HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2026-07-23 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
JULY 23, 2026 - 6:30 PM
Join in-person at: 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Council Chambers, Tukwila, WA. 98188 To participate in
the virtual meeting at 6:30 pm:
By Phone: Dial +1 253-292-9750, Access 779 253 241#
Online: To join this meeting virtually please click on Planning Commission on the 7/23/26
calendar date on the events page located at https://www.tukwilawa.gov/events/
For Technical Support during the meeting, you may call 1-206-433-7155
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Amendment of the Agenda, if necessary
IV. Approval of Minutes – 5/28/26
V. General Public Comments (acknowledge non-hearing-related written comments received)
VI. Old Business
None.
VII. New Business
1. Zoning District Consolidation
2. Housing Policy Alignment
VIII. Director’s Report
IX. Adjournment
General Public Comments: Persons wishing to provide general comments on any non-public hearing, planning-
related topic may submit their written comment to BoardsComms@TuCkwilaWA.gov. Comments received before
5:00 p.m. the day before the PC meeting will be forwarded to Commissio ners prior to their meeting. Materials
received after that time will be forwarded prior to the next meeting.
Reminder: Staff are available to address PC questions regarding packets. Please call or email PC Secretary Wynetta
Bivens, (206-431-3654 Wynetta.Bivens@TukwilaWA.gov) to be connected with a staff member. Thank you!
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
MINUTES
Date: May 28, 2026
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Hybrid Meeting - via Microsoft Teams / Public, In-Person Attendance, and
Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188
Call to Order
Vice Chair Halverson called the Tukwila PC meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call
The PC Secretary took roll call.
PC Present: Vice Chair Jacob Halverson; Commissioners; Louise Strander, Richard McLeland Wieser, and
Kyle Upton; Chair Alex Kaehler arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Excused
Absence: Commissioner Ann Durant and Jessica Parra
Staff: Development Supervisor Max Baker, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP),
Department of Community Development (DCD); Senior Planner Neil Tabor, AICP, DCD;
Isaac Gloor, Senior Planner, DCD, Pete Mayer, Deputy City Administrator and Director, Parks
and Recreation; Kris Kelly, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation; and PC Secretary Wynetta
Bivens, DCD
Also, in
attendance: Graham Mills, Parks Commission, Vice Chair; and Greg Hammond, Parks Commission
Amendment of the Agenda
No changes to the agenda were requested.
Approval of Minutes
Commissioner McLeland Wieser moved to adopt the 4/23/26 Minutes. Commissioner Strander
seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Written General Public Comments
There were no submittals.
Unfinished Business
None.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
5/28/26
Page 2
New Business
1. Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) Plan
A presentation was given on the 2027-2033 PROS Plan Update by Mr. Mayer, Deputy City
Administrator and Director, Parks and Recreation; Mr. Kelly, Deputy Director, Parks and
Recreation; and Mr. Overdorf, Director of Landscape Architecture, SCJ Alliance.
Following are some of the key highlights of the PROS Plan presentation:
There are three addendums to the PROS Plan:
- Tukwila Community Center (TCC) and Recreation Program Business Plan
- Foster Golf Links Business Plan
- Non-Motorized Trail Comprehensive Plan
PROS Plan Purpose:
- Guides capital, maintenance and operations, land decisions, future decision making,
translation needs expressed by the community, addresses priorities, establishes a six-year
implementation framework, etc.
Tukwila’s System
- Is based on a classification system and modifications are made to the system based on best
practice; Tukwila is a unique community that has lots of challenges and opportunities. Both
valuable and complex and includes a multitude of areas, such as neighborhoods parks,
communities serving sites, trail assets, natural areas, open spaces, diverse properties, etc.
Community Engagement and Outreach Process
- Results were summarized into nine different buckets of importance as noted in the
presentation
Demand and Needs Analysis – Implications
- Categorized into six areas as noted in the presentation.
PROS Plans, goals, and objectives were established from the community outreach.
There was also overview of the following:
- Findings and recommendations
- Policy Priorities
- Planning Priorities
- Operations & Maintenance Priorities
- Capital Improvement Priorities
- Goal Alignment Gaps
- Implementations for Parks and Recreation planning opportunities to align goals between the
2024 - 2044 City Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and the 2027- 2033 PROS Plan
- Determination on what Amendments to the PROS Element should occur because of the
2
Planning Commission Minutes
5/28/26
Page 3
PROS Plan recommendations.
Mr. Mayer and Mr. Overdorf addressed several clarifying questions for the PC.
Commissioner Strander recommended replacing the language ‘required park dedication’ on page 75
of the PC packet, Table 2-14, in the development pressure on potential park sites, under the
suggested mitigation section, last sentence, with the language ‘incentivize’.
Mr. Mayer stated they are taking written public comments on the Draft PROS Plan and will go
through a rapid revision process. The Parks Commission will receive the revised PROS Plan for
review on June 10th and forward their recommendation to the Community Services and Safety
Committee. The CC will ideally adopt the PROS Plan in August. The Parks and Recreation
Department will work with DCD on future amendments to the City’s Comp Plan and align the goals
across the other elements.
Commissioner Halverson raised a question regarding whether there are public private parks in Tukwila, and
Mr. Mayer said there are no public private parks in Tukwila and explained an arrangement made with
Starfire Sports. Commissioner Halverson suggested being proactive regarding planning for the future in the
event a developer comes in with a unique proposal.
Mr. Mayer handed out maps to the PC.
2. Background: Simplifying Tukwila's Mixed-Use Zoning Districts,
Mr. Gloor, Senior Planner, DCD provided an overview on simplifying Tukwila’s Mixed-Use Zoning
Districts, which spans thirteen parcels. He discussed the potential concept of standardizing the zones to make
it easier for development. He said that incentivized development is very attractive for both reviewers and
developers. And there are several benefits to potential mixed-use zone simplification and combining the
MUO, O, RCC, and RCM. Some of the PC Members agreed and others did not comment.
Mr. Gloor facilitated a Q & A regarding mixed-use zoning districts with the PC.
Director’s Report
Mr. Baker, Development Supervisor, gave the Director’s Report
- He informed the PC that Jo Anderson, Inclusion and Community Engagement Manager, had
board members express interest in having a Boards and Commission social gathering. And
asked him to ask the PC if they would be interested in a Boards and Commission social
gathering with the other Boards and Commissions in late July or early August. If so, would
they be interested in a potluck with commercially prepared food only, or a no host dinner at
a local establishment. Four PC Members were interested and were in favor of a no host
dinner at a local establishment.
- On June 24th, time to be determined, there with be a critical areas ordinance open house at
the Tukwila Community Center (TCC).
- Mr. Baker informed the PC of fraudulent emails people are receiving regarding clicking on
a wire transfer with their permits listed that appear as if they were signed by Nora Gierloff.
Other cities also received the same fraudulent emails.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
5/28/26
Page 4
- The Permit Department is making progress with the new SmartGov permitting software by
Granicus. And will be testing the software soon. The aim is to have the new software out in
September. The PC was given a preview of the current permitting page and the new
permitting page.
- The PC also were given a preview of the new and improved DCD web page.
Commissioner Kaehler moved to adjourn. Commissioner McLeland Wieser seconded the motion. Motion
passed.
Adjourned: 9:02 p.m.
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens, PC Secretary
4
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission
FROM: Nora Gierloff, AICP, Community Development Director
BY: Isaac Gloor, Senior Planner, DCD
DATE: July 23, 2026
SUBJECT: Simplifying Tukwila's Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
ISSUE
The Department is considering the potential to simplify the City’s portfolio of mixed-use zoning
districts by exploring consolidation of those that may be duplicative or underutilized, including
Office (O), Residential Commercial Center (RCC), Mixed Use Office (MUO), and Regional
Commercial Mixed-Use (RCM).
DISCUSSION
Background
This topic was previously discussed with the Planning Commission at a meeting in May of 2026. To
review a detailed background on this topic, please review the Agenda Packet for that meeting.
The discussion in May focused on a generalized discussion of the goals and regulations for land
within four similar and underperforming zoning districts:
• Office (O): Almost exclusively permits office uses. Found near Southcenter Boulevard, and in
small patches elsewhere in the City.
• Mixed-Use Office: Permits a somewhat limited array of mixed-uses, including residential,
commercial, and office uses, at low densities. Geographically limited, this zoning district
exists only within the North Tukwila International Boulevard corridor.
• Regional Commercial Mixed-Use (RCM): Permits an expansive array of mixed-uses at low
densities. Found along the Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue corridors.
• Residential Commercial Center (RCC): Permits small-scale commercial and residential uses.
Found in small clusters near Crestview Park, Macadam and S 144th Street, the Tukwila
Community Center and north Allentown, and along Beacon Ave S in the Ryan Hill
neighborhood.
The discussion centered around the lack of investment in areas within these zones due to outdated
and restrictive standards, as well as the inefficiency of the regulation of multiple zoning districts
with broadly similar standards and goals.
Additionally, the Commission discussed the potential value of the RCC district as providing crucial
neighborhood amenities for low and medium density areas. While that zoning district currently is
underutilized, it could serve as a focal core for neighborhoods and foster walkability and proximity
of crucial neighborhood services. 5
INFORMATIONAL MEMO PAGE 2
In this meeting, the goal is to further consider the consolidation of Tukwila’s mixed-use zoning
districts.
Consolidation into Neighborhood Commercial Center Zoning District
Staff have determined that the goals of the Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) zoning district
have broad overlap with the goals and intentions for all four underperforming mixed -use districts
under discussion. The description of the NCC district can be found at Policy LU 3.5, on page LU-6
of Tukwila’s Comprehensive Plan:
Zones: Description:
Mixed-Use Office:
Policy LU 3.4:
Mixed Use Office (MUO) designated areas are characterized by professional
and commercial office structures, mixed with retail and residential uses. These
uses and densities are modified where covered by the Tukwila South Overlay.
Office:
Policy LU 3.3:
Office (O) designated areas are characterized by professional and commercial
office structures mixed with retail.
Residential
Commercial Center:
Policy LU 3.6:
Residential Commercial Center (RCC) designated areas are pedestrian friendly
areas characterized and scaled to serve a local neighborhood, with a diverse
mix of uses. Uses include certain commercial; residential; retail; service;
office; and recreational and community facilities.
Regional
Commercial Mixed
Use:
Policy LU 3.8:
Regional Commercial Mixed-Use (RCM) designated areas are areas
characterized by commercial services, offices, lodging, entertainment,
retail activities and associated warehousing, and certain accessory light
industrial uses. Residential uses mixed with certain commercial uses
are also allowed.
Additionally, the Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) zoning district was recently updated as
part of the TIB Neighborhood Project. That update brought the NCC into conformance with the
goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It also established a gradient of permitted densities
that are highly relevant to the specific scenarios found within the four mixed-use zoning districts,
with transit appropriate densities near transportation corridors, and business supporting densities
on neighborhood streets.
Consolidation of all four zoning districts into the NCC would allow a broader variety of commercial
and residential uses within those areas. It would also modernize standards to reflect current
development trends and real estate market realities, helping to incentivize development.
Policy LU 3.5: Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) designated areas
are characterized and scaled to serve multiple residential areas with a
diverse mix of uses. Uses include commercial; residential, including senior
citizen housing; retail; service; office; and recreational and community
facilities, generally along a transportation corridor. These uses are
modified where covered by the Urban Renewal Overlay.
Description of the Neighborhood Commercial Center Zoning District
Description of the Four Mixed-Use Districts Under Consideration
6
INFORMATIONAL MEMO PAGE 3
Certain standards within the NCC zoning district refer specifically to Tukwila International
Boulevard and should be generalized to refer to major arterials more broadly. Additionally, the
name of the zoning district (“Neighborhood Commercial Center”) does not reflect the wider array
of permitted uses in this district. Staff propose a change to the name of this district to
Neighborhood Mixed (NM). This name better orients the uses of the zone away from exclusively
commercial uses and toward mixed-uses.
Consolidation into Community Residential Zoning District
Certain parcels within the four mixed-use zoning districts under discussion may not be good
candidates for consolidation into the NCC zoning district, largely due to low development capacity
due to the presence of on-site environmentally critical areas.
Staff propose consolidating these properties into the “Community Residential” (CR) zoning district,
Tukwila’s low and medium density residential zone. This will better reflect the parcels’ lower
development capacity and prevent the increase of development pressure on environmentally
critical areas, while still modernizing these areas with current development standards . Parcels
proposed to be consolidated into the CR zone are described below. Attachment A features maps
showing the locations of these areas.
• Map 1 (Attachment A, Page 1): Portions of the O zoning district east of 51 st Ave, south of S
146th Street, and north of S 151st Street.
o Reasoning: These parcels are heavily encumbered by wetlands and watercourses.
They are best suited for low-density development.
• Map 2 (Attachment A, Page 2): Portions of the RCC zoning district north of S 144th Street, west
of Interstate 5, and east of Showalter Middle School.
o Reasoning: Several of these parcels are split-zoned between the RCC and CR
zoning districts. All of them are heavily encumbered by wetlands and watercourses
and best suited for low-density development.
• Map 3 (Attachment A, Page 3): Portions of the O zoning district north of S 115th Street, in the
Allentown neighborhood, east of the Duwamish Hill Preserve.
o Reasoning: These parcels are currently undeveloped and are owned by the City of
Tukwila, which has plans to incorporate them into the Duwamish Hill Preserve park.
The City uses the CR zoning district for park uses.
• Map 4 (Attachment A, Page 4): Portions of the O zoning district north of S Ryan Way and west
of 47th Ave S.
o Reasoning: One of these parcels is developed with a single-family home. The other
parcel is undeveloped and features no access except through the first parcel. They
stand alone in a low-density, heavily encumbered part of the City, and are best
suited for low-density development.
7
INFORMATIONAL MEMO PAGE 4
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
See the below list for a summary of anticipated amendments to Tukwila’s regulations, along with
associated Comprehensive Plan changes:
• Amendments to regulations for the NCC zoning district to ensure standards fit well within the
district’s expanded scope. Change of name of NCC zoning district to Neighborhood Mixed -
Use (NM) to better reflect the district’s permitted uses.
o See Attachment B.
• Removal of all references and regulations relating to the MUO, O, RCM, and RCC zoning
districts.
o All changes will be available in ordinance form at a future meeting or public hearing
date.
• Amendments to the City’s zoning map to shift all parcels currently zoned MUO, O, RCM, or
RCC into either the Community Residential zoning district or the newly amended
Neighborhood Mixed-Use district.
o See Attachment C.
• Miscellaneous Comprehensive Plan updates to reflect changed conditions and/or State
requirements.
o All changes will be available in ordinance form at a future meeting or public hearing
date.
NEXT STEPS
The intended outcome of this meeting is for City Staff to receive guidance from the Planning
Commission regarding the proposed zoning consolidation , in anticipation of a public hearing on
this topic, to be held in August of 2026.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Parcels Proposed for Consolidation into Community Residential Zoning District
B. Draft Proposed TMC 18.22: Neighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning District
C. Draft Proposed Zoning Map
8
Map 1: These Office zoned parcels
are heavily encumbered by wetlands
and watercourses. They are best
suited for low-density development.
See legend at left.
Legend
9
Map 2: Several of these parcels are split-
zoned between the RCC and CR zoning
districts. All of them are heavily
encumbered by wetlands and
watercourses and best suited for low-
density development. See legend at left.
Legend
10
Map 3: These Office zoned parcels are currently undeveloped and
are owned by the City of Tukwila, which has plans to incorporate
them into the Duwamish Hill Preserve park. The City uses the CR
zoning district for park uses.
11
Map 4: One of these Office zoned parcels is developed with a single -
family home. The other parcel is undeveloped and features no access
except through the first parcel. They stand alone in a low-density,
heavily encumbered part of the City, and are best suited for low-density
development.
12
CHAPTER 18.22
NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED-USE (NM) DISTRICT
§ 18.22.010. Purpose.
A. This district implements the Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NM) Comprehensive Plan designation. It
is intended to provide for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that bring together medium and high
density housing, retail, services, and community gathering spaces along key corridors. Scaled to
serve multiple residential areas, this district fosters vibrant, connected places where people can
live, shop, and gather close to home.
§ 18.22.020. Land Uses Allowed.
A. Refer to TMC Chapter 18.09, "Land Uses Allowed by District." Parcels within a Commercial
Redevelopment Area may be permitted to aggregate with, and use the development standards
and permitted uses of, any adjacent parcel within the NM zoning district, pursuant to TMC
Section 18.60.100.
§ 18.22.030. On-Site Hazardous Substances Prohibited.
A. No on-site hazardous substance processing and handling, or hazardous waste treatment and
storage facilities shall be permitted, unless clearly incidental and secondary to a permitted use.
On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be subject to the State siting
criteria (Chapter 70.105 RCW). See TMC Chapter 21.08.
§ 18.22.040. Design Standards.
A. All development within the NM zoning district shall be subject to design standards and
procedures in accordance with the provisions found at TMC Chapter 18.60, "Design Review."
§ 18.22.050. Street Frontage Improvements.
A. Applicability: In addition to all projects required to install frontage improvements by any other
section or chapter of the TMC, all projects that propose to construct new structures that will
feature any use that is not an accessory use shall install frontage improvements in accordance with
this TMC Section 18.22.050. The following frontages are not subject to the requirements of this
section, but may be subject to frontage improvement requirements found in other sections or
chapters of the TMC:
1. Frontages that have been previously improved, when the improvements immediately
adjacent to the site feature, at a minimum, a 6 foot pedestrian clear zone separated from
the street by a 4 foot landscape/furniture zone.
2. Frontages along Southcenter Boulevard.
3. Frontages along Interurban Ave S.
B. Standards: All projects subject to this section shall install improvements on all frontages. In
addition to the following listed standards, improvements shall conform to the street designation
determined by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Community
Development, and shall meet the minimum standards of TMC Section 17.20.040H, "Street
Components and Improvement Requirements," and the "Tukwila Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards." In areas of conflict, priority shall be given to this section (TMC Section
18.22.050), then TMC Section 17.20.040H, then the "Tukwila Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards." The improvements required in this section shall be installed only at the
back-of-curb. Required improvements may be located on private property if permanent public
easements are provided, in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works.
13
See Figure 18-62 for a sidewalk component dimension diagram.
1. Sidewalk Zones and Widths: Frontages in the NM zoning district shall feature the following
zones:
a. Frontage Zone: This area is defined as the area between the property line and pedestrian
clear zone. This zone may be able to accommodate sidewalk cafes, store entrances, retail
display, landscaping, transit stop amenities, or other features that activate and enhance
the pedestrian environment. Wider frontage zones provide more room for future tenants
and residents to activate the public right-of-way in a manner compatible with street trees
and other required features between the frontage zone and curb.
(1) Minimum Width:
(a) Arterials: Two feet.
(b) All other streets: Not required.
b. Pedestrian Clear Zone: This area is defined as the area of the sidewalk corridor that is
specifically reserved for pedestrian travel. Street furniture, street trees, planters, and other
vertical elements such as poles, fire hydrants and street furniture, as well as temporary
signs and other items shall not protrude into the pedestrian clear zone. The minimum width
shall be as follows:
(1) Minimum Width:
(a) Arterials: Eight feet.
(b) All Other Streets: Six feet.
Figure 18-62: Sidewalk Component Dimensions
14
c. Landscape/Furniture Zone: This area is defined as the area between the roadway curb
face and the front edge of the pedestrian clear zone. This zone buffers pedestrians from the
adjacent roadway and is the appropriate location for bioretention cells, rain gardens, street
furniture, art, street trees and vegetation, and includes the six-inch curb in its dimensions.
It is also the preferred location for other elements such as signage, pedestrian lighting,
hydrants, and above and below grade utilities. Clearance and setback requirements apply
to many elements located in the landscape/furniture zone. In transit areas, the
landscape/furniture zone may be utilized for transit patron waiting, boarding and alighting
and may include transit signage, shelters, benches, litter receptacles, real-time display, off-
board payment, and pedestrian scaled lighting.
(1) Minimum Width: The minimum widths shown below may be increased by the
Department on frontages with unique features, including transit stops.
(a) Arterials: Eight feet.
(b) All Other Streets: Four feet.
(2) Trees: Street trees shall be spaced to maximize tree growth based on size. Species
shall be chosen from the City of Tukwila Approved Tree List. Other species may be
approved by the Department. Chosen street tree species shall be non-columnar and
shall be chosen from among large species if the planting location is along Tukwila
International Boulevard or Southcenter Boulevard, or from among the medium or large
species if the planting location is along any other street. Planting shall meet the
minimum standards of TMC Chapter 18.52.
C. Alternative Sidewalk Designs: Alternative sidewalk designs may be approved by the Department
if the alternative design meets the following standards:
1. The alternative design provides a barrier free, safe pedestrian route; and
2. The alternative design accommodates all required elements of the sidewalk in the area, such
as transit waiting areas or bicycle parking; and
3. The alternative design results in fewer removals of existing mature vegetation than would be
required with strict compliance; and/or
4. The alternative design enables green stormwater infrastructure above stormwater code
requirements; and/or
5. The alternative design will avoid costly utility relocations that are not recommended by the
Department of Public Works; and/or
6. The alternative design allows for more extensive sidewalk improvements (one block
minimum) compared to strict compliance with the sidewalk standards; and/or
7. The alternative design is demonstrated to be necessary to accommodate reasonable
development of a property due to site specific circumstances relating to the property’s size,
shape, or encumbrance by environmentally critical areas; and/or
8. The alternative design is demonstrated to result in fewer impacts on wetlands,
watercourses, or the shoreline; and/or
9. The alternative design better aligns with a separate project that will modify the project site's
frontage within the next five years, as determined by the Department.
15
§ 18.22.060. Dimensional and Density Standards.
A. Development within the NM district shall conform to the following listed and referenced
standards.
1This includes all parcels where any portion of the parcel is within 500 linear feet, as the crow flies, from
any portion of a street classified as a principal or minor arterial by the City of Tukwila’s Comprehensive
Plan. This includes sidewalk areas of principal or minor arterials that lie within private property but are
subject to permanent easements for public access.
2Projects may use incentive standards only if the project opts in to and is compliant with the provisions of
the Development Incentive Program found at TMC Chapter 18.47.
NM DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY STANDARDS
Property
Location
Parcels Within 500 Feet of
a Principal or Minor Arterial Street1 All Other Parcels
Minimum Lot
Area None
Residential
Density No Maximum
Setbacks
Fronts, Sides, Rear Front
Entrances of Street Facing First-Floor Homes:
Minimum: 6’
All other Uses:
Minimum: 0’
Minimum: 6’
Sides & Rear
Minimum: 10’
Maximum
Development
Coverage
75%
Ground Floor
Uses
Parcels with any frontage on a principal, minor, or collector arterial:
A minimum of 60% of the ground floor façade area along any arterial shall be dedicated to
non-residential uses. As part of a Type 2 Design Review permit, this requirement may be
waived if at least 60% of the ground floor’s façade area is designed such that it may be “Easily
Adaptable”. See TMC 18.06.249.
Maximum
Building
Heights
Base Height Limit:
65 feet
Base Height Limit:
50 feet
Incentive Height Limit2:
90 feet
Incentive Height Limit2:
70 feet
16
CHAPTER 18.22
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER (NCC) DISTRICT
§ 18.22.010. Purpose.
A. This district implements the Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) Comprehensive Plan
designation. It is intended to provide for pedestrian-friendly areas characterized and scaled to serve
multiple residential areas, with a diverse mix of uses.
§ 18.22.020. Land Uses Allowed.
A. Refer to TMC Chapter 18.09, "Land Uses Allowed by District." Parcels within a Commercial
Redevelopment Area may be permitted to aggregate with, and use the development standards
and permitted uses of, any adjacent parcel within the NCC zoning district, pursuant to TMC
Section 18.60.100.
§ 18.22.030. On-Site Hazardous Substances Prohibited.
A. No on-site hazardous substance processing and handling, or hazardous waste treatment and
storage facilities shall be permitted, unless clearly incidental and secondary to a permitted use.
On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be subject to the State siting
criteria (Chapter 70.105 RCW). See TMC Chapter 21.08.
§ 18.22.040. Design Standards.
A. All development within the NCC zoning district shall be subject to design standards and
procedures in accordance with the provisions found at TMC Chapter 18.60, "Design Review."
§ 18.22.050. Street Frontage Improvements.
A. Applicability: In addition to all projects required to install frontage improvements by any other
section or chapter of the TMC, all projects that propose to construct new structures that will
feature any use that is not an accessory use shall install frontage improvements in accordance with
this TMC Section 18.22.050. These requirements may be waived or altered by the Director via a
Type 2 Design Review application if the applicant demonstrates the following:
1. That the proposed project is located on a site for which the frontage was previously
improved but does not comply with the standards of this section, and the project will
not result in an increase of multi-modal visitors to the site of greater than 25% from the
previously approved use. The Director may require the provision of a multi-modal traffic
study that compares total site-visitation both before and after construction.
B. Standards: All projects subject to this section shall install improvements on all frontages. In
addition to the following listed standards, improvements shall conform to the street designation
determined by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Community
Development, and shall meet the minimum standards of TMC Section 17.20.040H, "Street
Components and Improvement Requirements," and the "Tukwila Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards." In areas of conflict, priority shall be given to this section (TMC Section
18.22.050), then TMC Section 17.20.040H, then the "Tukwila Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards." The improvements required in this section shall be installed only at the
back-of-curb. Required improvements may be located on private property if permanent public
easements are provided, in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works.
1. Sidewalk Zones and Widths: Frontages in the NCC zoning district shall feature the
following zones:
17
a. Frontage Zone: This area is defined as the area between the property line and pedestrian clear zone.
This zone may be able to accommodate sidewalk cafes, store entrances, retail display, landscaping,
transit stop amenities, or other features that activate and enhance the pedestrian environment. Wider
frontage zones provide more room for future tenants and residents to activate the public right-of-way in
a manner compatible with street trees and other required features between the frontage zone and
curb.
(1) Minimum Width: Two feet.
b. Pedestrian Clear Zone: This area is defined as the area of the sidewalk corridor that is specifically
reserved for pedestrian travel. Street furniture, street trees, planters, and other vertical elements such
as poles, fire hydrants and street furniture, as well as temporary signs and other items shall not
protrude into the pedestrian clear zone. The minimum width shall be as follows:
(1) Minimum Width:
(a) Tukwila International Boulevard: Eight feet.
(b) All Other Streets: Six feet.
c. Landscape/Furniture Zone: This area is defined as the area between the roadway curb face and the
front edge of the pedestrian clear zone. This zone buffers pedestrians from the adjacent roadway and is
the appropriate location for bioretention cells, rain gardens, street furniture, art, street trees and
vegetation, and includes the six-inch curb in its dimensions. It is also the preferred location for other
elements such as signage, pedestrian lighting, hydrants, and above and below grade utilities.
Clearance and setback requirements apply to many elements located in the landscape/furniture zone.
In transit areas, the landscape/furniture zone may be utilized for transit patron waiting, boarding and
alighting and may include transit signage, shelters, benches, litter receptacles, real-time display, off-
board payment, and pedestrian scaled lighting.
(1) Minimum Width: The minimum widths shown below may be increased by the
Department on frontages with unique features, including transit stops.
(a) Tukwila International Boulevard: Eight feet.
(b) All Other Streets: Six feet.
(2) Trees: Street trees shall be spaced to maximize tree growth based on size. Species
shall be chosen from the City of Tukwila Approved Tree List. Other species may be
approved by the Department. Chosen street tree species shall be non-columnar and
shall be chosen from among large species if the planting location is along Tukwila
International Boulevard or Southcenter Boulevard, or from among the medium or large
species if the planting location is along any other street. Planting shall meet the
minimum standards of TMC Chapter 18.52.
18
C. Alternative Sidewalk Designs: Alternative sidewalk designs may be approved by the Department
if the alternative design meets the following standards:
1. The alternative design provides a barrier free, safe pedestrian route; and
2. The alternative design accommodates all required elements of the sidewalk in the area,
such as transit waiting areas or bicycle parking; and
3. The alternative design results in fewer removals of existing mature vegetation than would
be required with strict compliance; and/or
4. The alternative design enables green stormwater infrastructure above stormwater code
requirements; and/or
5. The alternative design will avoid costly utility relocations that are not recommended by the
Department of Public Works; and/or
6. The alternative design allows for more extensive sidewalk improvements (one block
minimum) compared to strict compliance with the sidewalk standards; and/or
7. The alternative design better aligns with a separate project that will modify the project site's
frontage within the next five years, as determined by the Department.
§ 18.22.060. Dimensional and Density Standards.
A. Development within the NCC district shall conform to the following listed and
referenced standards.
1 This includes all parcels where any portion of the parcel is within 500 linear feet, as the crow flies,
from any portion of Tukwila International Boulevard, including sidewalk areas of the Boulevard that lie
within private property but are subject to permanent easements for public access.
NCC DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY STANDARDS
Property Location Parcels Within 500 Feet of
Tukwila International Boulevard1 All Other Parcels
Minimum Lot Area None
Residential Density No Maximum
Setbacks2
Fronts, Sides, Rear Front
Entrances of Street Facing First-Floor
Homes
Minimum: 6’
Maximum Average: 10’
All other Uses:
Minimum: 0’
Maximum Average: 10’
Minimum: 6’
Sides & Rear
Minimum: 10’
Maximum
Development Coverage 75%
Ground Floor Uses
Parcels with any frontage on Tukwila International Boulevard:
Non-residential uses required on a minimum of 60% of the ground floor’s
façade area. As part of a Type 2 Design Review permit, this requirement may
be waived if at least 60% of the ground floor’s façade area is designed such
that it may be “Easily Adaptable”. See TMC 18.06.249.
Minimum Building
Heights 30 feet N/A
Maximum Building
Heights
Base Height:
65 feet
Base Height:
50 feet
Parcels South of
S 146th Street: All other Parcels: Incentive Height3:
70 feet Incentive Height3:
125 feet
Incentive Height3:
90 feet
19
2 Maximum setback standards may be altered by the Director via a Type 2 Design Review application,
provided the applicant demonstrates that: (i) strict adherence to setback rules will result in costly utility
relocations that are not recommended by the Department of Public Works; or (ii) required sight distance
triangles prohibit structures from compliance, and the issue is not mitigatable by enhancements to the
project's frontage; or (iii) the proposed structure(s) exhibits a unique design or use that is incompatible
with the setback requirement, or that would be better served by an alternative setback. In such cases, the
required setback alteration shall be the minimum necessary to avoid the identified impacts and
accomplish the project's goals.
3 Projects may use incentive standards only if the project opts in to and is compliant with the provisions
of the Development Incentive Program found at TMC Chapter 18.47.
20
Manufacturing Ind. Center Overlay
Tukwila South Overlay
TUC-TOD - Transit Oriented Development
TUC-WP - Workplace
TUC-CC - Commercial Corridor
TUC-RC - Regional Center
TUC-P - Pond
TVS - Tukwila Valley South
MIC/H - Manufacturing Industrial Center (Heavy)
MIC/L - Manufacturing Industrial Center (Light)
HI - Heavy Industrial
LI - Light Industrial
C/LI - Commercial/Light Industrial
RC - Regional Commercial
NM - Neighborhood Mixed-Use
HDR - High Density Residential
CR - Community Residential
Public Recreation Overlay
Potential Annexation Area
Zoning Districts and Overlays
City of Tukwila
Zoning Map
Figure 18-10
Created 7/9/2026
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
A
v
e
S
T
u
k
w
i
l
a
I
n
t
l
.
B
l
v
d
.
M
a
c
a
d
a
m
R
d
S
An
d
o
v
e
r
P
a
r
k
W
So
u
t
h
c
e
n
t
e
r
P
k
w
y
We
s
t
v
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
Strander Blvd
Tukwila P k w y
Southc e n t e r B l v d
42
n
d
A
v
e
S
M
a
r
t
i
n
L
u
t
h
e
r
K
i
n
g
J
r
W
a
y
S
I-5
I-405SR-518
0 0.5 1 Miles
Seattle
Burien
Renton
SeaTac
Kent
Unincorporated
King County
Unincorporated
King County
Seattle
21
22
City of Tukwila
Thomas McLeod, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission
FROM: Nora Gierloff, Community Development Director
BY: Neil Tabor, Senior Planner, DCD
DATE: July 23, 2026
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Align Housing Policies
ISSUE
Four items were included on the City’s 2026 Docket of proposed Amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. In this process the Planning Commission assists in the development of
amendments and provides a recommendation to the City Council on how to proceed with each
proposed amendment. This topic is a proposed amendment to the Housing Element to align
policies with the King County Countywide Planning Policies (KCCHP).
DISCUSSION
King County Housing Policy Alignment
As part of the 2024 periodic update to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the plan underwent a
certification review to confirm its consistency with adopted policies at the statewide, regional,
and countywide levels. The county-level review was focused on Housing Policies within the
document, as reviewed under the King County Affordable Housing Committee, guided by King
County Staff, with the final decision made by the Committee. This was the first comprehensive
plan periodic update cycle in which King County conducted a review of jurisdictional plans.
Tukwila’s plan was reviewed for compliance with Housing Policies within the King County
Countywide Planning Policies and was granted approval during the periodic update, with further
recommendations for alignment. Recommendations by topic are listed in summary below with
staff recommendations for amendments. Full comments from the King County Affordable
Housing Committee are available in full in the attached letter.
1. Phrasing of housing by income level and STEP Housing.
County Recommendation: Update STEP Housing Capacity and phrasing of housing targets.
Staff Suggestion: The Housing Element already specifies housing capacity and commitment
to housing targets by income level. Staff does not support notion that the existing policy
language does not meet the requirements of CPP H-1 to plan for and accommodate housing
needs across income levels. Staff does not propose a change to this item.
STEP Housing, or emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing and
permanent supportive housing, capacity was updated in Ordinance 2756 and is fully
compliant with capacity requirements. Although a future STEP housing related update will
be forthcoming based on HB 2266, no further action is required for the purposes of
complying with KCCHPs.
23
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
2. Demonstrate capacity for STEP Housing
County Recommendation: Update regulations to supply a sufficient capacity for emergency
housing.
Staff Suggestion: STEP Housing capacity was updated in Ordinance 2756 and is fully
compliant with capacity requirements. No further action is required.
3. Prioritizing housing affordable to the lowest income level
County Recommendation: Amend policy language to explicitly prioritize housing affordable
to extremely low-income households.
Staff Suggestion: Extremely low-income housing, or housing affordable to households
making 0-30% AMI, is exclusively produced as income restricted housing outside of
traditional housing market dynamics. As the most difficult income level of housing to create
or replace staff agrees placing special emphasis on through modification of an existing
policy or creation of a new policy is appropriate. Staff will propose a new or modified policy
to accomplish this.
4. Demographic information for housing inventory and analysis
County Recommendation: Complete the housing inventory and analysis.
Staff Suggestion: Although substantial data is available in the Housing Background Report
and much consideration was incorporated into housing policies from a racially disparate
impact (RDI) analysis, it is recognized that the three data points requested are not present.
Staff proposes updating demographic information in the Housing Background Report to fully
capture deficient data points.
5. Adequate provisions
County Recommendation: Identify and address gaps in policies to meeting housing needs
through completion of the adequate provision checklist.
Staff Suggestion: Staff completed the adequate provisions checklist after King County
review of the comprehensive plan, but before final adoption. No further action is required.
6. Prioritization of local and regional resources for income-restricted housing
County Recommendation: Commit policy language and associated implementation
strategies to use of regional resources toward income-restricted housing.
Staff Suggestion: Use of local resources, such as surplus property, is decided by the City
Council and balanced with other competing priorities such as balancing the budget through
sale of property, instead of gifting the property to a third party with a condition of using it to
develop affordable units. Staff is willing to explore language to address these
circumstances, but does not feel political direction is present to adopt a policy mandate for
this use of surplus properties or other resources.
7. Supporting income-restricted housing near transit
County Recommendation: Specifically address preservation and creation of income
restricted housing near transit. 24
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Staff Suggestion: While policies regarding housing affordability and policies regarding
encouraging housing near transit exist, staff concurs that there is not specific policy
language regarding preservation and creation of income restricted housing near transit. Staff
proposes to update policy language to incorporate these requirements and explore if
language can be paired with forthcoming HB 1491 (TOD) requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Planning Commission to provide feedback on the proposed direction for
amending housing policies. Proposed amendment language will be presented to the Planning
Commission at a later meeting date to as a basis the Commission’s recommendation to the City
Council.
RELATED LINKS
1. Housing Element
2. Housing Background Report
ATTACHMENTS
1. King County Affordable Housing Committee Review Letter
25
26
October 3, 2024
Neil Tabor, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Tabor,
Thank you for submitting the City of Tukwila’s draft Comprehensive Plan to the
Affordable Housing Committee’s (AHC) Housing-focused Draft Comprehensive Plan
Review Program for review on August 8, 2024. On behalf of the AHC, I am sending you
this summary of our review and recommendations.
Background
The AHC is a subcommittee of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC),
consisting of representatives of King County and its cities, housing providers, area
employers, and others. By direction of the GMPC, the AHC now conducts a housing-
focused review of all King County jurisdictions’ draft periodic comprehensive plan
updates, assessing the draft plans for alignment with the King County Countywide
Planning Policies (CPP) Housing Chapter goals and policies prior to plan adoption.
As you know, our county is experiencing a deep and persistent housing shortage. In
2021, the State of Washington adopted House Bill 1220, which amended the Growth
Management Act, requiring local governments to plan for and accommodate housing
that is affordable to all income levels, including emergency housing. In response to this
state mandate and local interest in improving the effectiveness of local housing plans
and policies, the AHC led a two-year process to amend the King County CPPs.
The result was a significant update to the CPP Housing Chapter, which was
recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the
cities in 2023. The goals of both the statute and this implementation work are to
encourage cities and King County to work together to provide a full range of affordable,
accessible, healthy, and safe housing choices to every resident in King County.
This review is guided by Housing-focused Comprehensive Plan Review Standards, as
adopted by GMPC Motion 23-2. In summary, the AHC review seeks to determine whether
each jurisdiction’s draft plan and submission materials:
1. address all CPP Housing Chapter policies;
2. articulate implementation strategies for relevant CPP Housing Chapter Policies;
and
3. lay out meaningful policies that, taken together, support the jurisdiction’s ability to
equitably meet housing needs.
This program is still relatively new and evolving, and your engagement helps the AHC
understand how jurisdictions are seeking to address their housing needs while aligning
with the recent changes at the state, regional, and county levels.
Affordable
Housing
Committee
KING COUNTY
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING COUNCIL
CHAIR
Claudia Balducci
King County
Councilmember
VICE CHAIR
Alex Brennan
Futurewise
MEMBERS
Susan Boyd
Bellwether Housing
Jane Broom
Microsoft Philanthropies
Kelly Coughlin
SnoValley Chamber of
Commerce
Amy Falcone
Kirkland Councilmember,
Sound Cities Association
Nigel Herbig
Kenmore Mayor, Sound
Cities Association
Thatcher Imboden
Sound Transit
Ryan Makinster
Washington Multi-Family
Housing Association
Sunaree Marshall
On behalf of King County
Executive Dow
Constantine
Ryan McIrvin
Renton Councilmember,
Sound Cities Association
Cathy Moore
City of Seattle
Councilmember
Teresa Mosqueda
King County
Councilmember
Lynne Robinson
Bellevue Mayor, Sound
Cities Association
Veronica Shakotko
Master Builders
Association of King and
Snohomish Counties
Robin Walls
King County Housing
Authority
Maiko Winkler-Chin
On behalf of Seattle
Mayor Bruce Harrell
27
2
The AHC acknowledges the substantial amount of time and effort that went into Tukwila’s draft
comprehensive plan. During review, the AHC noted that many of Tukwila’s plans, policies, analyses,
and implementation strategies align well with CPP Housing Chapter policies. In particular:
1. Tukwila’s housing inventory and land capacity analysis provide a solid foundation for the
draft plan. The detailed review of existing housing stock, land availability, and potential for
future development demonstrates a clear commitment to planning for and accommodating
the city's current and future needs, as required by CPPs H-1 and H-11.
2. Tukwila’s draft plan prioritizes economic development and job creation, particularly in areas
designated for mixed-use and industrial development. The focus on integrating high-tech,
office, retail, and residential uses within the Tukwila South Overlay area is a strategic
approach to creating a multi-use employment center that can drive economic growth and
provide opportunities for residents. This strategy aligns with CPP H-15, which emphasizes the
importance of increasing housing choices near major employment centers to improve the
jobs-housing balance.
Below, the AHC includes recommendations necessary for Tukwila to align with the CPP Housing
Chapter policies.
Recommendations to Align with the CPP Housing Chapter
The AHC recommends Tukwila take the following actions to align its draft comprehensive plan with
CPP Housing Chapter goals and policies.
1. Plan for and accommodate housing needs (CPP H-1)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-1 requires Tukwila plan for and accommodate its allocated share of countywide future
housing needs for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households as well as
emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing.
Tukwila’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Policy H2.2 states that Tukwila will “encourage housing development to all income segments
sufficient to meet needs consistent with adopted targets.” However, CPP H-1 requires that
jurisdictions plan for and accommodate allocated housing needs for moderate-, low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income households, as well as emergency housing, emergency shelters, and
permanent supportive housing needs.
Recommendation 1: To align with CPP H-1, Tukwila should also commit to planning for
and accommodating moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income housing
needs, not just growth targets, as well as emergency housing, emergency shelters, and
permanent supportive housing needs in Policy H2.2.
28
3
2. Identify sufficient capacity of land for emergency housing needs (CPPs H-1 and H-11)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-1 requires Tukwila plan for and accommodate 1,748 net new housing units, including 1,242
emergency housing beds. CPP H-11 requires jurisdictions identify sufficient capacity of land for
emergency housing.
Tukwila’s Proposal and AHC Findings
The draft plan’s Housing Background Report identifies that Tukwila lacks adequate capacity to
accommodate its target of emergency shelter and emergency housing. It also identifies intensity of
use and spacing requirements that serve as barriers to the development of emergency housing
facilities (page 39). Policies and associated implementation strategies in the draft plan address this
gap, including a commitment in implementation strategy H2.(4.5).1 to “review and amend
regulations and fees for emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing, and
permanent supportive housing (STEP Housing) through code amendments and to ensure capacity
and feasibility of STEP Housing development.”
However, Tukwila did not include an emergency housing capacity analysis. Without this analysis, the
AHC cannot determine if Tukwila is planning for and accommodating its emergency housing need
and has sufficient land capacity to accommodate its emergency housing need allocation, as required
by CPP H-11.
3. Prioritize extremely low-income households (CPP H-2)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-1 requires that Tukwila plan for and accommodate 1,367 units affordable to households
below 30 percent of area median income (AMI). CPP H-2 requires Tukwila to prioritize the need for
housing affordable to households less than or equal to 30 percent AMI (extremely low-income).
Tukwila’s Proposal and AHC Findings
The draft plan demonstrates sufficient capacity for 0 to 30 percent of AMI housing needs. However,
the AHC is concerned that policies and implementation strategies in the draft plan do not prioritize 0
to 30 percent of AMI housing needs. Specifically, Tukwila indicates that Housing Element policy H2.1
and H2.2 and implementation strategy H2.(1-3).1 address CPP H-2. Policy H2.1 states that Tukwila
will encourage production in all neighborhoods of diverse housing types that are appropriate for
residents in all stages of life and all household sizes. H2.1. states that Tukwila will encourage
development affordable to all income segments sufficient to meet needs consistent with adopted
targets. Neither of these policies names housing affordable to 0 to 30 percent of AMI households or
demonstrates a clear prioritization of extremely low-income households. Implementation strategy
H2.(1-3).1, which commits Tukwila to amend its residential development standards to incentivize
broader diversity of housing types, increase incentives for affordable housing, and reduce
Recommendation 2: To align with CPPs H-1 and H-11, Tukwila should show sufficient
land capacity for its allocated emergency housing needs. Tukwila should follow
Washington State Department of Commerce’s guidance for completing an emergency
housing land capacity analysis.
29
4
regulations that increase housing development cost, also does not mention extremely low-income
households.
1
4. Complete the housing inventory and analysis (CPP H-3)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-3 directs jurisdictions to conduct a housing inventory and analysis to help identify and address
the greatest needs as well as summarize the findings in the Housing Element.
Tukwila’s Proposal and AHC Findings
While Tukwila’s submission includes many data points and substantive analysis, the AHC could not
find specific information required by CPPs H-3(b), (g), (m). This includes:
b. the number of existing housing units by condition;
g. population age by race/ethnicity; and
m. the housing needs of communities experiencing disproportionate harm of housing inequities
including Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.
This analysis should inform additional comprehensive plan policy responses and strategies. For
example, analysis responsive to CPP H-3(m) could help Tukwila further identify and address gaps in
existing partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources for eliminating racial and other disparities in
access to housing and neighborhoods of choice, as required by CPP H-4 and H-20.
5. Identify and address gaps in policies to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs (CPPs H-4, H-12,
and H-13)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-4 requires jurisdictions to evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and
strategies to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs and identify gaps in existing partnerships,
policies, and dedicated resources for meeting housing needs. CPP H-12 requires jurisdictions to
adopt and implement policies that improve the effectiveness of existing housing policies and
strategies and address gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to meet the
jurisdiction’s housing needs. CPP H-13 requires jurisdictions to implement strategies to overcome
cost barriers to housing affordability.
1 Washington State Department of Commerce (2023 August). Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element.
Page 33. [link]
Recommendation 3: To align with CPP H-2, Tukwila should explicitly prioritize the housing
needs of extremely low-income households in plan policies and implementation
strategies. For examples of strategies Tukwila could use to align with CPP H-2, see the
CPP Housing Chapter Technical Appendix.1
Recommendation 4: Tukwila should include all inventory and analysis components as
required by CPP H-3 and summarize the findings in the Housing Element. This additional
analysis should inform additional comprehensive plan policy responses and strategies.
30
5
Tukwila’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Tukwila’s draft Housing Background Report discusses barriers to housing development, specifically
housing affordable to incomes below 80 percent of AMI (pp. 36-37). The report also proposes
strategies to enable greater affordable housing production, including reducing restrictive
development requirements, streamlining development and design review processes, and providing
incentives for affordable housing development (pp.37-38).
However, this discussion does not outline specific gaps in policy effectiveness, existing partnerships,
and dedicated resources, nor specific cost barriers to housing affordability to which outlined
strategies are meant to respond. The draft plan also does not commit the City to implementing any
strategies identified in the Housing Background Report. Instead, the draft plan generally proposes to
“identify and remove excessive regulatory barriers to housing production” (Policy H1.2), “modify
residential zoning designations and development standard to align with city goals” (Policy H1.3) and
“pursue establishing, or expanding, programs to provide tax incentives for increased housing
development” (Policy H3.2). Therefore, the AHC finds that the draft plan does not meaningfully:
• evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies to meet the
jurisdiction’s housing needs and identify gaps in existing partnerships, policies, and
dedicated resources to meet housing needs, as required by CPP H-4;
• adopt and implement policies that improve the effectiveness of existing housing policies and
strategies and address gaps in existing partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources for
meeting the jurisdiction’s housing needs, as required by CPP H-12; and
• implement strategies to overcome cost barriers to housing affordability, as required by CPP
H-13.
6. Prioritize the use of local and regional resources for income-restricted housing (CPP H-14)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-14 requires jurisdictions prioritize the use of local and regional resources (e.g. funding,
surplus property) for income-restricted housing, particularly extremely low-income households,
populations with special needs, and others with disproportionately greater housing needs.
Recommendation 5: To align with CPP H-4, Tukwila should include an analysis that
identifies specific gaps in the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies to
meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs and identify gaps in existing partnerships, policies,
and dedicated resources for meeting housing needs.
This analysis should inform draft policies and implementation strategies that address
CPPs H-12 and H-13. Tukwila should commit to addressing specific gaps in adopted
policies and implementation strategies. Tukwila may provide updated implementation
strategies to the AHC in 2025.
Please see the Washington State Department of Commerce’s “Adequate Provisions
Checklists” as a guide for how Tukwila could conduct a gap analysis and address gaps in
policies and strategies.
31
6
Tukwila’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Tukwila indicated in their submitted completeness checklist and implementation strategies that draft
policy H2.2 and implementation strategy H2.(1-3).1 address the requirements of CPP H-14. Draft
policy H2.2. states that the City will “encourage housing development affordable to all income
segments sufficient to meet needs consistent with adopted targets.” Implementation strategy H2.(1-
3).1 commits Tukwila to amend its residential development standards to incentivize broader diversity
of housing types, increase incentives for affordable housing, and reduce regulations that increase
housing development cost.
Neither the policy nor implementation strategy demonstrates an intention to prioritize local or
regional resources, such as funding or surplus public land, for income-restricted housing. Policy H2.2
and implementation strategy H2.(1-3).1 also do not mention regional or local resources or refer to
extremely low-income households, populations with special needs, or other groups with
disproportionately greater housing needs. 2
7. Expand and support the supply of income-restricted housing near high-capacity and frequent
transit while mitigating displacement (CPPs H-16, H-17, H-21, and H-23)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-16 requires jurisdictions to expand the supply and range of housing types, including
affordable units, at densities sufficient to maximize the benefits of transit investments throughout
the county. CPP H-17 requires jurisdictions to support development and preservation of income-
restricted affordable housing near high-capacity transit. CPP H-21 requires that jurisdictions adopt
policies and strategies that promote equitable development and mitigate displacement risk; mitigate
displacement that may result from planning efforts, large-scale private investment, and market
pressure; and implement anti-displacement policies prior to or concurrent with development capacity
increases and public capital investments. CPP H-23 requires that jurisdictions adopt and implement
policies that protect housing stability for renter households and expand protections and supports for
moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income renters and renters with disabilities.
Tukwila’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Tukwila’s draft plan’s future land use map (FLUM) proposes both “High Density Residential” and
“Regional Commercial Center” zones—both of which allow for housing types typically affordable to
households below 80 percent of AMI—in close proximity to the Tukwila International Boulevard Link
light rail station. The FLUM also proposes maintaining high-density residential districts along
frequent and high-capacity transit routes, include Metro’s RapidRide. The draft plan designates the
zone in immediate proximity to the city’s Sounder station as a “Tukwila Urban Center – Transit
2 King County Countywide Planning Policies Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix, page 92. [link]
Recommendation 6: To align with CPP H-14, Tukwila should include a policy and
implementation strategy that commits Tukwila to prioritizing available resources for
income-restricted housing (e.g. funding, surplus property), particularly extremely low-
income households, populations with special needs, and others with disproportionately
greater housing needs. For strategies to align with CPP H-14, see the CPP Housing Chapter
Technical Appendix.2
32
7
Oriented Development” zone which contains a substantial portion of the city’s total capacity for
housing types typically affordable to households earning less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI.
The AHC commends these efforts to orient future housing development around frequent and high-
capacity transit; however, the AHC finds that proposed plan does not meaningfully expand the supply
and range of housing types, including affordable units, at densities sufficient to maximize the
benefits of these transit investments, particularly light rail and RapidRide, as required by CPP H-16.
The plan also does not meaningfully support the development and preservation of income-restricted
affordable housing that is within walking distance of these existing high-capacity and frequent transit
investments, as required by CPP H-17.
Specifically, the draft plan maintains low-density zones within one-quarter and one-half-mile buffers
of its existing light rail station, RapidRide stops, and frequent transit stops, particularly along
International Boulevard directly south of State Route 518 and west of State Route 599 (Housing
Background Report, page 36). Many of these areas are also designated as “qualified census tracts”
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which are more likely to see federal low-
income housing tax credit investment than others (Housing Background Report, page 6). The draft
plan also does not commit to adopting any specific incentives for affordable development within
zones near transit, despite discussing such incentives in the Housing Background Report (page 37).
The AHC recognizes that Tukwila has identified areas nearby International Boulevard as at high risk
of potential displacement and that increased development capacity sufficient to maximize nearby
transit investments could result in unintended displacement of low-income renters, immigrant
households, and communities of color from homes and businesses (Housing Background Report,
pp.32-34). However, the AHC considers low-income housing development to be a key anti-
displacement strategy. There is also potential for Tukwila to implement new tenant protections and
other displacement mitigation and equitable development measures to support potentially impacted
communities, in alignment with CPPs H-21 and H-23.
3
Conclusion and AHC Resources
Thank you again for your submission to the Committee’s Housing-focused Draft Comprehensive Plan
Review Program. AHC members valued the opportunity to review Tukwila’s draft Comprehensive Plan
3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix, pp. 99-101. [link]
Recommendation 7: To align with CPPs H-16 and H-17, Tukwila should amend, edit, or
propose new land use and housing element policies and implementation strategies to
support the development and preservation of affordable housing near its existing light rail
and RapidRide stations. The City should also implement new, higher density zones or
overlays and affordable housing incentives that would support the development and
preservation of affordable housing near transit.
Concurrent with development capacity increases, Tukwila should implement measures
that mitigate the involuntary relocation of residents, cultural assets, and businesses from
their current locations and promote equitable development in areas at high-risk of
displacement, particularly nearby to International Boulevard, in alignment with CPP H-21.
Tukwila should also expand renter protections, in alignment with CPP H-23. For strategies
to align with CPPs H-21 and H-23, see the CPP Housing Chapter Technical Appendix.3
33
8
and related submission materials. Tukwila’s participation in the plan review program is instrumental
in the broader work of the Committee to empower local jurisdictions to address the affordable
housing crisis in King County.
AHC staff are happy to assist Tukwila in addressing these recommendations. For immediate
resources and guidance on aligning with the CPP Housing Chapter, refer to the:
• Engrossed 2021 King County CPPs;
• AHC Housing-focused Draft Comprehensive Plan Review Program Guide; and
• King County Resources for Documenting the Local History of Racially Exclusive and
Discriminatory Land Use and Housing Practices.
The AHC would also like to acknowledge that Tukwila may be challenged to address
recommendations in this letter before the state-mandated deadline for comprehensive plan adoption
of December 31, 2024, and may potentially adopt a comprehensive plan in 2024 that is not in
alignment with the CPP Housing Chapter. In that case, the City is encouraged to amend its plan in
2025 to incorporate AHC feedback and bring its plan into alignment with the CPP Housing Chapter
policies.
If you have questions or need additional information regarding aligning with the CPP Housing
Chapter, please contact lead staff for the AHC plan review program, Carson Hartmann, at
AHCplanreview@kingcounty.gov or 206-848-0681.
Sincerely,
Claudia Balducci
Affordable Housing Committee Chair
King County Councilmember, District 6
CC Dow Constantine
Growth Management Planning Council Chair
King County Executive
Laura Hodgson
Senior Planner
Washington State Department of Commerce
Plan Review Team
Puget Sound Regional Council
Plan Review Team
King County Affordable Housing Committee
34