustrative consistency checklist is now w H
included as Appendix D. cn w
w 0'
C. This is a typographical error. The correct text is shown below:
"or MIC /H zones a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC /L or Q;.
MIC /H zones," s d.
D. The greatly increased environmental complexity of work in the river would require a Z La
very greatly increased amount of EIS analysis to evaluate the appropriateness of a p
blanket planned action designation. The multiple permit review by other State and w
federal agencies for such work, virtually eliminates any time savings from being
designated a planned action. The greatly increased effort to evaluate the planned action v N
status for projects within the river does not seem to be justified by the insignificant p '
degree to which a development would be facilitated. = w'
O.
E. State law requires that each project which is determined to be a planned action shall O
have been found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and have no significant w z
environmental impacts, based on a SEPA checklist or State approved equivalent. 0
Embodying these requirements in the local ordinance is required to ensure consistency
1.7.
1-
with the authorizing State statute. Z
No regulatory gaps which are would allow significant adverse impacts are foreseen.
However, the required consistency checklist is a safety net which could be used to fill a
regulatory gap which is discovered in the future. The City of Everett, the only city
which is now implementing a planned action ordinance, also envisioned a seamless
regulatory net. They have found the consistency checklist to be a significant tool in
project review.
F. Besides Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.6.1, the following existing State statutes
address the protection of archaeological and paleontological information.
RCW 27.34.010
and 27.34.200
........ .. ..... .. .. iit }till \•
i:•Yi4
Establishes public policy to designate, preserve, protect, enhance
and perpetuate structures, sites, districts, buildings and objects of
high historic, archaeological, architectural and cultural
significance.
RCW 27.53.010
State declares its interest in the conservation, p[reservation, and
protection of archaeological resources.
RCW 27.53.040
State defines archaeological resources to include known and
unrecognized resources anywhere in the State of Washington.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FE IS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -34
iffffingnnThall .. xc rrrn:�'.r �,w: r rrn�r'r+«.�sata re+a- zr-° ,� �, - !�,v�rrrM -s ... ... _ , .. .. .... ,...,,• :
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND PLANING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
RCW 27.53.060
State declares is unlawful to knowingly remove, alter, dig into or
deface any historic, prehistoric archaeological resource or site. A
permit from the State Historic Preservation Officer is required for
any such activity to ensure proper resource management.
RCW 36.70A.020
GMA Planning Goal 13: Identify and encourage the preservation
of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or
archaeological significance.
WAC 197 -11 -960
SEPA includes Historic and Cultural Preservation as an Element
of the Environment to be protected from significant adverse
impacts, as defined in adopted public policy. Tukwila staff
administratively identify sensitive sites /resources and work with
the applicant and State Historic Preservation Officer to
appropriately manage potential impacts.
The cultural resource evaluation should apply to buildings on the State or Federal •
historic registers.
G. Fair share potential mitigation for infrastructure costs would be based on the Tukwila
concurrency ordinances. No estimated figures for a specific site is available, although
the facility and estimated costs have been identified (FEIS Chapter 3). The developer
retains the right to protest the fair share cost calculation.
H. As an integrated GMA subarea plan and SEPA environmental impact statement, the
"plan" consists of the DEIS, FEIS and associated appendices. However, the proposed
permit streamlining, capital improvements and regulations which are proposed to
facilitate redevelopment have been grouped in FEIS Chapter 3.
MIC INTEGRATED SUBAREA PLAN AND FEIS
MARCH 4, 1998
PAGE B -35
z
w
JU
UO
CO Ci
CO w;
U4 =;
N LL'
w0
g -J
a
• O"
F-
ww
N
O
'w
1—
O
z;
U N
Z
H Z1
Di
U O:
0
N W`
W 0
• g J {"
= a
z f..!
Oi
City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
PLANNING COMMISSIONALA.R. Z
AGENDA Z
ce
DECEMBER 11, 1997 6 m:
(..) 0
WORK SESSION 6:00 P.M.
Wco Cita
PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. W X.
CO LL
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS; 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
<
ffi
a:
I- al
X;
Z
I- 0'
Z
LU uj
2 D.
D 0.
0 (Di
V. CITIZEN COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items which are NOT 111
included on the agenda.
CALL TO ORDER
ATTENDANCE
III. WORK SESSION:
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
—Senior -Housing- frt
c
VI. MINUTES: October 23, 1997; November 6, 1997; November 13, 1997
VII. SWEARING IN OATH
VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L96-0071 (Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Strategic Implementation
Plan)
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Adopt a subarea implementation plan for the Tukwila MIC.
Includes streamlining permit review, capital improvements and regulatory
revisions.
LOCATION: All properties north of the 126th right of way alignment northward to the City
limits and its potential annexation area, but excluding the Allentown residential
neighborhood.
CASE NUMBER: L97-0055
APPLICANT: Western Wireless
REQUEST: Approval of a Personal Communication System (PCS) Base Station comprised
of a 100-foot monopole with 9 antennae.
15830 Pacific Hwy S, Tukwila.
LOCATION:
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665
.2mtamertmeattannms.amjjamg__, 0PROMMr
To:
From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
Date: December 4, 1997
City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
Tukwila Planning Commission Members
RE: L96 -0071: Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan
Background
The proposed Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Strategic Implementation Plan was
presented to the Planning Commission in a special briefing workshop on November 13th. The
staff briefing was followed by a question and answer period.
The following activities have been completed subsequent to the Planning Commission briefing:
• 11/21/97: 90 notices of document availability, a public information meeting, and the
Planning Commission public hearing, were mailed to various property owners, citizen and
business groups, and interested agencies,
• 12/2/97: A public information meeting was held during the day at the City of Tukwila
Planning Division. Representatives from the City of Seattle, the Boeing Company and Paccar
were briefed on the proposed project. A question and answer period followed a staff briefing.
Next Steps
The Planning Commission public hearing will gather and clarify comments from the public and
staff. These comments would be considered during deliberations. After completing
deliberations, the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council for Plan
adoption, modification, or denial.
Please feel free to contact me at 206 - 431 -3684, if I can be of further help.
file:q:micip\hrngmem.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
z n ..
-1 O.
oo
Ncal
w =
J H:
w O:
g Q,
ffi Of
= c�
W.
- o:.
• zI-!
ww
o;
ocn;
.w w,
= U.
0
Z;
.0 V1;
0 ~'
z
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission
will be holding a work session.and public hearing on December 11, 1997. The work session will begin at
6:00 p.m. and the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd, to discuss the following:
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0039
APPLICANT: CSM Hotel
REQUEST: Design review approval of an 8- story, 210 room hotel with a 2 -story parking
LOCATION:
garage.
16038 West Valley Highway, Tukwila.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0055
APPLICANT: Western Wireless
REQUEST: Approval of a Personal Communication System (PCS) Base Station comprised of
a 100 -foot monopole with 9 antennae.
LOCATION: 15830 Pacific Hwy S, Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0064 - Conditional Use Permit
L97 -0066 - Design Review
APPLICANT: GTE Wireless
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval of a Personal
Communication System (PCS) Base station, comprised of 12 antennae mounted
to a 27 foot pole, affixed to an existing building.
LOCATION: 13400 Interurban Av S, Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER: L96 -0071 (Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation
Plan)
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Adopt a subarea implementation plan for the Tukwila MIC.
Includes streamlining permit review, capital improvements and regulatory
revisions.
LOCATION: All properties north of the 126th right of way alignment northward to the City
limits and its potential annexation area, but excluding the Allentown residential
neighborhood.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the
public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The
City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the
above items.
Published: November 26, 1997 Seattle Times
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File.
To:
From:
Date:
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission Members
Jack Pace, Senior Planner
May 1, 1997
RE: Manufacturing Industrial Center Implementation Plan.
Bac ground
The Comprehensive Plan's Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC)
policies call for facilitating area improvement (11.1.1),
streamlining permit review while providing meaningful
opportunities for citizen input and environmental protection
(11.1.3), and updating MIC shoreline requirements for consistency
with the City -wide shoreline management plan (11.1.4).
Purpose
DCD will be bring forward an MIC subarea plan which implements
the Comprehensive Plan's policy direction. The plan's focus is
to
1. remove the unnecessary regulatory barriers to area
improvement,
2. recommending additional regulations as needed to implement the
Comprehensive Plan and ensure environmentally responsible
development, and
3. identifying all specific mitigation requirements for
developments to reduce regulatory uncertainties and maximize
efficient development review to the maximum extent possible.
Preparation of this plan was noted to the Planning Commission
late last year and was specifically endorsed by the City Council
in February, 1997.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
v i'145+1.:i{SiAi' 'S.LS':ii:: •nAP:b' pia": L351a''. lisdi 'S3tifi�YliXiix'4vn1.`G257d=u'�N 1 >at; •11
Project Review Process
The plan review process is proposed to commence with a joint
briefing of the Planning Commission and City Council on May 19,
1997. Plan recommendations and an environmental analysis of
potential impacts will be incorporated into an integrated subarea
plan and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). This
document will be distributed at the joint briefing.
This briefing will coincide with wide notification of document
availability and the beginning of a 30 day, DEIS comment period.
Further Planning Commission hearings and workshops will be
scheduled at your direction.
Please contact Vernon Umetsu (431 -3684) or myself (431- 3686)if we
can be of any help.
z
Uo
•u)Q
• ".',CA W
J =t
E-•
w�
•
• = Cy:
I-o
WW.
;U Q, •
W.W
=V? .
U
•o h.
.z
A F F I D A V I T
[Notice of Public Hearing
D Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
f Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
LI Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
o Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
was to each of the following addresses on I(- aS 1 1
1/-15\.- ("h/Jv 91,..
2 1
LJ Determination of Non -
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
o Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
o Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other,
Other
Name of Project WI DC/
File Number O CD r�Zi7
Signatur
z
6D'
JUi
U0;
0
cn w
wm
LL.
w0
J'
LL. Q'•
1- O
LU
z r;
U N
'
O {
;w w'
U.:
LL. z•
ON
0
Z....
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission
will be holding a work session and public hearing on December 11, 1997. The work session will begin at
6:00 p.m. and the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd, to discuss the following:
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0039
APPLICANT: CSM Hotel
REQUEST: Design review approval of an 8- story, 210 room hotel with a 2 -story parking
' LOCATION:
garage.
16038 West Valley Highway, Tukwila.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0055
APPLICANT: Western Wireless
REQUEST: Approval of a Personal Communication System (PCS) Base Station comprised of
a 100 -foot monopole with 9 antennae.
LOCATION: 15830 Pacific Hwy S, Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0064 - Conditional Use Permit
L97 -0066 - Design Review
APPLICANT: GTE Wireless
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval of a Personal
Communication System (PCS) Base station, comprised of 12 antennae mounted
to a 27 foot pole, affixed to an existing building.
LOCATION: 13400 Interurban Av S, Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER: L96 -0071 (Tukwila Manufacturing /Industrial Center Strategic Implementation
Plan)
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Adopt a subarea implementation plan for the Tukwila MIC.
Includes streamlining permit review, capital improvements and regulatory
revisions.
LOCATION: All properties north of the 126th right of way alignment northward to the City
limits and its potential annexation area, but excluding the Allentown residential
neighborhood.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the
public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The
City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the
above items.
Published: November 26, 1997 Seattle Times
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File.
Z
1
~w
u6D
UO;,
I. in
Jam,
w O:
u.
COJ
d.
Z
Z F-;
11J uf
U�
ON
W W'
2
H U,
u_ O
w Z.
Uw
z
1
I
A F F I D A V I T 1
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
C ) )D„r JeA hereby declare that:
a(otice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
fl Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
ODetermination of Non -
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsigniificance
fl Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Notice of Action
Official Notice
0 Other
0 Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on (01-9-7
Name of Project /MC_
File Number. 1"'I tD' 00-
Signature IG1/Lt,� ( Ct�r'iQ -MOiI
11:i11;,,,,t;::i•^'l un+'..H`w'1'.3.11e 1r1AD,AL it +7..V..111116.1e1kal. L'tei>F:LA1v+'4TV.ml:: �:SA�trtiiDiY.^f' iJ..n..v.tlrW
14aieY(ebN:`ibi{1bXNwY
.#++.L.uuS::u...1• w
z
i
•
J U;
U O;
ow:
w=
-I I, •
LL;.
wO
ga'.
N d'
_`
1- 0
:z
:w wt..
-DOi
N;
;0
.;p H•.
w w.
H V
LL
Z;
U =1
z....
}
'1 \ City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
IO'
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AND
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
ON THE
TUKWILA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
November 21, 1997
Dear Sir or Madam:
You are invited to a public information meeting on the proposed actions to implement City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan policies for the Manufacturing Industrial Center, including potential annexation areas.
The actions include:
• a streamlined permit review process made possible by the modified development standards,
• additional capital improvements and potential public /private responsibilities, and
• modified development standards in support of the streamlined review process.
Staff will provide a short briefing and answer
your questions. Please make every effort to
attend this meeting at:
Conference Room 1,
City of Tukwila Planning Division Office
Suite 100, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.
(immediately east of City Hall)
On Tuesday, December 21997,
At 11:00 AM.
A public hearing has been scheduled before
the Planning Commission on December 11th,
at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.
Notice of a subsequent hearing before the
City Council on the Planning Commission's
recommendation, will be mailed later.
Please contact Vernon Umetsu (431 -3684) or
Jack Pace (431- 3686), to receive a copy of
the plan or for further information.
�.., aAn 1NA1
'•
t. ..'.
011A 11RI : \ \ .....
•
V.�n
ItfiIpF1T
CITY OF TUKWILA
Manulacturing/Industrla( Center
E
SM Opp
hvo.. Sure w Nei
MIC Boundary
Gry Units
.COW,
r 1 l
�..; •.1 : SEATTLE
PROJECT
LOCATION I'/
.1j . ..i.._.
is !1 .1(„
Ji0 / TACOMA
itI °L.
LT.IFlA
t((
10
OA C11MR1
LL
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
AttIMINMINEMIIIIIIMMINNWMMIlmomPEMENEI
z
�z
ry
U O'
0) 0
w w
w I.
al O,
a
11--_:
1— o'
Z 1—;
D o
;o N<
O 1—
=W
1-
- O:
Iii z,
co
1,„ • 1-'
z.:.
JOAN HERNANDEZ
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
15224 SUNWOOD BLVD
TUKWILA WA 98188
CITY OF SEATTLE
OMP - SEPA OFFICIAL
300 MUNICIPAL BLDG
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1826
STEVE KUZMA
B.N.S.F. RAILWAY
999 THIRD AV
SEATTLE WA 98104
ELIZABETH WARMAN
BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES
PO BOX 3707, MS 14 -49
SEATTLE WA 98124 -2207
LEE LINNE
JORGENSEN FORGE
8531 EAST MARGINAL WY S
SEATTLE WA 98108
RUSS SEGNER
KIDDER MATTHEWS & SEGNER
12886 INTERURBAN AV S
TUKWILA WA 98168
LAURA WHITAKER
PERKINS COIE
1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR
SEATTLE WA 98101 -3099
U.S. E.P.A.
1200 6th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98101
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
LEGISLATIVE BUILDING
OLYMPIA WA 98504
SEPA OFFICIAL
K C WATER POLL. CONTROL
821 SECOND AVE MS -120
SEATTLE WA 98104
PAMELA LINDER
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
11918 INTERURBAN PL S
TUKWILA WA 98168
CITY OF SEATTLE
SEPA INFO CENTER
720 SECOND AVE STE 200
SEATTLE WA 98104
STEVE LAWRENCE
FOSTER COMMUNITY CLUB
4251 S 139th ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
JOHN CRULL
BOEING SUPPORT SERVICES
PO BOX 3707, MS 2R -71
SEATTLE WA 98124 -2207
RAY GOODING
ASSOCIATED GROCERS
PO BOX 3763
SEATTLE WA 98124
BOB HART
SGA CORPORATION
6414 204th ST SW STE 200
LYNNWOOD WA 98036
ERIC LASCHEVER
PRESTON, GATES & ELLIS
701 5th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN.
711 S CAPITOL WY #501
OLYMPIA WA 98501
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY'GEN
PO BOX 40117
OLYMPIA WA 98504
K C HEALTH DEPT
506 2nd AVE #201
SEATTLE WA 98104
STEVE MULLET
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
3303 S 132nd ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
RODERICK MALCOM
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
39015 172nd AVE SE
AUBURN WA 98002
DANIEL ARAGON
DUWAMISH IMPROVEMENT CLUB
4504 S 124th ST
TUKWILA WA 98178
PHIL GLADFELTER
PACCAR
PO BOX 1518
BELLEVUE WA 98009
DAVID McDONALD
ASSOCIATED GROCERS
PO BOX 3763
SEATTLE WA 98124
MATT WOOD
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD'
700 5th AVE - STE 2700
SEATTLE WA 98104
RICHARD McCANN
PERKINS COIE
1201 THIRD AVE - 40th FLR
SEATTLE WA 98101 -3099
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
111 W 21st AV MS KL -11
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -5411
K C PLNG & COMM DEVEL
900 OAKSDALE AV SW
RENTON WA 98055 -1219
P.S. REGIONAL COUNCIL
1011 WESTERN AVE #500
SEATTLE WA 98104
EVAN LEWIS
US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS
4735 E MARGINAL WAY S
SEATTLE WA 98124 -2255
ANN KENNY, SHORELANDS DIV
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
3190 160th AVE SE
BELLEVUE WA 98008 -5452
DEPT OF COMMUNITY TRADE &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 48300
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -8300
KC DEPT OF DEV /ENVIR SVCS
SEPA INFORMATION CENTER
900 OAKSDALE AVE SW
.RENTON WA 98055 -1219
PORT OF SEATTLE
PO BOX 1209
SEATTLE WA 98111
STEVE HAGEN
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808
SEATTLE WA 98104 -5031
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
200 MILL AVE S
RENTON WA 98055
GEORGE MALINA
TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION
15617 47th AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98188
GRANT NEISS
TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION
16318 45th PL S
TUKWILA WA 98188
PAM CARTER
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
4115 S 139th ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
PHIL SCHNEIDER
DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
22516 SE 64th PL STE 230
ISSAQUAH WA 98027
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR.
15700 DAYTON AVE N MS -138
SEATTLE WA 98133
DEPT OF FISHERIES /WLDLIFE
16018 MILL CREEK BLVD
MILL CREEK WA 98012
K C TRANSIT DIVISION
SEPA OFFICIAL
821 SECOND AVE, MS -122
SEATTLE WA 98104
TUKWILA LIBRARY
14475 59th AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168
CHUCK PETERSON
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
700 FIFTH AV - STE #2808
SEATTLE WA 98104 -5031
CITY OF SEATAC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
17900 INTERNAT'L BL #401
SEATAC WA 98188 -4236
VERN MERYHEW
TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION
4431 S 148th ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
DAVID LIVERMORE
TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION
13212 31st AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168
JOE DUFFIE
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
5332 S 140th ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
SEPA ENVIRON REVIEW
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
PO BOX 47703
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -7703
MARY BARRETT
DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PO BOX 68
ENUMCLAW WA 98022 -0068
DCTED
GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PERF
PO BOX 48300
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -8300
RUTH HARVEY
KC WATER & LAND
700 5th AVE #2200
SEATTLE WA 98104
FOSTER LIBRARY
4205 S 142nd ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
220 FOURTH AVE S
KENT WA 98032
KATHRYN STETSON
TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION
13258 40th AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168
HENRY MARVIN
TUKWILA PLNG COMMISSION
5327 S 140th ST
TUKWILA WA 98188
JIM HAGGERTON
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
15820 43rd AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98188
ALLAN EKBERG
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
4920 S 161st ST
TUKWILA WA 98188
Z
=Z'
' ~w
000
N o: .
='
w 0'
*a
LL
('a
Z
I— 0�
Z 1••-,
UJ
2 D:
D
0 co
CI
al W.
Z
z
P.S.A.P.C.
110 UNION ST #500
SEATTLE WA 98101
METRO
. ENVIRONMENTAL PLNG DEPT
821 2nd AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104
KENT LIBRARY
212 2nd AVE N
KENT WA 98032
SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY
1000 4th AV - 2nd FLR
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1193
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
PO BOX 1869
SEATTLE WA 98111
OLYMPIC PIPELINE
PO BOX 1800
RENTON WA 98057
WATER DISTRICT #20.
12606 1st AVE S
SEATTLE WA 98168
SEATTLE TIMES
LEGAL NOTICES
PO BOX 70
SEATTLE WA 98111
IVAR JONES
DELTA MARINE
1608 S 96th ST
SEATTLE WA 98108
Gary C. Taller
Boeing Defense & Space Group
.P.O. ,. Box 3707, MS 46 -87
Seattle, WA „ 98124 -2207
SW KC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
16400 SOUTHCENTER PY #210 140 RAINIER AV S STE 7
TUKWILA WA 98188 RENTON WA 98055 -2000
S CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST
.4640 S 144th ST
TUKWILA WA 98168
SEATTLE LIBRARY
1000 4th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1193
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
815 4th N
SEATTLE WA 98109
SEATTLE WATER DEPT
710 2nd AV - 10th FLR
SEATTLE WA 98104
RENTON LIBRARY
100 MILL ST
RENTON WA 98055
KING COUNTY LIBRARY
300 8th AVE
SEATTLE WA 98109
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
7235 S 228th
KENT WA 98032
TCI CABLEVISION
15241 PACIFIC HY S
SEATTLE WA 98188
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
22828 68th AV S - #102 PO BOX 68063
KENT WA 98032 -1834 SEATTLE WA 98168
WATER DISTRICT #125
PO BOX 68147
SEATTLE WA 98168
IKE NWANKWO
DCTED, GROWTH MGMNT DIV
PO BOX 48300
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -8300
CLARE IMPETT
K.C. INT'L AIRPORT
PO BOX 80245
SEATTLE WA 98108
Margaret Duncan
P.O. Box 498
Suquamish, WA 98392 -0498
CITY OF RENTON
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
200 MILL AV S
RENTON WA 98055
DUWAMISH COALITION
c/o K.C. 0.B.S.P
516 3rd AVE - RM 420
SEATTLE WA 98104
RICHARD ANDERSON
SEAFIRST R.E. INVESTMNT
PO BOX 34029
SEATTLE WA 98124
Ikuno Masterson
Office of Budget & Strategic
Planning
516;Thi rd Av, Rm 420
Seattle, WA 98104
z
u6n
J U:
UO •
• Np •
w XI
� LL:
uj
g -,
I- w.
Z �.
Ill a
U 0'
ui
;0 —..
0 F-'
: W
H V'
O
LIJ
Z•
U--
z
A F F I D A V I T
KNotice of Public Hearing
D Notice of Public Meeting
0 Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
❑ Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
0 Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
OF D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
O Notice.of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
O Determination of Non -
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
fJ Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
0 Official Notice
0 Other
0 Other
was aa±led to each of the following addresses on
To 19(. p-Aott-k-v1 "A'L-
la - °i --'1 `l .
(0-10 —1-
Name of Project6 L 1 (-t' I LfJf k`- Signature
File Number V (P _ 1
z
i-z;
• wr
6
JU
U 0
cn w-
.w
•
J
w 0:,••
LLa
D.
(12
= d ;.
z1
• zCI
0 p.
;0 Si2i
,w
,
U;
uiz
'z...
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC NOTICE
Steve Lancaster, Director
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review and
Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on October 23, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd, to discuss the following:
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L97 -0046
Opus Northwest, LLC
Design review approval to construct a 129,770 s.f. multi- tenant
industrial buildings with office space.
18404 and 18436 Cascade Av S, Tukwila
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
L97 -0050
Western Wireless
Conditional Use Permit approval for a Personal Communication
System (PCS) Base Station, comprised of 2 rooftop mounted
antennae.
13910 Pacific Hy S (Econolodge Motel), Tukwila
L96 -0007
City of Tukwila
Adopt an implementation plan for the Tukwila Manufacturing
Industrial Center.
All industrial lands north of S 126th St. within the City of Tukwila
and its potential annexation area.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by
appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the
Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and
other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published: October 10, 1997, Seattle Times
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent
Property Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
❑ Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Determination of Non - Significance
❑ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Mitigated Determination of
Non - Significance
❑ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
❑ Determination of Significance and
❑ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Scoping Notice
❑ Planning Commission Agenda Packet ❑ Notice of Action
❑ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet ❑ Official Notice
❑ Notice of Application for Other
Shoreline Management Permit
❑ Shoreline Management Permit
was maile . ed t . each of the following addresses on: '/4 1 611 c-1/4 3l C01
❑ Other
File Number L96 6 J 0c 7(
Name of Project MCC, Irk- 1vA-04i)
z
w!
re 2
JU•
U O
.co
:u) uJ
•N•w
wO
LL Q;
•
= d' •
z
1- 0;
1-:•
ww. •
Uyi
o H•
w
F- V`
Oi
• wz
U =t
•
O.F
.z...
FAX TRANSMITTAL
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Fax Number: (206) 431 -3665
TO: Property/Business Owner
Workshon Participants
DATE:
March 4, 1997
TITLE:
FROM:
Steve Lancaster
COMPANY:
TITLE:
Director
DEPT:
DEPT:
Community Development
FAX
NO.
Total number of pages
transmitted, including
this cover sheet:
2
SENT BY
(initials):
SDS
SUBJECT: Thank you for helping
COMMENTS /MESSAGE:
Participants:
Mr. Eric Laschever; Preston, Gates & Ellis (623 -7022)
Mr. John Crull; Boeing Aircraft Co. (544 -5889)
Mr. Phil Gladfelter; Paccar (455 -7421)
Mr. Lee Linne; Jorgensen Forge (762 -5414)
Ms. Clare Impett; King Cty Intl. Airport (296 -0190)
Mr. Steve Kuzma; Burlington Northern Railroad (625 -6115)
Mr. Ray Gooding; Associated Grocers (763 -7962)
Mr. David McDonald; Associated Grocers (763 -7962)
Mr. Steve Hagen; Seattle City Light (233 -2760)
Ms. Laura Whitaker; Perkins Coie
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 431 -3654
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
Dept. of Community Development - 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 - (206) 431 -3670
• v:s.Li atIm ail ; a/t',' }"' +�+m3aktr.,:agU.rc :.... ufh+- •
z
z
w,
0 O`
co cv
NW'
W ='
0;.
u. <
en n
Z�
1-0;.
zI-
10 xv
i0E-r
W W.
• U'
Z
W • u)`
0
FAX TRANSMITTAL
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Fax Number: (206) 431 -3665
TO:
Public Sector Workshop
Particinants
DATE:
March 4, 1997
TITLE:
FROM:
Steve Lancaster
COMPANY:
TITLE:
Director
DEPT:
DEPT:
Community Development
FAX
NO.
Total number of pages 2
transmitted, including
this cover sheet:
SENT BY
(initials):
SDS
SUBJECT: Thank you for helping
COMMENTS /MESSAGE:
Participants:
Mr. Evan Lewis; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (764 -6602)
Ms. Ann Kenny; WA State DOE, Shoreline Division (649 -7098)
Mr. Phil Schneider; WA State Fish & Wildlife (391 -6583)
Ms. Mary Barrett; WA State Dept. of Natural Resources (298 -4597)
Ms. Ruth Harvey; King County Surface Water Mgmt. (296 -0192)
Mr. Roderick Malcom; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (931 -0752)
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 431 -3654
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
Dept. of Community Development - 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 - (206) 431 -3670
,y.
FAX TRANSMITTAL
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Fax Number: (206) 431 -3665
TO: Indust. Development Advisors
Workshon Particinants
DATE:
March 4, 1997
TITLE:
FROM:
Steve Lancaster
COMPANY:
TITLE:
Director
DEPT:
DEPT:
Community Development
FAX
NO.
Total number of pages 2
transmitted, including
this cover sheet:
SENT BY
(initials):
SDS
SUBJECT: Thank you for helping
COMMENTS /MESSAGE:
Participants:
Mr. Russ Segner; Kidder, Mathews and Segner (248 -7342)
Mr. Bob Hart; SGA Corp (778 -2196)
Mr. Matt Wood; Cushman and Wakefield (521 -0257)
Mr. Bob Filley; Center for Community Development and Real Estate (543 - 24631 - --
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 431 -3654
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
Dept. of Community Development - 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 - (206) 431 -3670
z.
w.
2;
6 >>.
V o:
co
III M.
o,
Q`
Via,
�w
o;
2 Di
z �
w W'
� U
z
U -`
o F'';.
z.
March 4, 1997
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development. Steve Lancaster, Director
RE: Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Workshop.
Dear Workshop Participant:
Thank you for making time in your busy schedule to participate in an implementation plan
workshop on the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center. These workshops have been
instrumental to our developing plan options.
Implementation plan options will be finalized and a preliminary list of recommended actions
identified for further review at the end of March. As agreed, this preliminary set of actions will be
sent to you at that time for review. Vernon Umetsu looks forward to discussing your comments
on these implementing actions. Please feel free to contact him at 431 -3684.
The next formal opportunity for public review will be during the consolidated plan /SEPA public
comment period. This will be a 30 day period scheduled to begin in May.
Again, thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Steve Lancaster
Director
file:wkspthx
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
KING COUNTY LIBRARY
300 8TH AVE
SEATTLE WA 98109
RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
435 MAIN S
RENTON WA 98055
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
P 0 BOX 1869
SEATTLE WA 98111
TCI CABLEVISION
15241 PACIFIC HY S
SEATTLE WA 98188
VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT
P 0 BOX 68063 •
SEATTLE WA 98168
CITY OF RENTON
200 MILL AVE S.
RENTON WA 98055
r TG
cite - I9LIMG'12MAnl
KENT PLANNING DEPT
220 FOURTH AVE S
KENT WA 98032
CITY OF BURIEN
415 SW 150TH
BURIEN WA 98166
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
16400 SOUTHCENTER PY #210
TUKWILA WA 98188
METRO
ENVIR. PLANNING DEPT
821 2ND AVE
SEA 1TLE WA 98104
SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY
1000 4TH AVE 2ND FLR
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1193
.S. WEST COMM.
7235 S 228TH
KENT WA 98032
\JHGHLINE WATER DIST
23828 30TH AVE S
KENT WA 98032 -3867
OLYMPIC PIPELINE
P 0 BOX 1800
RENTON WA 98057
.ATER DIST #20
12606 1ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA 98168
RAINIER VISTA SEWER
11846 DES MOINES_MEM DR
SEATTLE WA 98168
c4.1c7t,NG Cocip.-Dirc Pt-Nt,e-r
ITY OF SEATAC
17900 INT'L BLVD #401
SEATAC WA 98188 -4236
P. S. REGIONAL COUNCIL
1011 WESTERN AVE #500
SEATTLE WA 98104
FtsKeltrc:s ).t0
�CKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
39015 172ND AVE SE
AUBURN WA-98O82 ?8 a ?2..
p rr 7 5 C Kn of mac. sT y J'(5
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
815 4TH N
SEATTLE WA 98109
✓ SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
1015 3RD AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1198
v SEATTLE WATER DEPT
710 2ND AVE 10TH FLR
SEATTLE WA 98104
PUGET SOUND POWER LIGHT
22828 68TH AVE S #102
KENT WA 98032 -1834
WATER DIST #125
P 0 BOX 68147
SEATTLE WA 98168
SKYWAY WATER & SEWER
11909 RENTON S
SEATTLE WA 98178
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING DEPT
200 MILL AVE S
RENTON WA 98055
t A.P.C. A UNION ST #500
TTLE WA 98101
DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
212 S WELLS
RENTON WA 98055
SEPA ENVIRON. REVIEW
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
P 0 BOX 47703
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -7703
DEPT.
FISH &
911 NE
POR
RIOR
DLIrE. SERVICE
AVE
97232 -4181
OH 10E OF ARCHAEOLOGY
111 W 21ST.AVE MS KL -11
OLYMPIA WA 98504 -5411
OFFICE
LEGIS
OLYMP
GOVERNOR
BUILDING
98504.
WASH DEPT SOCIAL/HEALTH
P 0 BOX 1788
OLYMPIA WA 98504
KING COUNTY PLANNING
MARILYN COX
3600 136TH PL SE
BELLEVUE WA 98006 -1400
DISTRICT #2
15100 8TH AVE SW
BURIEN WA 98166
5.1A-7AC. At2Poe r
PORT OF SEATTLE
P 0 BOX 4399. 0872
SEATTLE WA- 981.1 48(68
A z rac L Ute - Yrczoticr
TUKWILA LIBRARY
14475 59TH AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98168
KENT LIBRARY
212 2ND AVE N
KENT WA 98032
ci"
60N
17
US ARMY CORP ENGINEERS
4735 E MARGINAL WAY S
SEATTLE WA 98124 -2255
US E.P.A.
1200 6TH AVE
SEATTLE WA 98101
/DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR.
15700 DAYTON AVE N MS 138
SEATTLE WA 98133
COMMUNITY DEV.
LUMBIA
A 98501
>Pk
✓ WA DEPT OF ECOLOGY
SHORELINE PERMIT REVIEW
3190 160TH AVE SE
BELLEVUE WA 98008 -5452
K C BOUNDARY REVIEW BD
810 3RD AVE #608
SEATTLE WA 98104
KCPARKS &REC.
2040 84TH SE
MERCER ISLAND WA 98040
K C BLDG/LAND DEV DIV
SEPA INFO. CENTER
3600 136TH PL SE
BELLEVUE WA 98006 -1400
FOSTER LIBRARY
4205 S 142ND
TUKWILA WA 98168
SEATTLE LIBRARY
1000 4TH AVE
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1193
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIIN.
711 S CAPITOL WAY #501
OLYMPIA WA 98501 .
t. US DEPT OF H.U.D.'
909 1ST AVE #200
SEATTLE WA 98104 -1000
AWN ENVIR. OFFICER
DEPT OF NAT. RESOURCES
S PUGET SOUND REGION
PO BOX 68
ENUMCLAW WA 98022 -0068
RIES/WILDLIFE
CREEK BLVD
EK WA 98012
SEAoTcjft-
WA STATE ATTORNEY GEN.
ECOLOGY DEPT
P 0 BOX 40117
OLYMPIA WA 98504
FIRE DISTRICT #11
1243 SW 112TH
SEATTLE WA 98146
K C HEALTH DEPT
PERMITS
506 2ND AVE #201
SEATTLE WA 98104
/CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST.
4640 S 144TH
TUKWILA WA 98168
RENTON LIBRARY
100 MILL ST
RENTON WA 98055
HIGHLINE SCHOOL DIST.
15675 AMBAUM BLVD SW
SEATTLE WA 98166
r4 2
6
J V.
U O:
CO 0
W
W =:
J
LL
Os
g J.
LL 4:
w a;
= W
z�
F- O
z F-.
2 uj
U 0s
ON
0 H:
WW
H0
LL OS
iii
Z
U=
'O ~
z
•
••..
•
gsfxRwai) • A -
"7 14 P1
•
U S WEST COMM.
1313 E COLUMBIA ST #206
SEATTLE WA 98122
coo
:1!
cJA %tot- 4-(es-
to' Ag,6-ND
T cos-e
Le_ez,e)Yetr.
„
To-K, 7707
Si cJA ?c9f24
•((Jf Clpc7f
P. 0, Tox 1. 76.00 Nj
?c35-0--1- 7coo
Ayr-0 1/Aza.
fl
MEMORANDUM CHAIHILL
Tukwila MIC Subarea Plan Project - Task B
Deliverables
TO:
Vern Umetsu
City of Tukwila
ier
FROM: Lorie Par Project Manager
DATE: February 27, 1997
Enclosed are the meeting notes which are the deliverables under Task B of our contract.
Please let me know if we have misunderstood anything that was said at the meetings.
Otherwise we will consider this task complete.
Noye F0 C05
1) 0 par y awe csgS
7-) P 6g-A4 I 7- A-a 6).41 cf. 12rPg69'uNi -IA- 7f- v6-5
er At 7> u5 I%•0/0-- pm &/(e e2ceatr.r
C-12.0 u P M7c
Ar
SEWTASKB SUBMITTALDOC
r"
v
• 'FEB 2 8 197
COMMUNITY
DFVEIOPMENT
1 139766
♦..
;
Attendees:
Location:
Date /time:
Subject:
Notes By:
Meeting Notes
Tukwila MIC Planned Action
Russ Segner /Kidder Mathews & Segner
Bob Hart/SGA
Matt Wood /Cushman & Wakefield
Jack Pace /Tukwila DCD
Vernon Umetsu/Tukwila DCD
Lorie Parker /CH2M HILL
Lloyd Skinner /Adolfson Associates
Tukwila Community Center
February 19, 1997; 10:30 am
Stakeholder Meeting; Industry Experts
Lloyd Skinner
Vernon Umetsu provided an overview of the MIC project area and asked the group to
consider long -range redevelopment issues in the Duwamish Corridor from a market
perspective. What uses would the City be likely to see? How much redevelopment
could be expected? How could the City facilitate redevelopment?
Russ Segner suggested that the City focus on a few large infrastructure issues that face
the area for the long term. He urged that short -term redevelopment not distract the City
from the big issues. These he suggested were Regional Transit Authority plans for
providing access to and through the Corridor; the future status of the Sixteenth Avenue
South Bridge; and resolution of annexation issues at the Tukwila - Seattle city border. He
believes that large -scale private sector investment in the corridor is discouraged by
uncertainty over these issues.
Preliminary RTA plans include a light rail line from downtown Seattle, through the
Rainier Valley, across I -5 at the Boeing Access Road, and up SR 99 /Pacific Highway
South eventually to Sea -Tac Airport. Potential issues include service to the designated
Southcenter Urban Center, the ability of the Pacific Highway corridor to take advantage
of redevelopment spurred by the light rail line, and the potential use of a Duwamish
Corridor site for a maintenance yard. Tukwila is currently selecting a consultant to
address city -wide transportation planning issues, including the RTA, and will consider
the needs and recommendations of the MIC Planned Action project during that study.
The Sixteenth Avenue South Bridge is deteriorating; it needs to be replaced or rebuilt.
Russ urged the City to consider the long -range needs of the Corridor when addressing
this issue. If the bridge is not needed as a transportation link and is closed, substantial
redevelopment possibilities arise, particularly if the public right of way can be used to
consolidate land parcels and perhaps realign property lines to eliminate the "diagonal
line" cutting through the large parcels on the east side of the bridge. If the bridge is
closed, the access and circulation patterns on the west side of the bridge could be better
W;.
cc oo
(no
. ww'
w=
• LL;
w o`
J'
w ¢:
d'
ui
z�
F- O
Z I;
ww
U ;
o
D H;
= w.
F- U
ui z`
u s
O ~
z
1.
ai
i
designed to serve the propert'es there, rather than serving through traffic. He noted that
Seattle has begun restricting access to I -5 from Ellis and Corson, forcing trucks to use
Michigan Street from East Marginal Way. This suggests that the direct link across the
river provided by the Sixteenth South Bridge may not be critical. Access to I -5 may be
more important to the Corridor than a river crossing. If the bridge is needed, the region
needs to make a decision on it and move on.
One trend in the Corridor, increasing use of large industrially -zoned sites for container
storage, was discussed. The group noted that this type of use is part of the larger set of
economic activities associated with the Port of Seattle, and as such is valuable from a
regional perspective. From the City's perspective, however, container storage is high
impact (truck trips), generates little employment, and contributes little to the tax base.
Will infrastructure investment in the Corridor only encourage more container storage?
Will Tukwila become the "bedroom community for containers "? What can the City do
to encourage higher -value uses? These issues were discussed but left unresolved.
Several individual parcels were discussed.
- PACCAR is currently leasing its vacant space for container storage as an interim
use, and may surplus the site within five years.
-The police firing range was noted as a potentially underutilized parcel that is of
interest to both the RTA and to BN /SF.
- The hill to the south of the firing range (known to the brokerage community as
"Mount Sternoff ') is vacant, but its value for development is uncertain - there have been
archeological finds at the site. The group was unclear about the significance of these
finds - are they important? Do they actually preclude development of the site?
-The long -term future of the Desmone Trust lands (the Oxbow site used by
Boeing and the new Post Office development) is uncertain: apparently the leases for this
land expire in the next six ( ?) years
z
re al:
6
2
J U
o O;
W W'
W
W• O'
u_¢.
I-- W`.
Z 1-;
I- o
z
11J uj
oI-
`
w w
iii co.
—
z
MEMORANDUM
CHMHILL
Meeting with Property Owners
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Tukwila MIC Project Team
Lorie Parker
February 19, 1997
Lloyd Skinner and I met with property owners from 8 -10:30 am on February 18, 1997 at the
new Tukwila Community Center. In attendance were:
Vern Umetsu, Ross Ernst, Jack Pace and Steve Lancaster - City of Tukwila
John Crul nd Laura itaker, erkins Coie Boein
Lee Linne - Jorgensen Forge •
Clare Impett - King County Airport
Steve Kuzma nd ric asc ever, Preston Gates Ellis BNSFRailwax)
Ray Gooding and David McDonald- Associated Grocers
Steve Hagen, Seattle City Light
Each property owner discussed their plans and concerns.
Seattle City Light
SCL owns 14 acres at its S. substation which is currently an open field and is still in the
County. They also own a transmission corridor which cuts a swath across the MIC. They
have done an EIS on possible development of a gas turbine generation facility on the site,
but development is on indefinite hold because it is cheaper to buy power in the spot market.
They also lease 4.5 acres to Delta Marine. Delta Marine would like more property from
them, but isn't likely to get it because SCL is negotiating with King County to sell the
Count seen 7 acres for habitat restoration.
As part of the Elliott Bay restoration settlement, the plan is to daylight Hamm Creek
(activist John Beal) and excavate to create a saltwater refuge. The County would buy the
easement and use it for its property commitment under the NOAA settlement. There is also
talk about putting a park on the water, with access through the substation property. They
hope to conclude negotiations by June and construct in late '97 - early '98.
City of Tukwila Public Works (Ross Ernst)
They are currently reconstructing E. Marginal Way with drainage, curb, gutter
landscaping. Will complete by end of '97.
Question to Ernst: Norfolk "looks like a bomb crater. Will it get overlay ?r
Pacific Highway bridge will be replaced this year with a 5 lane bridge plus
sidewalk.
,47,,e6(e-42)
• � S- :gf.
rai an
• , -
East Marginal to 112 '' needs improvement and is on CIP but not scheduled fo near tire.
SEA/PROPOWNER MEETING.DOC
K>«
Z •
Z
H
•
6D'
•J U'
• UO
rno;.
wIli
w 0'•
Q.
•
• m
f- O
- ZH
�0N;
o F-;
;= w
F-
0:
ti O
ui
=
O~
ZZ •
MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS
16th Avenue S. bridge is a problem. They have a RFP out for a transportation study which
would include analysis to see whether the bridge provides support to the East side of the
river. The bridge is expensive to operate and $45M to replace. It costs Tukwila
$200,000 /year to maintain and $300,000 to operate. The costs are split half and half with the
County, who has half ownership of the bridge.
Jorgensen Forge
The company owns 20+ acres, bordered by Boeing. They melt and forge steel and
aluminum. They envision improvements within the building walls as they grow their
business. They might eventually add a building toward the river. They have 160
employees'on site over three shifts, with the majority (100) on the daylight shift. They
would love to add machinists, and might gradually ramp up to 200 employees over the next
five years. The site works for them. They can pour the largest ingot in the U.S and do very
specialized work. They use an outside steel yard and have room to grow in the yard.
There are old pilings in the river off their property from an old railroad track. They can
bring in material by barge, though it's only been done twice. Boeing brought in equipment
into their wind tunnel from the site — lifting the equipment over the fence.
They ship by truck or rail. They are the last facility on the rail line. There are four sets of
tracks onto the property; several of them go inside their building. They use 24 -36 rail cars
per year.
They have a big problem with the possibility that Tukwila is going to restrict the size of
their gate onto E. Marginal Way. They have 40 ft. trucks which swing onto the road; they
don't want to restrict their access from the north. They have talked to Jim Merkle at
Tukwila Public Works about the issue.
Boeing
With the McDonald Douglas merger, it is not clear whether the 1992 redevelopment vision
is still viable.
They want a planned action — see it as expediting permit review and giving predictability
and saving time and mitigation costs.
Their site is important because they deliver 20+ planes per month out of Boeing Field. They
do final prep /paint on planes built in Renton. They wouldn't want to lose the ability to park
along the E. side along Boeing Field. There shouldn't be landscaping (or landscaping
requirements) near the field because leaves can get sucked into the engines.
Employee history:
1991 21,000
1993 14 - 15,000
1997 16- 17,000
They have no plans to go over 25,000 employees, the cap Boeing identified during the
Duwamish Corridor Master Plan work.
They use no rail access. They like having the opportunity to use barge access — though they
don't use it now.
SEA/PROPOWNER MEETING.DOC
2
;,I-Z:
w
CC
-J
00
o
co w
W. J
CO u_
w 0;
g-
w¢
CO
�w
M.
Z�
t— 0:
Zi—,
ILI W.
0
= ■
w
V:
lil
Z.
N'.
0
z....
MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS
They wondered whether a stormwater drainage plan for the basin was going to be done.
They get stormwater from E. Marginal and the airport. Ross Ernst replied that Tukwila isn't
doing an areawide basin plan, but they are installing a stormwater system on E. Marginal.
The E. Marginal improvements will still send stormwater through Boeing outfalls.
Associated Grocers
Most of their property is in Seattle. They have no use of the Duwamish. They have lots of
truck traffic -1200 trucks /week. "Things are pretty good so far." Vern asked what they
would think of a swap with Seattle to put all their land in one jurisdiction. Response is that
it would make their life easier. They cited problems with road repair with split jurisdiction,
with neither jurisdiction willing to step up to the repairs. Commuter traffic and patrons
parked at Randy's restaurant also cause them some problems.
King County Airport (Boeing Field)
The County is in the process of doing a 20 year master plan. They have five draft
alternatives out for public comment until the end of March. They expect to go to the County
Council in April with a recommended alternative. The alternative which is most likely to
affect the area would be expansion of UPS, Airborne and Burlington Express cargo services.
They need to expand for their unmet need — such as a bigger sorting facility. There is a
limited amount of land for expansion because most is tied up in long term leases.
The Airport has concerns with compatible land uses outside of the MIC zone - ie. Allentown
— and may want rezoning.
The Airport would like to participate with Tukwila in discussions about mass transit to the
airport. Metro is reducing bus service from the S. up E. Marginal.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
BNSF is currently looking at all its yards for capacity issues; no decisions are expected until .
1998. The yard could be used for storage (classification yard) -- or it could expand. They
want enough flexibility so they can consider difference uses.11 they expanded, would have
to go to the west. They might be able to go into the firing range property.
Truck access is a concern. Ross Ernst said Tukwila has applied for a state grant for the
railroad access project to do environmental review and design; it looks possible.
RTA Issues
RTA is planning a station and a Park n Ride at Boeing Access Road. The parking would be
between the tracks and the freeway. The station would be at an interchange of light and
commuter rail. RTA is also looking at the firing range as a site for the light rail maintenance
yard (or is it for heavy rail maintenance ?).
The City of Tukwila has a transportation study RFP out right now for the whole city. The
study will include three issues:
1) street capacity — what needs to be upgraded? Included in this will be the question of use
of the 16th Ave. S. bridge — trying to determine whether the use justifies keeping it open
and eventually building a new bridge..
SEA/PROPOWNER MEETING.DOC
3
•
MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS
2) RTA -- Where will light rail run through the City of Tukwila? The proposed alignment
is not to Tukwila's liking; they want light rail to go through Southcenter. Where should
the station and park n ride be?
3) Metro — how should bus transit service be expanded?
Proposals are due next week. The information from the study will feed a major review of
the Complan; it won't be ready in time to inform this EIS.
General Discussion
Asked how we would look at capacity issues, Vern replied that we will look at trip
generation - employees /acre, and compare to Boeing numbers and the trip generation
threshold.
Steve Lancaster suggested moving some uses (e.g. expansion of the BN yard into
industrially -zoned property) from unclassified use to a CU use process in the MIC zone.
There were concerns about the influence of the Allentown resident and how they might
view proposals in this plan.
Vern asked about reducing permit time from 200 days to 150 for shoreline development.
Owners seemed most interested in having the planned action reduce the scope of the issues
that they would have to deal with — including not having to have mitigation negotiations.
Outside the shoreline, standard review time for new construction is 70 -100 days. Jack Pace
emphasized that non - structural tenant improvement permits are processed in 7 -10 days.
Speedy permit processing is a priority for Jack.
Vern suggested extending shoreline permit time from 2 -5 years.
Boeing asked about the Shoreline Public Access Plan and suggested devising off -site
mitigation to which property owners could contribute as an alternative to public access.
Boeing asked whether we plan to .ve design standards. ick Pace answered that for the
shoreline area, there would be st; dards and design criteria; there would not be for areas
outside the shoreline. However, there is architectural review,4,443414i he proposed eliminating
the public hearing and doing an administrative review. With administrative design
guidelines — clear and predictable — they could cut 30 -45 days of review time.
There will be a joint City Council - Planning Commission meeting in March to inform them
of potential regulatory changes and other plan ideas — to let them react and nip in the bud
any ideas they would never support.
Owners asked how they would be allowed to participate in the ongoing work — and
wondered whether we could circulate the prototype alternatives to them for review and
comment. Vern was concerned about being held up time -wise; Steve Lancaster suggested
the possibility of sending out to them the same briefing that will go to the joint City Council
- Planning Commission meeting.
John Crull expressed concern that we not set the thresholds too low -- need to set them for
expansion.
Underutilized properties:
SEA/PROPOWNER MEETING.DOC 4
z
z'
re w.
J U'
U O;
CO LIJ,
J H.
w O:
ga
Via`
w,
z�
z
III La
ww
1-
1'O
wz
N
0F.
z
MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS
City Light substation
Rhone Poulenc
firing range
SEA/PROPOWNER MEETING.DOC 5
••,.,.y1_ :s:.ra�.u...z..:..» ..,.:�: :r. ,.a: ...v �30.._..m:Y.v�snv -v. ...Ka, • • ,h .... te,• __ ,. v >....r:.u.:.a.v..rw.W - .,..w.�,......,L....
Attendees:
Location:
Date /time:
Subject:
Notes By:
Meeting Notes
Tukwila MIC Planned Action
Stakeholder Meeting - Public Sector Representatives
Phil Schneider/WDFW
Evan Lewis /US Corps of Engineers
Roderick Malcolm /Muckleshoot Tribe
Ruth Harvey /King County Water and Land Resources
Mary Barrett/WDNR
Ann Kenny/WDOE Shorelands
Phil Frasier /Tukwila Public .Works
Steve Lancaster /Tukwila DCD
Jack Pace /Tukwila DCD
Vernon Umetsu/Tukwila DCD
John Jimerson/Tukwila DCD
Lloyd Skinner /Adolfson Associates
Tukwila Community Center
February 18, 1997; 10:30 am - 1:00 pm
Stakeholder Meeting; Public Sector Representatives
Lloyd Skinner
The purposes of the Stakeholder Meeting for Public Sector representatives were outlined
by Vernon Umetsu: to explain the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) Planned
Action project, introduce the project team, and receive feedback from the agency
representatives on the proposed approach for the Planned Action project. He noted that a
separate City project is also underway to revise the Shoreline Master Program city -wide;
changes are likely, particularly for the MIC project area (which is currently administered
under old King County shoreline regulations since being annexed into the City). Vernon
described the MIC for the group: a highly industrialized corridor along the Duwamish
River, with most of the manufacturing facilities dating from the 1940s and 1950s. The
river shoreline is largely bulkheaded, with some stretches (especially along the south
portion of the study area, on the west bank) left in a relatively natural, mud flat- and -bank
condition. Several areas of interest were discussed during the meeting.
The general issue of habitat value in this stretch of the river was discussed. Roderick
Malcolm indicated that the area is critical for the migration of juvenile salmon,
particularly for chum and chinook. The area is a key transition zone from fresh to salt
water. As a general rule mud flats are valuable for these juvenile salmon, and
opportunities to create or preserve mud flats should be taken advantage of. New side
channels are particularly desirable, as they do not interfere with net fishing. Different
sections of the river are important at different stages of an individual fish's life cycle, but
again as a general rule he advised that habitat mitigation should be provided in the same
stretch of the river as habitat loss.
- �,,, - - ,� � �� (80
'n
PPoSGt. v35 016 RQLAw off cu t(DU(.4- ro hl cim.GGrA(C
Potential replacement of existing bulkheads along the river was discussed by the group.
In general the group felt that opportunities to make steep banks shallower, and to cut
back the bank where currently bulkheaded, should be sought because of potential
improvements to habitat value. Stream bank protection illustrations (from Boeing's
Duwamish Corridor Master Plan) were discussed. The Department of Fish and Wildlife
uses these sketches, or standard ones that are similar, when reviewing projects for
Hydraulics Project Approval permits. The Corps of Engineers prefers to avoid "hard
banks" when possible, and reviews the need for bank stabilization when proposed. In
general, the group felt that stream bank protection proposals needed to be reviewed on a
case -by -case basis; conceptual examples are helpful, but much depends on site - specific
issues. Vernon noted that the new Shoreline Master Program regulations were likely to
prohibit new bulkheads for nonwater- dependent uses.
On the general issue of mitigation banking or establishing a fund for contributions by
property developers to help finance off -site habitat improvements, the group cautioned
that the issue was a complex one and a potentially major undertaking. The group
supported the general principle that a redevelopment should be "win- win," i.e., that there
should be a way to make habitat improvements while still allowing redevelopment.
Vernon explained that the "Planned Action" concept under the Growth Management Act
would mean that additional SEPA review of projects would not occur, for those
proposals consistent with the redevelopment addressed in the Planned Action EIS.
Roderick Malcolm noted that the tribes often use SEPA notice provisions as an early
warning about projects';'otherwise they do not learn of them until notice arrives from the
Corps of Engineers, which occurs much later in the permit review process. Tukwila will
look into other methods for getting early notice out. Ecology noted that all permit
reviews are case -by -case; permits in advance of applications are not granted, and all
developments must comply with the full requirements of the shoreline substantial
development permit process.
coc(..4)
;�z
6
JU
00
CO w:
w =.
-IF..
u_
w0
u.a
�a.
w
?
z
w
D
C),
vo-
i0
H w •
u• z,
0 ,
H =<
o / -,.
ti
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
January 31, 1997
Chuck Schultz
Senior Vice President
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Intermodal/Automotive Business Unit
2650 Lou Menk Dr.
Ft. Worth, TX 76131
RE: Access to BNSF Puget Sound Hub Center in Tukwila.
Dear Mr. Schultz;
Access to the Puget Sound Hub Center has been an issue for both BNSF and the City of Tukwila for some time.
Over the past two years, we have met with your representatives to discuss the access along with future uses,
growth, and a host of potential solutions. The primary concern, which has been voiced by the City at these
meetings, is the impacts this access has on the surrounding residential neighborhood.
At our meeting with BNSF personnel at the Puget Sound Hub Center on January 21, 1997, my representatives
explained that I will close South 124th Street to further truck traffic on January 1, 1999. This should be ample
time to initiate construction on a new access to the center.
The City has already begun working on grant applications for changing the access. Applications will be
submitted for state grants January 31, 1997. Later in the spring, grant applications will be submitted for federal
ISTEA funds. The work will entail evaluation of the access for the Center with considerations for existing and
future truck volumes and the possibilities for relocating the truck traffic out of the adjoining residential
neighborhood. The impact to internal operations and potential costs will also be assessed.
Grants are essential elements in bringing about the solution to this issue and the sources we would be seeking are
awarded on a competitive basis among local jurisdictions. One major criteria in the selection and ranking of
projects is the presence of private sector participation in the project. Our grant applications for this access will
have much better chances in the competition for funds if BNSF is shown as a participant. The current application
strategy is to request funding for preliminary engineering through a state grant with the typical 50% matching
requirement. The total preliminary engineering cost is estimated at $500,000. with $250,000. to be provided
locally. We would like to submit this application to show BNSF as providing a major share of the local funding
match.
It is imperative that we move forward with funding applications. A letter from BNSF committing to an amount
for the preliminary engineering and agreeing to participate in the construction would be a significant factor in
facilitating this effort. Should you have any questions or if you wish to discuss matter, I urge you to contact me
directly at (206) 433 -1805 or by letter to the address indicated above.
Sincerely,
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
z
F w.
6
2
' JU
00
w
=.
J
waa.0
LL Q;
w •
•
• I— 0;
Z
• W
U •
❑
1-i
:UJ W:
ill Z; •
H =;
Z
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: File L96 -0071 (Manufacturing Industrial Center
Implementation Plan)
From: Vernon Umetsu /Jack Pace /Steve Lancaster
Date: 10/28/96
RE: Establishing an understanding of "Planned Action" and
relationship to Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center
PERF Grant.
Background
Defining the specific nature of a Planned Action included
considerable frank and vigorous discussion between Tukwila
Planning staff members. Resolution of this issue was critical to
developing a detailed scope of work for the MIC planning project.
A staff consensus among Tukwila staff was achieved between August
and late - October, after discussions with representatives of other
jurisdictions and CTED staff. The following represents this
consensus.
Understanding of Planned Action and Application to the MIC
Subarea Plan /EIS.
1. Planned Action (hereafter PA) Defined -- One or more
"project actions "1 that:
a. are designated planned actions by ordinance (e.g.,
cement plants in the MIC),
b. have had the significant impacts adequately addressed
in an EIS prepared in conjunction with the
Comprehensive Plan or the current document under
'Per definition of "Project actions ": "Projects include and
::.:..:.::....:................
are limited to agency decisions to (i) License, fund or'd to
::::::: :...:::........................
197 -11 -704
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Substantive Results of Everett and Consultant LIscussions
MIC Implementation Plan Page 2
development (e.g., air quality impacts of cement plants
shall satisfy PSAPCA, State and Federal air quality
standards as summarized in the EIS), and
c. are subsequent or implementing projects for the
proposal listed in "b" above (e.g., cement plants are
developed pursuant to the "Heavy Industrial" zone in
the Comprehensive Plan).
re
U O'
A PA designation only applies to the SEPA process and does coo,
W =.
N
Planned actions do not include revisions of adopted w O;
development standards which are incorporated into the TMC, g ?'.
the subarea plan, or the EIS which demonstrates the 1
mitigation of all significant adverse impacts of a planned N d`.
action. _
z
A generalized definition of Planned Action is in z
uj
Da
2. The regulatory structure to allow designation of subsequent p
PA's is identified in RCW 43.21.031(2). The substantive w ~`
elements for the Tukwila MIC Implementation Plan consist of = vt
the following elements: t.!!
a. An MIC subarea implementation plan at some level of t0.)co
detail which allows for project level, EIS review to ;o H
mitigate all significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Z_
The level of plan specificity shall be determined based
on the following factors:
not affect any other regulatory system.
RCW 43.21C.031(2).
i. the potential impacts on the valued elements of
the natural and built environments,
ii. the level of project detail needed to evaluate the
impacts, and
iii. the potential impacts based on regulatory
standards to protect the environmental element.
b. An EIS for the subarea plan which contains a level of
analysis and mitigation (e.g., a performance standard
approach ?) which demonstrates that impacts due to
project actions will be mitigated.
This level of SEPA analysis and mitigation should be
equal to, or better than, what would be provided by a
project level threshold determination. Achieving this
Substantive Results of Everett and Consultant Luscussions
MIC Implementation Plan Page 3
standard may include a permit process which
incorporates substantive environmental review at the
project application stage; as needed.
c. A monitoring program as required for PERF grant
recipients (RCW 37.70A.500(3) (c)) .
d. An adopting ordinance which specifically identifies
what project proposals would be "planned actions," and
that incorporates the items above.
3. Project actions within the plan area which reflect the
characteristics of the Planned Action document, are "planned
actions." Such projects must satisfy the required
mitigation of the EIS associated with the PA document.
There are no administrative appeals to this classification
or the mitigation requirements unless specifically written
into the ordinance. In either case, the EIS methodology
must be used.
Tukwila staff will, to the greatest extent possible, replace
mitigating conditions with standards in adopted ordinances.
4. An internal review of each development application is
required to demonstrate that impacts to all elements of the
environment have been considered and adequately mitigated
per the EIS (RCW 43.21.031(1) & (2)(a)(ii & iii)) and that
the project characteristics reflect the PA description
(e.g., do not exceed thresholds).
a. This review is an "environmental review" per WAC 197-
11 -746.
The WAC clearly distinguishes this substantive
"environmental review" from the threshold determination
process per WAC 197 -11 -300 et.seq. It would not have
the public notice, comment period, or administrative
appeal provisions associated with the SEPA threshold
determination procedures.
b. Planned Action thresholds for project characteristics
shall be established for PA's and incorporated into the
environmental checklist.
c. A checklist, developed by the City, shall be used for
this internal review.
z
mow:
• J U:
. U0:
• vow
W z;
J H.
w 0: •
�Q
=d
w
z�:
zF
U
•
O N�
0
= V;
LL.0
Lii z
co
z
Substantive Results of Everett and Consultant L.Lscussions
MIC Implementation Plan Page 4
5. The SEPA Responsible Official shall be given broad authority
to determine when a project is not a planned action and if
impacts were adequately addressed in the EIS, based on the
environmental checklist.
Failure to adequately mitigate all significant impacts or
satisfy the definition of a planned action would require
that the development undergo a standard SEPA threshold
determination.
6. The PA documents must focus on responsible area development
as the primary goal. This means that the level of PA review
must be equal to, or better than, substantive review under
standard SEPA.
7. The EIS must provide a project level of impact mitigation
for all elements of the environment. Failure to do so will
require a threshold determination at the project level. The
State Atty General's office advises that adequate analysis
and mitigation of the defined planned actions is a
requirement of establishing a valid PA process.
8. Using a "best management practices" (BMP) approach is an
appropriate option when there is insufficient data to
demonstrate the appropriateness or adequacy of prescriptive
mitigation requirements. BMP may not have a consistent
definition from one mitigating standard to another, but will
always be specifically defined.
9. Cost - effective measures will be taken to coordinate with
State agencies and develop interlocal agreements for a
seamless integration of all mitigation requirements'.
10. The highest level of interlocal agreement is needed to
ensure that agency and City commitments last beyond the
tenure of individual staff members or directors. However,
care must be taken to ensure that no resources are spent to
develop mitigation programs which would be made meaningless
by the permit requirements of other jurisdictions.
a. All reasonable efforts must be made to:
i. provide early notice to agencies of this project
and provide meaningful opportunities for
'Note that planned action is a SEPA process only. It has no
affect on the other permit authority of other State agencies.
re
v O,
CO 0.
cnw
W =:
w 0.
g Q'
d.
= w
z�
I— O:
z
2 D.
U0
N
O —•
0 Hi
— O;
wz
N
O Hi
z
Substantive Results of Everett and Consultant L.,scussions
MIC Implementation Plan
participation at the issue identification,
analysis and mitigation phases,
Page 5
ii. execute interlocal agreements regarding the
acceptance of the Tukwila planned action process
and mitigation program.
b. Agencies must be advised that further review under SEPA
will be precluded for planned actions. This notice
must be extensive and documented.
11. The public participation program must satisfy GMA
requirements. This will require:
a. Hazelnut article (Due 10/16/96 for publication on
11/8/96)
b. property owner outreach, and
c. general public meeting, including one in Allentown.
file:micip \pindact
P&L-0 c 41--k(
('\f 3 Foc'vs CA_ovP
Fermi,/ -r A -G e c.-r• KeMere1\O 7?-7 rs�S
Pk( vol-r s'� c. --ore /z grR. -s exo r i -ter 6S-
1-)k. VA l e ) 6)161Z, 0 PM < r <J'e"i'fre ``S ri