HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2005-06-27 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET ••9s, Tukwila City Council Agenda
a a. :1G Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Counciltnembers: Joe Duffie Joan Hernandez
Rhonda Berr City Administrator Pam Carter Jim Haggerton
O Pamela Linder, Council President Dennis Robertson Dave Fenton
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, June 27, 2005; 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers
1 CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. SPECIAL a. A proclamation designating July 2005, Parks and Recreation Month.
PRESENTATIONS b. Swearing in of new Police Department Sergeants.
1 Douglas Johnson
2. Steve Donnelly
3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this
COMMENT agenda. To comment on an item included on this agenda, please save your
comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
4. SPECIAL ISSUES a. An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County regarding
the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG).
b. Single Family Housing Options Program.
c. A resolution adopting the National Incident Management System
(NIMS).
d. Interurban Avenue South (South 143rd Street to Fort Dent Way)
Conceptual Design Analysis
e. WSDOT 2005 Construction Projects.
5. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental
b. City Council d. City Attorney
6 MISCELLANEOUS
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
8 ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the
City Clerk's Office: 206 433- 1800/TDD 206 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
5
Office of the Mayor
City of Tukzvila, Washington
PROCLAIVIA TION
activities
grow and
and experiences
develop
WHEREAS, parks and recreation
opportunitIes for young people to live,
members of their communities~ and
WHEREAS, parks and recreatIon agencies create lifelines, and enrich hfe
experiences for older members of our communitIes; and
WHEREAS, parks and recreation agencies provide outlets for physical
activities, socialization and stress-reducing experiences; and
provide
into contributing
WHEREAS, parks, nature trails, open spaces, community centers, golf
courses, aquatics, festivals and historic sItes make our City an attractive and
desirable place to live, work, play and visit, which contribute to our economic
vitality; and
WHEREAS, parks, greenways and open spaces provide a welcome respite
from our fast-paced, high-tech lifestyles, while protecting and preserving our
natural environment; and
WHEREAS, parks and recreation agencies touch the lives of individuals,
familIes, groups and entire commumties, which positively impact the social,
econOilllC, health and environmental quality of our states; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila IS proud of the parks and recreation
programs and opportunities of this community and their contributions toward
providing for all ages a healthy place to recreate, a place to learn and grow, build
self-esteem, confidence and a sense of self-worth, and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Steven M. Mullet, Mayor of the City of
Tukwila, do hereby proclaim July 2005:
Signed this
Parks and Recreation Month
f 4 -\'t-. day of ."J lJN e
~u,,~ <'v) 'v) .~\
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor of Tukwila
2005.
:-::!j;j'j
!;f#~"~;#':;\
!:'~/.. ~l;.7jJ\
...:;~~~ :::~~:i
I J!~; l~~
."''''',. ....'3.~."
~~/l:~i
I ,'...~~.~~'
~
I~\
!t~/~ y~~;,\
, '~Jf; }ff}l
,,~~ ,~/!I
. ........ ,..:':..1
, :~:::~ ';.~~~:\
.....~~: :-~.:::)
~;.
.ccrl,
:~:!!j;j;..
......... ".--.
i0AY~~~
....'#.. r"-:"l
, ~Jf: :;;;:1
,'_ ,.'II
.- ....... ....~\
. :~~~: ';.~~~:\
s..:"~: ::~~~J
..~,.. A""?j
ifjf;r/
Go UNCIL GENDA SYNOPSIS
o 2 Initials ITEM No.
f
Q' h, 8 Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's renew, aunczl review
1 6/27/05 1 EB
I
i I
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER. 05-093 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 6/27/05
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Interlocal Agreement between King County and City of Tukwila
CATEGOR Discusszon Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Other
Mt Date L It D ate Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg ate aBan� Mtg Date
Mfg 6/27 g 8 8 g 8 g
SPONSOR x❑ 1 1 Adm DCD [1 Fire Legal PAR Police PW
SPONSOR'S ouncii iin' order`to participate in recommendations around the use of Community
SUMMARY Development Block Grant funds the City must enter into a interlocal agreement with King
County. This interlocal agreement covers CDBG funds, distribution, and responsibilities of
both King County and participating cities. This new interlocal replaces the previous one
where Tukwila received an independent "pass- through" allocation.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. xX (CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: CA &P 06/14/05; COW 06/27/05
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Recommend Mayor's signature to authorize the agreement.
COMMITTEE
C OST=IMPACT 1 FUND' SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source
Coninients
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL-ACTION
06/27/05 1
1
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
6/14/05 Memo from E Boykan
Letter to Phillips dated May 26, 2005
Proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement 1
Minutes Community Affairs Parks Committee June 14, 2005 1
MEMORANDUM
TO.
Mavor's Office, City Council
, I)
~lA)
EVle Boykan, Human ServIces
FROM
RE
Change in Interlocal Agreement re CDBG funds
The combinatIOn of declinmg federal funds and mcreasmg federal reqUirements has
raised administrativG costs for the Commumty Development Block Grant program. The
need to save adminIstrative dollars and subsequently return more money to the
commumty has resulted in a new mterlocal cooperatIve agreement that streamlmes and
simplIfies the Kmg County CDBG program.
IntelJurisdictIOnal staff met for many hours to recommend a process that keeps the same
proportIOn of federal funds available to South Kmg County, while simphfymg the
administratIve overhead. In short, TukwIla, as well as other South Kmg County citles
that are part of the ConsortIUm, wIll not receive a "pass-through" allocation of itS own,
but may apply, like other non-profit agencIes, to a South Kmg County sub-regional pot.
The atta~hed interlocal agreement highlights how thIS will work. Features include, a
setaside of 5% of fund for housmg stability (homeless preventiOn) and 25% of funds for
housmg repair. Tub-vila resIdents wIll still have access to these resources for home
repmr.
Any Tukwila identified proJects, such as Mmor Home Repair, may be requested by
applIcation to the sub-regIOnal pot. To ensure that all partIcIpating Junsdictlons benefit
fairly, an advisory board of mtelJurisdictIOnal members will be developed. Each city wlii
have a VOice in a sub-regional advisory group as to how CDBG funds should be spent m
that subregiOn. The Joint Recommendations Comnuttee (IRC), which makes
recommendations for expenditures to the County Executlve and County CouncIl will be
charged with ensunng geographIc fairness m distnbutiOn of funds The South Kmg
County sub-reglOnal advIsory group wIll make recommendatIOns to the IRC
Overall, this system will treat Consortium cities fairly and while cities may not receive
funds for mfrastructure or other capItal projects every year, the checks and balances will
likely assure that cities will be able to take turns receiving fundmg for their proJects.
In order to continue participatmg m the CDBG consortiUm the Council must authorize
the Mayor's signature for the new agreement, which will cover 2006-2008.
I am available to answer questions.
mterlocal agreement.doc .
- -------.
May 26, 2005
The Honorable Larry Phi:llips, Chair
MetropolItan-King County Council
Room 1200
COURTHOUSE
Dear Councilmember PhIllips:
I am pleased to transmit for King County Council consideration and approval an ordmance
authonzing the King County Executive to sign a new interlocal cooperation agreement regarding
the federally-funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
Kmg County receives an annual CDBG entitlement grant of $5 to $7 million per year, along with
related federal housing and community development funds of about $4 million per year, from the
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Federal regulatlOns allow suburban
cities which do not qualIfy for their own CDBG entitlement funds to participate with the county
m an urban county consortium. This increases the amount of federal funds flowing into our
region, and allows the participating cities access to these federal funds in an efficient manner. In
order for the cities to participate, HUD first requires them to enter into renewable three-year
cooperation agreements with the county. Most suburban cities have entered into such
cooperation agreements with King County in the past, many of which have participated since
1976, when King County first began receiving CDBG funds.
ThIS new CDBG interlocal cooperation agreement has been recommended by the inter-
jurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) that guides King County's urban county
consortlUm. The IRC is chaIred by Mayor Ava Frisinger ofIssaquah. The new CDBG mterlocal
cooperation agreement forges new working relationshIps between the county and the
participating suburban cities regarding the CDBG program. Specifically, the cities and the
county will be agreemg to pool the CDBG Consortium's funds and allocate them on the basIs of
two sub-regions (the north/east sub-region, and the south sub-regIOn) rather than to continue the
old system of allocating the dwmdling amount of funds on a JunsdIction by junsdIctlOn basIs.
This is a remarkable pioneering and collaborative step for all our jurisdictions, and a sIgmficant
change from the past. Under the past interlocal agreement, the CDBG funds were considered
more like local funds, where the larger suburban cities in the Consortium had local discretion
----~.._-
The Honorable Larry PhillipS
May 26, 2005
Page 2
over a specific share of the funds to serve their own resIdents, and the county had dIscretlOn over
another share of the funds to serve residents of umncorporated communities and the smaller
suburban cItIes For junsdictlOns to agree to come together and replace that system with sub-
reglOnal pools has taken vision, courage, and trust:
. VisIOn-to see beyond jurisdictlOnallines at what could be accomplished by workmg
together;
. Courage-to giv.e up a small annual share that is certain for the opportunity to apply for a
more significant amount; and
. Trust-to have confidence that the pooled funds will be allocated fairly and that the
residents of all jurisdictions will be served.
,
ThIS new system also will save on administrative costs, and help ensure that as many of the
CDBG dollars as possible are spent on projects out in the community rather than on
admllllstration. This is important because annual CDBG entitlement funds have not kept up with
mflatlOn over the years. It is doubly important in the current federal budget climate where
CDBG and other housmg and community development programs face additional cuts in
Washington, DC. The new sub-regional pools will require less in admimstrative costs by the
cities and the county than required by the olq pass-through system. We estimate a savings of
over $320,000 in administrative costs per year.
The need to reduce administrative costs was what first prompted the JRC to re-examme the
Consortium's structure. The JRC recognized that the old structure added both complexity and
duplication to a federal program that was shnnking and already very complex to administer. It
concluded the status quo could not be sustained. In 2004, the JRC initiated the re-examination of
the Consortium structure by appomting a small inter-jurisdictional staff group to explore
alternatives that would reduce administrative costs. This staff group had representatives from
Shorelme, Redmond, Burien, and SeaTac, as well as King County.
The staff group began their task by meetmg with other CDBG urban counties, and learned how
those counties and the cities within them shared the funds. They heard from the Snohomish
County, Pierce County, and Clark County CDBG programs, and also learned about CDBG
programs in other states, including 'Washington County, OR; Shelby County, TN; and Anoka
County, MN. At the same time, Mayor Fnsinger wrote to the Suburban Cities AssocIation to
inform them of the JRe's initiative, and to let them know that changes might be commg for the
CDBG Consortium.
The staff group utIlized some of the ideas learned from the other counties, and developed several
alternatIve models for the Kmg County Consortium, WhICh they presented to the JRe. These
alternatIve models ranged from a Consortmm-wlde pool of funds, to two sub-regIOnal pools, to a
variatlOn on the existing pass-through system. Another slightly different vanation on the
--_.-~--
The Honorable Larry PhIlhps
May 26, 2005
Page 3
eXIsting pass-through system was considered agam later m the process; this vanatlOn on the
eXIsting system was eventually dIsmissed for not provIdmg enough admmIstratIve savmgs.
After the imtial presentatlOn to the JRC, the staff group made presentatlOns to four mam
stakeholder groups to solicit feedback. These four stakeholder groups were non-profit SOCIal
servIce providers, non-profit housmg providers, CDBG coordinators from Consortium citles, and
Suburban CIty Managers and Admin\strators.
There was little or no support for the model of a Consortium-wide pool of funds at any of the
four meetings. The different areas of the Consortium are too varied and the decislOn-making
seemed too far removed from the local level. There was more support for the sub-reglOnal
model However, there was also significant and understandable concern about movmg away
from the old pass-through system where funds were guaranteed. Some of the twelve cIties whIch
have been receivmg a pass-through feared-and may still fear-that theIr residents would not
benefit to the same extent if the cItles had to compete m a sub-regional pool. They understand
that they will be giving up the certainty ofrecelVing a small share of the funds each year, but that
m return they will be gaming the opportunity to receive a much larger amount every few years.
They also understand that this may allow them to receive enough funding to complete an entire
proj ect at once, rather than havmg to phase it over several years. Still, the idea of gIving up that
certainty and pooling these funds, which some cIties have come to view as local funds, was
difficult for some cities to accept.
0?
These concerns were very understandable, and caused long discussions at subsequent JRC
meetings. In response to those concerns, the JRC modified the initial sub-reglOnal model to
place greater emphasis on participation of all jurisdictions in the project selection process. They
stipulated the formation of sub-regional advisory groups where all participating JunsdIctions
have a seat at the table to advise the JRC on the selection of CDBG projects each year. In
addItion, the JRC stipulated that the interlocal cooperation agreement would specifically charge
them with the responsibility of ensuring that residents of all geographic areas benefit faIrly from
the Consortium's CDBG-funded projects and programs.
In sum, I believe that the inter-jurisdictional JRC is to be commended. They were faced with a
very difficult situation, and they have made the best possible recommendation. The sub-regional
Consortium structure proposed by the JRC in this interlocal cooperation agreement wIll save
administration costs, allow more of the CDBG dollars to be made available for commumty
projects, and ensure that every partIcipatmg CIty has a seat at the table during the project
selectlOn process.
Please be aware that there is a HUD deadlme of August 5 for cities to sIgn and return the
mterlocal agreements. Any CIty that does not sIgn by that tIme wtll be excluded from the King
County CDBG Consortium, and these cities are too small to qual1fy for their own CDBG
===-.=: =----=--=-=-=-
The Honorable Larry PhIllips
May 26, 2005
Page 4
entItlements from HUD. Therefore, I ask that you consider this agreement promptly, to give the
vanous city councils adequate tIme for their review and consideration.
There is no fiscal note accompanying this ordinance because no additIOnal expenditure authonty
IS being requested, only authonzatIOn to enter mto the interlocal cooperation agreements If you
have any questions about this agreement, please contact Jackie MacLean, who serves as the Kmg
County representatIve on the Joint I<;ecommendation CommIttee, at 296-7689
Smcerely
Ron Sims
King County Executive
cc: King County Councilmembers
A TTN: Scott White, Chief of Staff
Shelley Sutton, Policy Staff Director
Rebecha Cusack, Lead Staff, BFM Committee
Anne Noris, Clerk ofthe Council
Ava Frisinger, Mayor, City of Issaquah
Terry Anderson, Councilmember, City of SeaTac
Howard Botts, Mayor, CIty of Black DIamond
Jeanne BurbIdge, Councilmember, CIty of Federal Way
Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator, City of Renton
Dan Stroh, Planning Director, City of Belle vue
Maura Brueger, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of King County Executive
Stephanie \-Varden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental
Services
Jackie MacLean, Director, Department of Community and Human Services
INTERLOCAL COOPER;\TION AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE
COlVIlYIUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRi\1'1T PROGRA.lYI
THIS AGREEMENT IS entered into by and between Kmg County (hereinafter the "County") and the CIty
of , (hereinafter the "CIty") said partIes to this
Agreement each being a umt of general local government in the State of Washington.
\VITNESSETH:
'WHEREAS, the federal government, through adoption and administration of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (th~ "Act"), as amended, will make available to King County Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, for expendIture during the 2006-2008 fundmg years; and
, 'WHEREAS, the area encompassed by umncorporated Kmg County and all partIcipatmg cIties, has been
desIgnated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("BUD"), as an urban
county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county a share ofthe annual appropriation of
CDBG funds based on formula, taking into consideration the social and economic characteristics of the
urban county; and
WHEREAS, the Act allows participation of units of general government wIthin an urban county in
undertaking activities that further the goals of the CDBG program within the urban county; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of the consohdated housing and community
development plan ("Consolidated Plan") by participating jurisdIctions; and
WHEREAS, King County shall undertake CDBG-funded activities in participating incorporated
Jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated Plan by granting funds to those Jurisdictions and to other
qualifying entities to carry out such activities; and
'WHEREAS, King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities undertaken with
CDBG funds and shall ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King County is required to
submIt to BUD wIth the Annual Action Plan are met; and
vVHEREAS, King County and the particIpating jurisdictions are committed to targeting CDBG funds to
ensure benefit to low- and moderate-income persons as defined by BUD; and
vVHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdIctions recognize that needs of low- and moderate-
income persons may cross jurisdictional boundaries and therefore can be considered regional and sub-
regional needs as well as local needs; and
'WHEREAS, Kmg County, in conjunction with the partIcIpating JunsdIctions, must submIt an Annual
Action Plan to HUD, which IS a requirement to receIve CDBG funds, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, entered into pursuant to and in
accordance with the State Interlocal CooperatIon Act, RCW Chap. 39 34, IS to form an urban county
rr'\l:!r:
_ __ _~'__
---- -. ---
consortlUm, ("ConsortlUm"), for prannmg the distnbutlOn and admInIstration of CDBG, HOME
Investment PartnershIp, and other federal funds received on behalf of the ConsortlUm from HUD, and for
executIon of activIties In accordance wIth and under authonty of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDER.t\ TION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMST ANCES A1~TI IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAI}.TED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT'
1. GENERAL AGREEi'YIENT
Kmg County and partIcipating jurisdictions agree to cooperate to undertake, or assIst In
undertakmg, activities which further the development of vIable urban cOmmUnItIes, Including the
provision of decent housing and q, suitable hving enVIronment and expandmg economIC
opportunities, principally for persons oflow- and moderate mcome, through community renewal
and lower income housing assistance activities, funded from annual CDBG funds from federal
Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 appropnations, from recaptured funds allocated In those years,
and from any program income generated from the expendIture of such funds.
II. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
The annual distribution of CDBG funds for the King County urban county Consortium shall be
governed by the following provisions:
A. The amount needed for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and related federal
programs that benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County This amount
(hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Setaside") is contingent upon review by the
Joint RecommendatIons Committee ("JRC"), as provided in Section IV, and approval by
the Metropolitan King County Council, as provided by Section V. To the extent that is
reasonable and feasible, the County and the CommIttee shall strive to ensure that some
portion ofthe allowable 20 percent for planning and administration remams available for
the purposes outlined in II. D. below.
B. Five percent ofthe funds available from the entitlement and program income shall be
reserved for the Housing Stability Program, a public service activity in support of homeless
prevention and in support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation
of the state Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A).
C. Twenty-five percent of the funds avaIlable from the entitlement and program income shall
be reserved for the ConsortIUm-wide Housing RepaIr program. The JRC may penodically
review and recommend increases or decreases to this percentage If, in ItS judgment, there
has been a substantial change in the ConsortIUm's overall fundmg or in the need for
housing repair that justifies an increase or decrease.
D. The remaining entItlement and program income funds, mcluding any remainmg balance of
the 20 percent allowable for plannIng and admmistration, as well as any recaptured or pnor
year funds, shall be divided between two sub-regIons of the county-the north/east sub-
region and the south sub-region. These funds shall be made available on a competItIve
basIs for a variety of elIgible activities consistent with the Consolidated Housing and
Commumty Development Plan.
COBG
~----- -
. - "--
1. The north/east sub-reglOn shall mc1ude those cItIes m the north and east and those
portlOns of unincorporated Kmg County that lIe north of Interstate 90. The cIties of
Mercer Island, Newcastle, Issaquah, and North Bend, WhICh are at or near the
Interstate 90 border, along with theIr designated potentIal annexatIon areas, also
shall be mcluded m the north/east sub-region.
2 The south sub-reglOn shall include those citIes south of Interstate 90 and those
portIOns of unincorporated King County that lie south ofInterstate 90, except for
the cities of Mercer Island, Newcastle, Issaquah, and North Bend and their potential
annexation areas, which are part of the north/east sub-regIOn.
3. The formula for dividmg the funds between the two sub-regions shall be based on
each s':1b-region's ~hare of the ConsortIUm's low-and moderate-income populatIOn.
,III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Funds shall be used to support the goals and objectives of the ConsolIdated Plan.
B. Funds shall be used in accordance with the CDBG regulations at 24 CFR 570 and all other
applicable federal regulations.
IV. JOINT RECOMlVIENDATIONS COMlVHTTEE
An inter-jurisdictional Joint RecommendatIOns CommIttee ("JRC") shall be established.
A. Composition-The JRC shall be composed of three county representatives and eIght cities
representatives.
1. The three county representatives shall be King County Executlve staff with broad
policy responsibilities and/or department directors. County representatives shall be
specified in writing and, where possible, shall be consistently the same persons
from meeting to meetmg.
2. Four of the cIties representatives shall be from those cities sigmng this interlocal
cooperation agreement, two from each sub-region.
3. The remaming four cities representatives shall be from cities that qualIfy to receIve
CDBG entitlement funds directly from HUD and that are not signing this
agreement, but are sIgning either Joint agreements or HOME-only agreements.
These latter four representatives shall have no vote on matters specIfic to the
jurisdictions that are parties to thIS agreement.
4. The chaIrperson and vice-chairperson of the JRC shall be chosen from among the
members of the JRC by a maj onty vote of the members for a term of one year
begmning with the first meetmg of the calendar year. Attendance of five members
shall constitute a quorum.
rnRr.
B Appomtments- The Klllg County ExecutIve shall appoint the three county representatives
The partIcIpating cIties shall provlde for the appomtment of their shared representatIves m
a manner to be determined by those citIes through the Suburban Cities AssoclatlOn or other
agreed-upon mechanism for the executIOn of shared appomtmg authonty The Suburban
Cltles AssocIation or other agreed mechamsm will select four JunsdlctlOns ofvarymg SIze
from among those sigmng thIS agreement, two from the north/east sub-reglon and two from
the south sub-reglOn. The cities representatives shall be elected officIals, chlef
administrative officers, or persons who report dlrectly to the chIef admmistratIve officer
and who have broad policy responsibIlIties; e.g , plannmg directors, department directors,
etc. Members of the JRC shall serve for two years, or at the pleasure of their respectIve
appointmg authontles.
C. Powers and Duties-The JRC shall be empowered to:
1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters
concerning the Consortium CDBG and HOME Program, including but not limIted
to the ConsolIdated Plan and related plans and policies.
2. RevIew and recommend to the King County Executive the projects and programs to
be undertaken with CDBG funds and HOME funds, including the Administrative
Setaside.
3. Monitor and ensure that all geographic areas and partIcIpating jurisdIctions benefit
fairly from CDBG- and HOME-funded activitIes over the three-year agreement
period, so far as is feasible and within the goals and objectives of the ConsolIdated
Plan.
D. Advisory Committees to JRC-In fulfilling its duty to review and recommend projects and
programs to be undertaken with the CDBG and HOME funds, the JRC shall consIder the
advice of inter-jurisdictional advisory committees. Sub-regional advIsory committees,
made up of one representative from each participating jurisdiction in a sub-region that
wishes to particIpate, shall be convened to assist in the review and recommendation of
projects and programs to be undertaken in that sub-region. The JRC may also SOhClt
recommendations from other inter-jurisdIctIOnal housing and community development
committee
V. RESPONSIBILITIES AND PO\VERS OF KING COUNTY
A. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, the County as the
applicant and grantee for CDBG funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligatiOns in
the executlOn of thIS CDBG Program, including final responsibility for selectmg and
executing activities and submitting to HUD the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans,
and related plans. Nothing contamed in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdIcation
of those responsibIlities and obligations.
B The Metropolitan Kmg County CouncIl shall have authonty and responsibilIty for all
policy matters, includmg the ConsolIdated Plan, upon reVIew and recommendatIOn by the
JRC
,DRn
- - ---~ --
C. The Metropolitan Ktng County CouncIl shall have authority and responsIbilIty for all fund
allocatlOn matters, mdudmg approval of the annual CDBG AdmmistratIve Setaside and
appr6pnatIon of all CDBG funds
D. The King County Executive, as admmIstrator of this CDBG Program, shall have authonty
and responsIbIlIty for all admimstratIVe reqUlrements for whIch the County is responsIble
to the federal government.
E. The Kmg County ExecutIve shall have authority and responsIbility for all fund control and
disbursements
F. The King County Executive shall have the authonty and responsibilrty to staff the JRC and
provide l1aisoI} between ROO and the urban county Consortmm. County ExecutIve staff
shall prepare and present to the JRC evaluation reports or recommendatIOns concernmg
specific proposals or policies, and any other material deemed necessary by the JRC to help
it fulfill its powers and dutIes in IV. C., above.
G. King County Executive staff shall have the authority and responsibility to communicate
and consult with participating jurisdictions on CDBG policy and program matters in a
timely manner.
H. Kmg County Executive staff shall have the authonty and responsibilIty to convene sub-
regional advisory commIttees made up of representatives from participating JurisdIctions in
the sub-region, to advise the JRC on the allocation of the sub-regional funds
1. King County Executive staff shall provide periodIc reports on clIents served by
jurisdictions in the Housing Stability and Housing Repair programs and on the status of
CDBG-funded projects and make them available to all particIpating junsdIctIOns and the
JRC.
J. Kmg County Executive staff shall solicit proposals, administer contracts, and provIde for
technical aSsIstance, both in the development of vIable CDBG proposals and in complymg
with CDBG contractual requirements.
K. King County shall have environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling
requirements of the NatlOnal Environmental Policy Act, under which King County may
require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data, infonnation, and
assistance for King County's review and assessment m detennming whether King County
must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTICIPATING CITIES
A. All participatmg cities shall cooperate in development of the CDBG Plan and related plans
B. All participating cities shall assign a staff person to be the primary contact for the County
on CDBG/HOME Issues. The assigned CDBGfHOME contact person IS responsible for
commumcatmg relevant mformation to others at the participating city, mc1uding any
CDBG
representative the city may choose to send to the sub-regIOnal advIsory comrmttee, If that
representative is not the CDBGIHOME contact person.
C At Its discretIOn, a participatmg city may assign a representative to attend meetIngs of the
sub-regional advIsory committee ThIS representative mayor may not be the City's
CDBG/HOME contact person. It may be the CDBG/HOME contact person, a dIfferent
staff member, an elected official, or a citizen.
D If and when a participating cIty deems necessary or advisable, it may prepare appl1cations
for CDBG funds to address the needs of its residents, conSIstent WIth the Consohdated
Plan.
E. Each particIpating city shall obtam its council's authonzation for any CDBG appl1catIOn
submItted. .
F. All particIpating cities shall carry out CDBG-funded projects in a manner that is timely and
consIstent with contractual requirements.
G. All participating cities owning community facilities or other real property acquired or
Improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds shall comply with use restrictions as
reqUlred by HUD and as required by any relevant policies adopted by the IRe.
1 During the period ofthe use restriction, the partIcipating cities shall notify Kmg
County prior to any modIfication or change m the use of real property acqUlred or
improved m whole or in part with CDBG funds This includes any modificatIOn or
change in use from that planned at the time of the acquisition or improvement,
including disposition.
2. During the period ofthe use restriction, if the property acquired or improved with
CDBG funds is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the
CDBG regulations, the participating city shall reImburse King County in an amount
equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to
expenditures ofnon-CDBG funds).
VII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
A. All partIcipatmg jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions that have sIgned
this Agreement.
B. All partIcipatmg junsdiction shall fulfill to the County's reasonable satisfaction all relevant
reqUirements of federal laws and regulations that apply to King County as applIcant,
includmg assurances and certificatIOns descnbed m Section VIII below
C Each participating junsdlction or cooperating unit of general local government certifies
that it has adopted and is enforcing:
1. a polley that prohibits the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencles
wlthm its JunsdictIOn against any individuals engaged in non-violent cIvIl nghts
demonstratIOns; and
r. rme
_.- -.-. --- - --
. . . -
2. a policy that enforces applicable state and local laws against physically bamng
entrance to or eXIt from a facIhty or location whIch IS the subject ofnon-vlOlent
cIvIl nghts demonstrations wIthin JurisdictIOn.
D Pursuant to 24 CFR 570 50l(b), all particIpating umts oflocal governments are subject to
the same requirements applicable to subrecIpients when they receIve CDBG funds to
Implement an activity The apphcable reqUIrements mclude, but are not hmIted to, a
written agreement with the County that comphes wIth 24 CFR 570.503 and mcludes
provisions pertammg to. statement of work; records and reports, program mcome, umform
admimstrative items; other program reqUirements; condItIOns for religious orgamzations,
suspensIOn and tennination; and reversion of assets.
E. All participating units of local government understand that they may not apply for grants
under the federal Small CitIes or State CDBG Programs that receive separate entItlements
from HUD during the penoct of partIcipation in thIS Agreement.
F. All units oflocal government partIcipating in the CDBG urban county consortium through
thIS mterlocal cooperation agreement understand that they are also part of the urban county
for the HOME program and may participate in a HOME program only through the CDBG
urban county.
G. JunsdictIOns undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under this
Agreement shall retam full civil and criminal habihty as though these funds were locally
generated.
H. JurisdIctions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements ofthe State EnvIronmental
Policy Act under which King County has reVIew responsibility only.
VIII. GENERAL TERL"IS
A. This Agreement shall extend through the 2006,2007, and 2008 program years, and shall
remain in effect until the CDBG funds and program income received with respect to
activities carried out dunng the three-year qualification period are expended and the funded
activities completed. This Agreement shall be automatIcally renewed for partIcipation in
successive three-year qualification periods, unless the County or the City provIdes written
notice that it wishes to amend this agreement or elects not to participate in the new
qualification period by the date set forth by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development in subsequent Urban County Qualification NotIces. King County, as
the official applIcant, shall have the authonty and responsIbihty to ensure that any property
acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance wIth federal
regulatIOns.
B Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570 307(d)(2), during the period of quahfication no included umt
of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the cooperation agreement
while it remams in effect.
C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement, the City shall agree to comply with the
policies and implementatlOn of the Consolidated Plan.
COSG
_ _ ____
-: ...::..... '=:"'~~-~~-------=--=--=~--~~--=--'-=~-_-'.--=-':~~-'=-- ---~----== ---- -'- ...;:..----=--..: -~-=-"'=:'""'--- - ---=-:....:.'-----~ - ~--=-:::-:::_=-
D. PartIes to thIS Agreement must take all required actIons necessary to assure compl1ance
WIth Kmg County's certIficatIOn requIred by SectIOn 1 04(b) of TItle I ofthe Housmg and
Commumty Development Act of 1974, as amended, mcluding Title VI of the CIVrJ RIghts
Act of 1964, (TItle In of the Civil RIghts Act), the FaIr Housmg Act as amended, SectIon
109 of TItle I ofthe Housmg and Commumty Development Act of 1974, as amended, the
Amencans wIth DIsabilrtIes Act of 1990, and other applicable laws.
E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in or m support of any partIcIpatmg CIty
that does not affimratively further fair housmg withm its own jurisdIction or that Impedes
the County's actions to comply with its faIr housing certification.
F. It is recognized that amen4ment to the provIsions of thIS Agreement may be appropnate,
and such amendment shall take place when the parties to thIS Agreement have executed a
written amendment to this Agreement. The City and the County also agree to adopt any
amendments to the Agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the reqUIrements
for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County QualIfication NotIce apphcable
for a subsequent three-year qualification period, and to submit such amendment to the
Umted States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Failure to adopt such
reqUIred amendment shall void the automatic renewal of the Agreement for the subsequent
qualificatIOn period.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CITY OF
for King County Executive
By' Signature
JackIe MacLean
Pnnted Name
Printed Name
Director, Department of Commumty and Human
Services
TItle
Title
Date
Date
Approved as to Form.
OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Michael Sinsky, King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
CDBG
C;ommunity and Parks Committee
June 14, 2005
Present.
Joe Duffie, Chair; Dennis Robertson Dave Fenton
Steve Lancaster, EVIe Boykan, Lucy Lauterbach, Sue Carlson, Tom Foster
1. Shoreline lVlaster Plan wlap Because the TVS annexation area includes shorelme, the City
wIll need to amend Its Shorelme Management Plan to mclude a use desIgnatIOn for the shorelme.
The applIcant prefers It be designated "Urban", and DCD staffagreed that was appropnate. DennIs
asked for a table showing what is allowed in King County's Rural DIStrict as well as m TukwIla's
Urban shoreline dIstriCt. A publ1c meetmg wIll be held June 20, and the CouncIl has options to
pass the amendment request on to the Plannmg CommissIOn, defer consIderatron, or reject the
request. Recommend amendment to Regular lVleeting for Council approval.
"I:; Changes in {nterIoe'" Agreement for CDBG Fnnding Due to dechrnng federal funds and
~creasing admmlstrative costs at the County level, a new interlocal agreement between the pass-
through and other cIties has been drafted. This new agreement makes funding allocations
aVailable at the sub-regional level; north and east and south. South Kmg County WIll receive the
same proportion of funding that would have been available with the mdIvIdual pass-through
system. Tukwila, will not receive a pass-through allocatron III 2006. Funds wIll still be
available for housing repmr and homelessness prevention, as these funds will come offthe top of
the regional allocatIOn. TukwIla wIll need to compete with other applications from cities and
human service providers. This applies to projects such as mmor home repair, nutntion
education and any capital project that is internal to the CIty UtilIty connection assistance will
still be available through the King County Housing Repair program.
Cities and agencies will submit their projects to the County. They will then be reviewed by sub-
regional city representatives who will meet to recommend how to allocate funds m the sub-
region. Those recommendations will go to the Joint Recommendations Committee, composed of
representatives from suburban cities, King County, City of Seattle (for Home and RHAP funds
only) and cities considered Jomt Agreement citIes. Finally, JRC recommendations will go to the
King County Executive and the County Council.
Dave asked about the process and Evie said that some of It is still being worked out. It IS
antIcipated that everyone may not get their capital requests funded ImmedIately, but in
subsequent years will be in a better position if they apply. The Committee accepted EVIe's
recommendation for the new process Recommend interlocal agreement to CO\V.
3. Torn Foster ReQuest Tom Foster is a developer who owns 14 single-family lots on 51st on
Ryan Hill. He said hIS options are to build fourteen 20-foot wide homes, but he hoped to be able
to use the alternative housing that had been dIscussed previously III CommIttee. He has bUIlt
several large homes recently, and there is a ready market for those homes. He would like to
consolIdate lots to be able to do something SImIlar on rus consolIdated lots. The Committee
talked about the need for cottage housmg m Tukwila for empty nesters and those moving into a
smaller home. In the end the Committee agreed they would proceed when DCD comes back to
the Committee wIth more informatIOn on alternative housing. Information.
F Committee chaIr approval
Mmutes by LL
c 11LA, yy`, CO U CIL I-1NDA SYNOPSIS
t y 5 Lutral.■ ITER1IVO. IIP p
z :Z
c) llzztut Date Prepared h; lla; or, review Coruntl rerun)
MCB
o� 06/27/05 1 1 _,{,�e
y, I I I I I 4._
1 1
ITEM INFORMATION r7 l
CAS NUMBER. 05-094 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE. ��f1_Lr tes I ,1C LJ�.)
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Housing Options Program a
CATEGORY DzSCuss10i1 motion I 1 Resolntzon 1 1 Ordinance Bid Award Public Heaizng Other
lttg Date 6121/0 S Mtg Date Mtg Date lltg Date 1Itg Date \I!g Date Mtg Date
I SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Fznance Fzre n Legal Pe R I I Police PTV I
SPONSOR'S Create a program that allows a limited number of projects that create "for sale" housing
SUMMARY not typically developed, such as small house, cottages, and townhomes.
REVIEWED BY COW l/Itg CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte U Transportation Cmte
LJtihttes Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE. March 15 May 24, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN
COMMITTEE Community Affairs and Parks forwards to COW for discussion.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
ExPENDPl'URE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source NOT APPLICABLE
Comments
MTG. DATE 1 RECORD O F COUNCIL ACTION I
6/27/05 1
I i
MTG. DATE
I ATTACHMENTS
6/27/05 A Memo from DCD Director
B 3/15/05 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Minutes
C 5/24/05 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Minutes
D Demonstration Program Outline
1
Cz ty o f Steve M. Mullet Mayor
Q tea
r
Mt. Department of f' Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
1908
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Steve Lancaster, Director
Date June 22, 2004
Subject: Housing Options Program
Background:
The market for single family homes in Tukwila is strong. In fact, less than ideal sites are
bemg developed and less than perfect designs are being sold. See Attachment 1 Some of
these homes are being developed because the public has paid for the design and
installation of needed sewer and water infrastructure.
As the staff review plans and the community reviews the new development, thoughts on
how to improve the overall quality of development have been raised. One way to
proceed with alternative residential development would be through a "Housing Options
Program"
At their 15 March and 26 May 2005 meetmgs, the Commumty Affairs and Parks
Committee reviewed a concept and outline for a Housing Options Program. The program
would allow a limited number of projects in appropnate locations that would contain
atypical' types of new housing in residential districts, subject to design review and any
necessary platting, on a demonstration basis.
The following steps would be followed and are outlined in Attachment D:
1. Application would be made to the Department of Community Development Only
one application for each of the five residential neighborhoods would be allowed
2. A neighboring property owner meeting, appropnately advertised, would be held
3. The DCD directed would decide if the proposed project met the criteria for
acceptability into the "program."
4. The applicant would be notified that they have a specific period to apply for a Type 5
application subdivision and design review.
5. The City Council would hold a heanng and approve, deny or condition the
application.
'Housing being built within the last four years averaged approximately 2, 900 square feet m floor area.
Housing on substandard (small lots) has also been criticized as bemg unattractive and harming the
Comprehensive Plan goals of neighborhood livability and quality
Page 1 of 4 Attachment A
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665
6 The applIcant would have a specIfied tIme frame to complete any reqUIred publIc
improvements and submIt the final plat applIcatIOn.
7. An evaluation would follow any development to detennine if changes should be
consIdered m City standards.
"Vhat types of housing could be considered?
There are a number of dIfferent types of housing being bUIlt around the regIOn that may
be considered compatible within the CIty'S existing resIdential neighborhoods.
Cottage and co-housmg developments cluster small homes around a common area, wIth
parking off to the sIde and usually with a common buildmg space to share for partIes or
communal gatherings.
Cottage
examples
from the
Cottage
Company
Small houses/small lot development from Orenco Station located in Portland area
Page 2 of 4
Attachment A
~
Narrow Lot Houses in Madison Park
\Vhy would a property owner be interested in pursuing a development other than
the single family house/plat?
There are several types of sItuatIOns that exist. There are developers who only do the
nontraditional type of product that is currently not allowed in the City and there are
developers who own property where the existing codes make single famIly house
constructIOn dIfficult or problematic from a design perspective. For example, where
eXlstmg plats have 25 foot wide lots or where HDR property requires minimum 9.600
square foot lots for a single family home.
What type off flexibility should there be on the potential projects?
There were 254 new detached smgle famIly homes bUIlt in TukwIla over the last four
years and the average size was 2,864 square feet. Below are typical sizes for the products
described:
· Cottages = 1,200 square foot maX11llutn gross floor area
· Compact S111gle-Family = 1,500 square foot maX11llutn gross floor area
· Duplexes or Tnplexes = 1,500 square foot maXlmutn gross floor area per umt
A covenant restrlct111g any 111creases 111 urut SlZe after 1111hal construchon could be recorded
against the property
Attachment 1 illustrates the typical development that could occur on eXlSt111g narrow lots.
Flexibility 111 setbacks as well as the authonty to reVIew the sltmg of the homes and the
ardutectural details may encourage a more pleas111g pubhc streetscape.
Page 3 of4
Attachment A
If the homes are limited in total size, how many homes could be built in a project?
GIVen the typIcal house size bemg bUIlt m Tukwila, the followmg equivalencies seem
reasonable.
· Cottages = 2 per each s111gle-family umt that could be built on the property
· Compact SF = 1.5 per each s111gle-family umt that could be built on the property
· Duplexes and Tnplexes = overall development not to exceed 1.5 t::lmes the number of
s111gle-family umts that could be built on the property
· Roundmg up to the next whole number of eqmvalent umts IS allowed when the
converSlOn from typical s111gle-family umts to eqmvalent umts results 111 a fraction of 0.5
or above
Summary
To implement the recommendatIOn, the Council would adopt an ordinance to establIsh
the program. Below are some ofthe key questIOns regardmg the potential program:
· Should project size be lImited?
· Is the parking requirement adequate?
· How will deCISIOns be made/what process would be followed?
· When and how will the neighbors know about applIcatIOns?
· How will the applIcations be judged, i.e. What cntena will be used?
Options
1. No Action
This option makes no changes and allows no alternatives.
2. Forward Attachment D to the Planning ComrmssIOn for hearing and recommendation
following City Council discussion and any modification. There are many
components to the program - Attachment D - that the CouncIl may wIsh to reVIew and
modify.
3. Identify single family development Issues that should be reviewed and regulated;
such as narrow lot development, or house orientatIOn on small lot short plats.
Recommendation
Option 2. Forward the Program Outline - Attachment D- with any modIfications to the
Planning Commission for a hearing.
Attachment 1 EXlstmg lot layout and development
Q.\mcb\HOUSING\05demosmemo524.doc
Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
'/~ ~
/~-.:;='__-,_,~.-;;_",~~-_ . / ~ <. _~ '.'__::c.' -
'''~r~~-~:'\71 PJ~--i"-~i~:: A5T:;- ~-:- .-~;:,,,r
;c,:>}! ~lt~1 "dl7:J I - -~LA., IL ~..,<~n! ~1]11!~ '~;I ~
,~~ii~~~~~~1,i~~~~~];~
~~___ ---- -,~._~<r--~~~:,_;.;~:~_' _~J
'.-,.,-~ i
-, ."".~ '
_~ - ...._ ~ "i:. :_-~'"'f " :
. -- -, - .
.
"
3D I
-> ~- - ,,- _IJO__ ,,--,--'~.- .. .----- -.--^> --'-~- ,,- -I " ,- " ,-
, t
- _. -
i
:
:
~ ~ ~ ~
Y) V) :
':::j. ~ ~ '~
~ ~ ~ ,
.~
.,fJo' , .
I ,
)... \ ~ I \ ::s-
~ I I ~
I ~ I
~ ! ~
\ \
~ I
1;2. i ~ \ a
; ~
(:l , t:l
.
m ; J . . ,,-
"
<)
~
/" {.if( UIJrt
Atf!llJ/M&'Hf A
5/~EEI
COffiIllumty Affairs and Parks Cornmittee
March 15, 2005
A second decislOn IS whether the CIty should require a busmess l1cense for multl-famlly and
accessory dwellmg units. Denms thought there was not a councIl consensus on thIS Issue, though
he and Joe supported it and Joan would like more mformatlOn on It Kathy reported bemg
allowed in one apartment umt wIth obvious health and safety vlOlatlOlls Mandator} mspectIOns
of apartment Uillts IS also an option that could come with licensmg, though the legalIty of that is
unclear. Refer issue to CO\V.
4. Proposed code amendments The committee considered ten draft code amendments. Staff
-----nact hsted.options, and included recommendatIOns on each amendment. Because cIties are .. ...
required by State law to -accept manufactured homes begmning July 1 sl this year, CIty standards
need to be established.. Nora said manufactured homes come in a range of qualIty, from very
basic trailer types to homes hard to distinguish from stick-built homes. Staff had wntten changes
to the single family dwellmg code that manufactured homes would need to follow, and the
recommendatlOns would lead to a higher qualIty manufactured home. The committee largely
followed the staff recommendatIOns. Committee members had some questions about appropriate
requirements for condo conversions and which reqUIrements might be appropnate, and on
whether a dog kellilel was -appropriate in the urban center. Refer issues to Planning:
Commission.
I
Ii -/
_fV
It
/\
l\
5. Single Familv Neighborhood Housine: Options Moira said most developments-for single
family homes put in a standard home with a garage in front. The ComprehensIve Plan
encourages a range of housing types. Some options include cottage housing, where smail homes
are clustered around a common green, with parking in the back or on the sIdes, and porches
facing one another. There is an opportunity for this type of housing in a demonstration project m
the city, though an ordmance would need to be passed to allow that. The conllmttee supported
cottage housing on a demonstration project basis. Return to Committee with specific
recommendations for allowing demonstration projects.
6. Aerial survey DCD has budgeted an aerial survey of the entire CIty and is eager to proceed
with that survey before the trees leaf out any more than they already have. The photos will be
used to update the city GIS (geographic infolTIlation system). Funding comes from both the DCD
and Public \Vorks budgets. Recommend contract for aerial photography to Regular l'rleeting.
Minutes by L. Lauterbach
rJ - Committee chmr approval
1!1(~!lIUBNJ Z>
Community and Parks Committee
May 24,2005
Present:
Joe Duffie, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Steve Lancaster, Rhonda Berry, Evie Boykan, Derek Speck, Nora Gierloff, Lucy
Lauterbach; Eda and Dario Mastandreas, JIm Hankin-Extra Car; Steve
Detweiler, Matt Martel
1. Zoning: Code Amendment The Mastandreas family has allowed their property to be used by
Extra Car to park cars of people who leave their car for longer periods. The property is zoned
Regional Commercial (RC), which does not allow airport parking unless it is in a structure with
ground floor retail, or if it's 175 feet behind a buildmg. When the couple came to the City in
April, the Committee had directed DCD write a letter detailing the options the couple could take
to become legal. The letter was written, and a date of June 15 was set as the date by which the
issue must be resolved before code enforcement takes steps to close the lot. Mr. Mastandreas
then wrote the City asking the Council to amend the RC zoning designation to allow him to use
his property for Commercial Parking. Another option would be to apply for a zoning change to a
zone such as Light Industrial that would allow the parking lot.
- ~--,
Dario Matandreas said they have lived in the area for a long time, and the property was zoned
Business and Commercial. Steve noted it changed to RC in 1995. Mr. Hankin, Extra Car's
attorney, suggested that a conditional use or variance be allowed, as the parking does not affect
anyone negatively. Another suggestion was to enlarge the park and ride defimtion to include
airport parking, and designate it a park and ride lo~.
Dennis said the City had spent considerable effort and expense to upgrade Tukwila International
Boulevard in an effort to improve the highway. He said he did not support changing the zoning
code, and would prefer the "take no action" option, which would end their appeal. Joan said it
would be hard to justify Light Industrial zoning in this location. She appreciated the fact that the
Mastandreas property was well cared for, but agreed that the Council could not allow airport
parking in the RC zone without the current restrictions. She wanted the couple to know what
other options they had. Steve L said there is a large range of businesses allowed in RC, but the
couple said they didn't want to build a building for a business. Joe said rules are made to be
followed, and the Mastandreas property has rules also that must be followed. In the end, Joe and
Joan favored the option of sending the issue to the COW wIthout a committee recommendation.
No committee recommendation~ send to CO\V.
*
2. Sing:le Familv Neig:hborhood Housing: Options The Committee had agreed to look at
different concepts for housing in low density areas of the City. There are currently no options
other than a standard house. Cottage-type housing, compact (i.e. small) houses, and duplexes or
triplexes are all options not currently allowed in Tukwila. Staff proposed a demonstration project
wIth criteria that would allow the city to observe how one of these developments could work.
Dennis expressed concern that manufactured houses could make up a cottage hou?ing
development. Though the desIgn standards might not disallow that, staff thought it not feasible.
!}IM cJf.;2
Ik#A1OJ7 ~
"
Community and Parks Committee
May 24, 2005
Page 2
The land costs are high enough that the developer wants to get a good return on investment,
which he/she cannot do with trailers. Dennis also raised the issue of neighborhoods being very
wary of changes in density, types of housing, and rental housing.
Joan initially thought allowing up to 36 cottage homes in a development was too many, but after
hearing that developers sometimes require 36 homes to make a development profitable enough to
build, she changed her mind and thought 36 homes could be allowed. The size and location of a
development would be important. D~nnis worried about a large development gomg into a
neighborhood when it \vould be surrounded by traditional housing.
The current site for a very draft proposal for non-traditional housmg is below the hospital and
adjacent to the cemetery on one side and the large back yard of the veterinary office on Mihtary.
Matt said the design review process would help ensure the buildings in a demonstration site were
attractive. Dennis' comments concerning changing the character of a neighborhood could be
calmed by a demonstration that showed different methods of housing in an area like the proposed
demonstration site. To do a project like this would take a large amount ofland, and those large
parcels are generally not in the middle of densely populated areas.
Joan said she supported cottage housing that was not cookie cutter in appearance, but had
modulation and pitched roofs instead. Steve mentioned that often this new type of housing is not
cheap, and may not be as easily rented as something less expensive. The Committee members
had some comments about the draft demonstration housing outline. Joe said he would like
pictures of how some ofthese areas could look. Refer issue to COW.
,
3. Proposed Code Amendments The set of zoning code amendments that addressed changes
required by state law regarding manufactured housmg as well as some other changes was sent
from the Committee to the Planning Commission. The Commission held a hearing and endorsed
the Committee's recommendation on all the items except the manufactured housing section. The
Commission did not want to require all new single- family houses to have an attached garage,
have a front door that faced the street, or have a minimum roof pitch of5:12. The Committee
agreed to reinstate their original design standards for a 5:12 pitched roof, a front door that faces
the front yard, and they wanted to allow detache garages for alley-accessed lots. The issue of
requiring attached garages on manufactured homes can still be kept if detached garages can be
dealt with separately. Dennis asked that the Planning Commission minutes be included in the
Council packet. Recommend code amendments to COW.
4. Comp Plan Amendment Update Two proposed changes to the comprehensive plan were
submitted for 2005. The first in the Tukwila Public Works Transportation Element of the comp
plan. The other was a request from a resident on Orill1a Road who wanted a zoning designation
though he is outside the Potential Annexation Area. Steve has asked that person to wait until
annexation for his request, which the applIcant has agreed to. The Transportation Plan is
scheduled for the end ofthis year. Information.
rdjt-l-td-
ArrlJel/IU8Jifl G
11':70' e011Szder a
deJJZOJlstratzoll program?
HolV v/ollld the SlIeeess
of the program be
measured?
What mil oemr after
the program?
Hov/ v/zll demollstratzoll
pro/eets be evaluated?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
1. Findings
a. The purpose of tlus zorung ordmance would be to establ1sh a
demonstratlon housmg program that would allow development of
selected projects that explore housmg choIces not currently available
m Tukwila's smgle family neIghborhoods.
,
b The goals of 11illovatlve housmg would be to
1. Increase choIce of housmg styles available m the commumt:y
through projects that are compatible wIth eXlstllg smgle-family
developments;
11. Promote housing affordabihty and ownership by
encouragmg smaller homes;
111. To st1tnulate mnovatlve housmg desIgn that Improves the
character and sense of commumty m a neIghborhood and can serve as
a model for other areas, and
IV. ProVide a greater varlety of housmg types which respond to
changmg household SlZes and ages (e.g. retl1:ees, small families, smgle
person households) and that let semors age m place m thelt
neIghborhoods
C. The CIty will evaluate the results of the projects and mochfy the
zorung code to specIfically address successfulmnovatlons m housl1lg
development.
2. Decision Criteria
The relevant decIslOn makers shall evaluate an appl1catlon and deClde If
the project:
a. Meets the goals of tlus ordmance
Page 1 of8
Attachment D
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
b compIles W1th the Multi-family, Hotel and Motel Des1gn Rev1ew
Cntena, stated ill the Board of Arclutectural ReV1ew Chapter, Des1gn
ReV1ew Cntena Section of the Tukwila Zorung Code (18.60 050(C)
ThIC), and
c. whether 1t can be demonstrated that:
1. The proposal 1S not larger ill scale and 1S compatible
w1th surroundmg development w1th respect to Slze of uruts, buildmg
he1ghts, roof forms, buildmg setbacks from each other and property
hiles, parkmQ' location and screerunQ', access, and lot coveraQ'e.
n. The proposal prov1des elements that contribute to a
sense of comm~mty w1thm the development and the surroundmg
ne1gl1borhood by illcludmg elements such as front entry porches,
common open space and/or common buildmg(s), and
ill. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 mochfications to
reqUltements of the Tukwila Zorung Code, Perrrut Apphcation Types
and Procedures, (18 104 ThIC) other than those spec1fically 1dentified
ill the Standards section below, are illlportant to the success of the
proposal as an illnovative housillg proJect.
3. Standards
In order to meet the goals of the 111ilovative houSillg program, there
will be flexibility w1th regard to some normally apphcable
reqUltements. Standards 1denttfied ill the followillg sections will apply
to innovative houSillg demonstration projects and will prevaillf they
confuct Wlth normal regulations. All other reqUltements of the C1ty of
Tukwila will continue to apply, except that apphcants may propose
adchtional mochfications to the Tukwila Zorung Code, as prov1ded for
w1thm the Code.
a. The Bas1c Development Standards and MaXltllum Buildmg FOOtpllilt
sections of the Low Dens1ty Res1dential D1strlct (18.10.060 and
18.06057 TIvIC) and of the Medmm Dens1ty Res1dential D1Strlct
(18.12.070 TIvIC) and of the High Dens1ty Res1dential D1strlct Chapters
(18.14.070 TIvIC) and the reqUltements of 1tlimmum Number of
ReqUlted Parkmg Spaces (Figure 18-7 TIvIC) shall be replaced by the
standards Identified ill the followillg sections of thIs ordInance. EXISting
homes Wltlun a redevelopment must continue to conform to the
eXlstlng code standards unless 1t can be demonstrated that the eXlstlng
home meets the descnption of a demonstration house type.
b. The dens1ty lumtations 1dentified ill the Land Use Map of the
Tukwila Comprehens1ve Plan shall be detemuned to have been met as
long as the proposed project does not exceed the eqmvalent U111t
calculation 1dentified ill the Standards section below
Page 2 of 8
Attachment D
What !JPes oj hotlsmg
wOllld be conszdered?
What jlexzbz!ity v/ould
be needed to eJ1COllrage
program prq;ects?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
c. The appropnate apphcatlon fee, whether for deslgn reVlew and plat,
shall be the fee(s) charged for mnovatlve reSldentlal apphcatlons and
shall be due upon apphcatlon.
The followmg table sets forth parameters apphcable to mnovatlve
housmg project apphcatlons.
Standards Table
Housmg Types Cottages
. Compact Smgle-Family
Duplexes or Tnplexes deslgned to look
like Smgle-Family as part of a
development that mcludes at least one
other housmg type (the other housmg
type may be trachtlonal smgle-familv)
A combmatlon of the above types
Umt SiZe Ltmlts Cottages = 1,000 square foot maXllllum
A covenant restnct1ng any floor area
illcreases ill umt SIZe after in1t1al
construction would be recorded Compact Smgle-Family = 1,500 square
agamst the property foot maxunum gross floor area
Duplexes or Tnplexes = 1,500 square
foot maXllllum gross floor area per umt
Slde yard setbacks are walved so that
these homes may be sold on fee s11llple
lots.
Eqruvalent Umts Cottages = 2 per each smgle-family umt
The number of allowable that could be built on the lot
dwelling units shall be totaled
for each of the exist1ng lots ill Compact SF = 1.5 per each smgle-
order to detenrune eqUlvalent
umts. family umt that could be built on the lot
Duplexes and Tnplexes = overall
development not to exceed 1.5 tunes
the number of smgle-family umts that
could be built on the lot
Roundmg up to the next whole number
of eqruvalent umts lS allowed when the
converSlOn from typlcal smgle-family
umts to eqruvalent umts results m a
fractlon of 0.5 or above
EXlStmg smgle-family homes may remam on the subject property and
will be counted as umts m the eqruvalent umt calculatlon
Page 3 of8
Attachment D
Where cot/ld
demomtratlOJl pro/ects
be bmlt?
How mal!} hOllses cot/ld
be bllz/t wzthm a
demomtratlOn pro/ect?
Wz/I the pro/ects be for
sale or rmtal?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Locatlons All LDR, MDR & HDR chstrlcts, but
not withm 1,500' of another mnovatlve
housmg proposal approved under tlus
Ordmance.
Access ReqUitements Determme flexibility for road widths,
pubhc vs pnvate, and turn-around
reqUirements With mput from Pubhc
\'Ilorks and Fire Departments
Development SiZe JYIimrnum of 4 uruts, maX1ffium of 36
umts
.
Cottages may have a maX1ffium of 12
umts per cluster
Parkmg ReqUitements 1 stall per urut for uruts under 700
square feet m SiZe
1 5 stalls per urut for uruts 700 to 1,000
square feet m SiZe
2 stalls per unit for uruts over 1,000
square feet m SiZe
SubchvislOn
Ownership Structure
Condom1111Um
Adchtlonal Standards Table
This table sets forth supplemental parameters to those above and are
apphcable to any cottape proposed as an 111llovatlve housmQ: prolect.
Distance Between 10' tn11111llUffi
Structures
. ProVide reqUited area accordmg to
Common Open Space Recreatlon Space ReqUitements
(18.52.060 TIvIC) (1)
. Shall abut at least 50% of the
cottages 111 the development and
those uruts must be onented to and
have the1/: ma11l entry from the
common open space
. Shall have cottages on at least two
sides
. Shall not be reqUited to be mdoor
Each cottage shall:
. be within 60 feet walkmQ: chstance of
Page 4 of 8
Attachment D
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
the common open space
. Shall be onented to the common
Pnvate Open Space apen space as much as IS feasible
. Shall be ill ane cantIguous and
useable piece with a lTI1111mum
chmenslOn of 10' on all sIdes
. Shall be adjacent to each cottage
and be far the excluslVe use of the
resident of that cattaQ:e
. 80 square feet tnl111!llUill per umt
Attached Covered Porches . Shall have a 1TI11lliIlUill chmenslon of
. 8' on all sIdes
18' maXlillUill for all structures except
HeIght 25' maXlillum for cottages wIth a
1ll1lli1llUill roof slope of 6 12 for all parts
of the roof above 18'
. A tnl111!llUln af 40% and nO' more
Floor Area Lmutatlons than 50% of the cottages II a cluster
shall have a mall floar of 800
square feet or less; or
. Vanety ill buildmg SlZes and
faamtillts IS prnvided
. Spaces with a ceiling heIght of 6' or
Exceptions to Floor Area less measured to the ex tenor walls,
Lmutatlans such as ill a secand flaar area under
the slope of the roof
. Unheated storage space located
under the mall floor of a cottage
. Ardlltectural proJections, such as
bay willdows, fireplaces or utility
clasets not greater than 18" ill depth
and 6' ill wIdth
. Detached garages and carp arts
. Attached roofed porches
Parkmg, surface, garages . Shall be provIded on the subject
ar carp arts praperty
. Shall be screened fram publIc
streets and adjacent reSIdential uses
by landscapillg and or arcmtectural
screemng
. Shall be located ill clusters of not
more than 6 adJoillillg spaces
. Shall nat be located ill the frant
yard except on a carner lat where It
shall not be located between the
_ entrance to' any cottage
. Shall nat be located Wltlun 40 feet
Page 5 of8
Attachment D
Should the Czty COJISlder
allowmg accessory untts
above the detached
garages?
How would sUlTounding
property owners know
about the demonstratIOn
pro/ects?
Should there be other
cntena to determme
whether the City should
comzder an applicant's
proposal?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
of a pubhc street except u the stalls
he parallel to the street and the
dnveway prov1dmg access to those
stalls has parkmg on only one s1de
. j\Iay be located between or adpcent
to structures 1f 1t 1S located toward
the rear of the structure and 1S
served by an alley or dnveway
. All parkmg structures shall have a
p1tched roof des1gn w1th a
1ll11llillum slope of 4'12
.
Commuruty Buildmgs - . Shall be clearly illCldentalill use and
when provided SlZe to the cottages
. Shall be commonly owned by the
res1dents of the cottaees
Accessory Dwelling Uruts Shall not be allowed as part of a
mnovative development
4. Selection Process
a. The Dltector of DCD shall follow the selection cntena outlmed
below ill deCldmg wluch proJects are ehgible for proJect selection and
able to apply for des1gn reV1ew and for plattmg
b. A ne1ghborhood meetmg orgaruzed by the apphcant and attended
by C1ty staff shall be reqUlted of the apphcant ill order to evaluate the
proJect for program selection. The apphcant must follow the
notification procedures outlmed ill Section 6 for the l1l1tial meetmg
Wlth the ne1ghborhood.
c. The Dltector of Commuruty Development shall be the sole declSlon
maker on whether an apphcation for cons1deration ill the
demonstration program satisfies the cntena. The cntena for proJect
selection for the Demonstration Prol!tam are as follows:
1. Cons1stency Wlth the goals of the mnovative housillg as
enumerated ill Findmgs section above.
Page 6 of8
Attachment D
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
11. Not more than one 111novative housillg project shall be
approved per City neighborhood - MdvIicken Heights; Tukwila Hill,
Ryan Hill, Allentown, Duwarrush, Foster POillt; Cascade; RlVerton,
Thorndyke; (These last two beillg generally dtvlded by S. 136 St. and
48 A v S) Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other
mnovative housillg project considered under tlus ordmance.
111. Demonstration of successful development by the
applicant of the proposed product elsewhere.
lV The location and SlZe of the project relative to the
neighborhood, the surroundmg land uses, topography and street
system.
d. The deCiSion of the Dltector of Commuruty Development shall be
the final decision of the City on selection of eligible projects and may
not be adtmmstratively appealed.
5. Review and Approval Process
When an application is approved by the Dltector ofDCD, the project
proponent shall apply for either:
a. a Type 4 declslOn, wmch is a Board of Ardutectural Review
Heanng and Decision for a condotn1n1um or a short plat proJect;
or
b. a Type 5 declslOn, a City Council heanng and declslOn for a plat
illvolVillg more than 9 lots
Both declslOns are described ill the Pet:tn1t Application Types and
Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zorung Code (18.104 ThfC.) The
BAR and City Council shall use the decision cntena listed ill Section 2
of tlus ordmance to review and decide any projects allowed illto the
demonstration program as well as use the relevant declslOn cntena for
design reView and/ or plattlng
Page 7 of 8
Attachment D
if an applicatzon were
approved to move
fonJJard, the
sJlJ7vtl1ldmg proper!)
owners lJJOJlld have
additzonalopportllmry
for reVlev.} and mpJlt.
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
6. Public Notice
a. Notice of the 11l1tial meetmg wIth the neIghborhood would be, at a
tn11111Ilum, a letter from the appl1cant mailed first class to all
property owners wIthm 500 feet. Attendance of a CIty staff
member at tills 11l1tlal meetmg will be reqwred. Schedulmg and
nottfication shall be coordmated wIth the Department of
S=ommuruty Development.
b. If the proJect IS selected to apply for a Type 4 or Type 5 reVIew,
then the publ1slung, mailing and postmg shall follow the
procedures as If It were begmrung a Type 4 or Type 5 appl1cation.
7. Demonstration Housing Evaluation
Upon completion and full occupancy of a proJect, DCD shall evaluate
and report to the Planmng CO!llil11SSlOn and CIty Council.
Q: \mcb \HOUSING \LDRoptlOnstable.doc
Page 8 of8
Attachment D
`.N1LA,
jv
G o U AGENDA SYNOPSIS
OPSI
M vtetzals ITEM" No.
ke Meetin Date Prepared by Mayor's review 1 Council review
kis\ j I 6/27/05 3FM 1
rsoa 1 1
1 1 1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 05-095 I ORIGIi IAL AGENDA DATE. JUNE 27, 2005
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System
CATEGORY Discussion Motion ►1 Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date /Z Mtg Date' Mtg Date rlftg Date zlltg Date Mtg Date Mfg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs 111 DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW/ I
SPONSOR'S NIMS establishes standardized incident management processes, protocols, and procedures
SUMMARY that all responders federal, state, tribal, and local will use to coordinate and conduct
response actions. With responders using the same standardized procedures, they will all
share a common focus, and will be able to place full emphasis on incident management
when a homeland security incident occurs whether terrorism or natural disaster.
REVIEWED BY LI COW Mtg. CA&P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DAZE. 6/20/05
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Presentation and discussion
COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole for discussion
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments
I MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/27/05 1
I I I
MTG. DATE 1 ATTACHMENTS
I 6/20/05 1 Information Memo dated June 15, 2005
Draft Resolution
Finance Safety Committee Meeting Minutes from June 20, 2005
1
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor Mullet
Date:
Director Emergency Management~\
June 15,2005
From:
Subject:
Official Adoption of the National Incident Management System
ISSUE:
Official adoption of~he National Incident Management System (NIMS).
BACKGROUND:
The Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) - 5, Management of Domestic
Incidents, dated September 8, 2004, requires the City of Tukwila to officially adopt
NIMS in order to be eligible for Homeland Security Grants.
NIMS establishes standardized incident management processes, protocols, and
procedures that all responders - Federal, state, tribal, and local - will use to coordinate
and conduct response actions. With responders using the same standardized procedures,
they will all share a common focus, and will be able to place full emphasis on incident
management when a homeland security incident occurs - whether terrorism or natural
disaster.
NIMS establishes the Incident Command System (ICS) as a standard incident
management organization with five functional areas - command, operations, planning,
logistics, and finance/administration - for management of all major incidents. To ensure
further coordination, and during incidents involving multiple jurisdictions or agencies,
the principle of unified command has been universally incorporated into NIMS.
The minimum NIMS compliance activities that the City is to achieve are:
. Formally recognize NIMS and adopt NIMS principles and policies.
. Complete NIMS Awareness Courses - First responders (Fire, Police, and PW)
will complete a more detailed training program.
. Establish a baseline by determining which NIMS requirements Tukwila already
meets - Tukwila's Emergency Operation Plan is based upon ICS.
. Establish a timeframe and develop a strategy for full NIMS implementation.
Deadline is October 1,2006.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Formally adopt NIMS through the attached resolution.
[IDOOill~TI
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (NIMS) AS ITS STANDARD INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR RATIFICATION; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila currently uses the Incident Command System as its
standard incident management organization, as referenced and required in Homeland
Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) - 5, Management of Domestic Incidents; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Homeland Security has adopted the National
Incident Management System (NIMS), and
WHEREAS, the Department of Homeland Security is requiring Federal, State, local
and tribal entities to adopt NlJ:vIS, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that all Federal, State, local and tribal
homeland emergency agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and
efficiently provide the highest levels of incident command in the event of a homeland
security emergency, whether related to acts of terrorism or natural disaster; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila recognizes the need for a single, standardized
incident management system to be used by all government agencies and disciplines in
the event of an emergency and desires to adopt the National Incident Management
System,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. National Incident Management System Adopted. The City of Tukwila
adopts the National Incident Management System, a copy of which shall remain on file
with the City Clerk's Office, which shall be used by the City's emergency response
personnel for all homeland security incidents and drills, whether related to acts of
terrorism, or to natural, man-made or technological disasters.
Section 2. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in full force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED BY THE ClTY COUNClL OF THE ClTY OF TUKWILA, W ASHlNGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2005
A TIFST / AUTHENTICATED'
Pamela Linder, Council President
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council.
Resolution Number
Office of the City Attorney
National Incident Mgt System 6/2412005
Page 1 of 1
Finance and Safety Committee
June 20, 2005
Present.
Dennis Robertson, Chair; Pam Carter, Dave Fenton
Kevin Fuhrer, Nick Olivas, Jim Ivlorrow, DennIS McOmber, Lucy
Lauterbach
1. Resolution deleting VNET Petty Cash and Police Investigation funds For two years the
City has been processing bills from the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team (VNET), and it IS
time to turn this responsibilIty over tq the City of Auburn. A resolutIOn is needed to delete the
two funds that were set up to handle the VNET account. No other petty cash fund amounts need
to be changed. As VNET's fiscal year ends June 30, the actual turnover will occur m July.
Recommend resolution-to Regular Meeting.
.~ 2. Resolution Adoptimr National Incident Management System (NIlVIS) Nick explained
'" the City needs to adopt the National Incident Management System (NIMS) model to become
qualified to apply for Homeland Secunty grants. Jim M said the NIMS system includes the
Incident Command System (rCS). The Police, Fire, and Public 'Narks staffs have all been
working toward getting their NIMS certification. The system was adopted by the federal
government in September 2004, and they wanted to have states and local government adopt it by
2005, though they have now moved compliance to October, 2006. People who go through the
NIMS training and pass the test are put on a national register. JIm M said communications wIll
still be a major issue in planning to meet emergencies. Until emergencies get their own phone
channel, it will be a problem. Jim also noted the police radios are bemg replaced in this second
year of rotation. Pam asked ifNIMS would help us communicate with other cities, and was told
all cities should have this system in place soon. Recommend resolution to COW and Regular
Meeting.
r.-'\. "\ Q
~~)\\'\.\ Committee chair approval
CO U CIL AGENDA SiwosIs
0
'f .qs 2,' ITTLtLR�J lTE'1VI No,
P 1 10', Meeting Date I Prepared by Mayors rei:e;v I Council reu�r 1
N, y 0 6/27/04 RT
7908 I 1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER. 05-096 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE. JUNE 27, 2005
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Interurban Ave S (S 143 St to Fort Dent Way) Conceptual Design Analysis
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
llt Date 6 ,27/05 Mtg Date Mtg Date l fig Date Mtg Date Aftg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Ma Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police Z PIV
SPONSOR'S The City has received federal grant funds to design improvements for Interurban Avenue S
SUMMARY from S 143 St to Fort Dent Way. A preliminary plan layout has been developed that is
intended to match into the previous Interurban Ave. improvements with the notable
exception of added landscaped medians and designed U -turn opportunities. The plan
layout will be brought to the meeting for discussion.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utihties Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE. 6/13/05
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN Presentation and discussion
COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole for discussion
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source.
Comments
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/27/05
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
Information Memo dated June 8, 2005
conceptual drawing
Minutes Transportation Corrunittee June 13, 2005
INFORMATION :MEl'IIO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Mullet
Public W orks Directo~
June 8, 2005
Interurban Ave S - (S 143rd St to Fort Dent Wav)
Conceptual Design Analysis
ISSUE
Present the conceptual design analysis for approval to proceed with [mal design.
BACKGROUND
The City has received federal grant funds to design improvements for Interurban Ave S from
S 143rd St to Fort Dent Way. KPG, Inc., was selected as the design engineering fIrm.
The existing street cross section is fIve lanes, two through lanes in each direction and a center
two-way left turn lane. The pavement has been in poor condition for several years and there
are no sidewalks for much of the project length. This project was funded to design urban
street improvements including curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the street; storm
drainage improvements; illumination; pavement restoration; traffic signal interconnect; and
landscaping. The alignment is not expected to change.
ANALYSIS
KPG, Inc., has developed a preliminary plan layout for the street and proposed improvements
to be displayed at the Transportation Committee meeting. A typical U-turn plan and cross
section drawing are attached to this memo. A plan for the entire project will be presented at
the meeting. The character of the new design elements is intended to be consistent with
previously constructed segments of Interurban Ave S. The most notable change to the plan is
the addition of landscaped center medians. While this will limit some of the direct left turn
access into existing driveways, the aesthetic impacts and reduction in accidents are considered
to be signifIcant improvements. In order to mitigate left turn restrictions due to the median, U-
turn opportunities have been proposed.
The alternative to the proposed plan would be to add more left turn pockets or two-way left
turn lanes. This would be less preferable as it would break up the center median into smaller
islands that would not be as aesthetically attractive or reduce accidents as much as the
preferred alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the conceptual design and authorize staff and consultants to proceed with fInal design
including any recommendations by the Transportation Committee.
attachment: Typical Cross Section
Transportation Committee
June 13, 2005
Present:
Jim Haggerton, Chair; Joe Duffie, Pam Carter
JIm Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Bob Giberson, Robin TIschmak, Lucy Lauterbach,
Joe Glacobazzi, Nandez Miller-KPG
*
1. Interurban Ave Conceptual Desh~n Analysis Robin saId Interurban Ave from S l43rd to
Fort Dent Way was the last piece of Interurban to be finished. KPG's design that mcluded some
boulevard elements was so interesting that staff asked KPG to extend it further north beyond S.
l43rd north almost to 1-5. Joe G said the large frontages on Interurban lent themselves to a
boulevard desIgn. Speeding is also an.issue on Interurban, and trees planted m the medIan as well
as on the edges of the street may slow traffic. Nandez talked about the plan for breaks m the
medians for left turns, and how u-turns could be done at some left turn pockets.
Jim M said the new design follows what the Council has approved for recent streets like Till
and Southcenter Parkway and Boulevard. Jim H asked what trees are in the 12' median
landscaped area, and whether an Identifiable theme wIth similar trees was being installed on
other improved streets in the City. Robin said they have learned not to plant trees that are round
in shapes, as trucks will knock offleaves and branches. Instead they are looking at columnar
shapes, but they will use similar trees as in other projects Pam C saId the design looked great,
and was a welcome Improvement. Robm saId by addmg a medIan the project would receive a
hIgher score at Till ratings. There have also been some fatalIties on Interurban, so safety
improvements will help. The Committee asked again that small signs be put warnmg dnvers that
a certain intersection is coming up so driving decisions don't have to be last mmute. Jim also
noted that because S. l60th is a u-turn route for southbound drivers in Till, vehicles commg from
S. 160th to Till often need to wait for the left turns to fimsh before they can turn onto the
highway. The committee wholeheartedly supported the desIgn. Recommend design to June 27
COW, and authorize move toward final design.
2. WSDOT Construction Schedule Although there are not any state construction projects
scheduled for this year in Tukwila, there are several on 1-5,99, and 509 that could affect dnvmg
in the region. 1-405 in Tukwila IS scheduled for 2008. Information.
~I!
.............' )/h " Committee chair approval
UNCIL 1 G_E'NDA S Y N OF S 1S
;-4,./. w gsti Imttalr ITEM NO.
J Q �1U 9 1 Meeting Prepared b j I Mayor's review I Council review
,O j� I 6/27/04 I BG''ff 1 it, 1 L\.
1 1 1 e__
1 I I 1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 05-097 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE. JUNE 27, 2005 I
AGENDA ITEM TITLE WSDOT 2005 Construction Projects
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
llftg Date 617:116 iVItg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Ltg Date 114tg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adrn Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PTY/
SPONSOR'S There are no WSDOT construction projects scheduled in Tukwila this year. However, there
SUMMARY are some significant projects adjacent to Tukwila that are noteworthy. The I -405 Project
scheduled in 2008 is the next large WSDOT construction project in Tukwila.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte ZTransportation Cmte
Utihties Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA.IE. 6/13/05
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Presentation and discussion
COlLl1I'iTLE Forward to Committee of the Whole for discussion
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 1
6/27/05 1
I
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 1
4 i, '0r Information Memo dated June 8, 2005 (w/ attachments) I
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from June 13, 2005
I
Q- 2005 ROW\ CAS-WSDOT 2005 Construction Projects.DOC
INFOR1\1ATION l\tIEMO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Mullet
Public W orks Directo~
June 8,2005
WSDOT 2005 Construction Proiects
ISSUE
An update on upcoming WSDOT construction projects for the 2005 construction season.
BACKGROUND
WSDOT does not have plans for construction within Tukwila this year; however, there are
some significant projects occurring nearby that can impact our traffic patterns.
The next large WSDOT construction project, 1-405 (West Valley Highway to Maple Valley
Highway), isn't scheduled to start construction until 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
For discussion only.
attachments:
2005 WSDOT Construction Project List
1-405 Project Quarterly Update
~
W Washington State Department of Transportation
2005 Construction: Near Tukwila
1-5, Pierce County to South 320th Street (Federal Way)
>> HIGH IMPACT
This project is the fourth stage of a six-stage project to add carpool lanes in both
directions of 1-5 between Tukwila and the King/Pierce County line. In this
stage crews will build a northbound HOV lane from the Pierce County Line
South 320th Street and a southbound HOV lane from South 320th Street to the
Pierce County Line. Crews will also rehabilitate the existing freeway pavement
and repave two bridges: 1-5 over SR 18 and 1-5 over South 336th Street.
. Driver Information: Drivers should expect up to three lanes closed on both
directions of 1-5 at night and nighttime ramp closures at the 1-5/SR 18
interchange.
. Start: Spring 2005
. Estimated Completion: Summer 2007
. Cost: $55 million
. Contact: Stanley Eng, Project Engineer, (253) 872-2958
laS ramps at Michigan/Corson/Albro/Swift (Seattle)
Crews are improving the ramps at Michigan, Corson and Swift-Albro on 1-5.
Work includes resurfacing the ramps, replacing damaged concrete panels on 1-5,
replacing traffic signals and improving shoulders.
. Driver Information: In June, crews will close lanes and ramps overnight
for paving and striping work and will close the north and southbound off-
ramps to Corson/Michigan for a weekend to complete bridge deck repair.
. Start: Summer 2004
. Estimated Completion: Spring 2005
. Cost: $3.4 million
. Contact: Julia Mizuhata, Project Engineer, (206) 764-4105
2005 Construction: King County
Sta,n Suchan, suchans@wsdot.wa.gov, 206.440.4698
May 2005
Page 1
1-5, 7th and CherrY St., 5th and Cherry St., Stewart St./Eastlake Ave.
Off-ramp (Seattle)
Crews will install new signal systems at 5th Avenue and Cherry Street, and 7th
Avenue and Cherry Street, and at the Stewart StreetlEastlake Avenue off-ramp.
We will connect all systems to the city of Seattle central system.
. Driver Information: In June crews will install new signs, which will
complete work on the project. The sign installation will not require any lane
or ramp closures.
. Start: Summer 2004
. Estimated Completion: Spring 2005
. Cost: $1.3 million
. Contact: . Julia Mizuhata, Project Engineer, (206) 764-4105
1-5 James Street to Olive Way (Seattle)
>> HIGH IMPACT
We will rehabilitate some of the pavement on lanes and ramps of a one-mile
section of southbound 1-5 between James and Olive Streets and near Dearborn.
We will replace existing asphalt pavement with stronger and more durable
concrete. This will extend the life span of the pavement 40 years or more.
. Driver Information: Southbound 1-5 lanes and ramps will be closed
overnight and on four weekends. One or two lanes will remain open at all
times. To help keep traffic moving, the 1-5 express lanes will operate in the
southbound direction during weekend closures.
. Start: Spring 2005
. Remaining Construction Weekends: We completed the fIrst of four
weekends of construction. Remaining construction weekends are June 17-
20, 24-27 and July 15-18. This work has been rescheduled fIve times due to
wet weather forecasts. Our alternate construction weekend is August 12-15.
. Estimated Completion: Summer 2005
. Cost: $3.8 million
. Contact: Julia Mizuhata, Project Engineer, (206) 764-4105
WSDOT 2005 Construction. Near Tukwila
Stan Suchan, suchans@wsdot.wa.gov, 206 440 4698
Page 2
1~5 Roanoke Noise Walls (Seattle)
>> HIGH IMPACT
We will build noise walls to reduce freeway-generated noise along 1-5 in the
Roanoke vicinity on Harvard and Boylston Avenues.
. Driver Information: We will close SR 520 exit to Roanoke Avenue for
several weekends in the spring. We will reduce Boylston Avenue to one lane for
two-and-a-half months in the summer.
. Start: March 2005
. Estimated Completion: Late Summer 2005
. Cost: $3.5 million
. Contact: Kinyan Lui) Project Engineer, (206) 381-6404
1-5, Federal Way HOV Direct Access (Federal Way)
>> HIGH IMPACT
WSDOT and Sound Transit are building new on- and off-ramps for carpools,
vanpools and buses in the 1-5 median at South 317th Street. The ramps will
connect the carpool lanes directly to the Federal Way Transit Center. In
addition, we are widening 1~5 to add HOV lanes from Military Road to South
320th and improving the existing I~5 pavement.
. Driver Information: Southbound 1-5 traffic is using a temporary median
roadway between Military Road and S. 320th Street. We expect to shift
traffic off the temporary roadway and onto the newly rebuilt permanent
lanes in June. Drivers can also expect nighttime lane and ramp closures.
. Start: Summer 2004
. Estimated Completion: Fall 2005
. Cost: $45 million
Contact: John Chi, Project Engineer, (206) 764-6444
WSDOT 2005 Construction: Near Tukwila
Stan Suchan, suchans@wsdot.wa.gov, 206 440.4698
Page 3
SR 99, South 216th St. to South 200th St. (SeaTac)
Crews will widen and resurface the highway and add sidewalks. We are
providing money to the city to overlay pavement on existing roadway.
. Start: Summer 2004
. Estimated Completion: Fall 2006
. Cost: $700,000 (state contribution only)
. Contact: Messay Shiferaw, Project Engineer, (206) 768-5862
SR 99, South 272nd to South 252nd St. (Kent)
Crews will widen and resurface the highway and add sidewalks. Weare
providing money to the city to overlay pavement on existing roadway.
. Start: Summer 2005
. Estimated Completion: Fall 2006
. Cost: $900,000 (state contribution only)
fa Contact: Messay Shiferaw, Project Engineer, (206) 768-5862
SR 99, South 252nd to SR 516 (Kent)
Crews will widen and resurface the highway and add sidewalks. Weare
providing money to the city to overlay pavement on existing roadway.
. Start: Summer 2005
. Estimated Completion: Fall 2006
. Cost: $1 million (state contribution only)
. Contact: Messay Shiferaw, Project Engineer, (206) 768-5862
WSDOT 2005 Construction. Near Tukwila
S~i1 Suchan, suchans@wsdot.wa.gov, 206 440.4698
Page 4
SR 509 Marine View Drive (Des Moines)
Crews will remove the 300 foot-long culvert that carries Des Moines Creek
underneath SR 509 (Marine View Drive) and replace it with a bridge over Des
Moines Creek. Crews also will shape a new stream channel underneath the new
bridge and create a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing that will connect the Des
Moines Creek Trail to Des Moines Beach Park. Replacing the culvert will
eliminate a fish passage barrier, help restore fish habitat and prevent flooding.
. Start: M.;1y 2005
. Estimated Completion: Fall 2006
. Cost: $7.3 million
. Contact: Loren Reinhold, Project Engineer (city of Des Moines),
(206) 870-6524
SR 516, 1=5 to North Central Avenue Paving (Kent)
We will pave 3.51 miles of roadway and restore safety features like guardrail,
curbing, striping and sidewalk ramps between 1-5 and North Central Avenue.
. Driver Information: We will have single lane closures at night from SR
167 to Smith Street in Kent.
. Start: Spring 2005
. Estimated Completion: June 2005
. Cost: $2.5 million
. Contact: Stanley Eng, Project Engineer, (253) 872-2962
WSDOT 2005 Construction: Near Tukwila
Stan Suchan, suchans@wsdot.wa.gov, 206 440.4698
Page 5
WSDOT - 1-405 - West Valley to Maple Valley - March 2005 Quarterly Project Report
Page 1 of 1
~
1-405 - West Valley Highway' to Maple Valley Highway V~ =~~
Quarterly Project Report Update for Quarter Ending March 2005
Project Title & Location Project Description
1-405/West Valley Highway to Maple Valley Highway in This project will construct one additional northbound
Renton lane on 1-405 from SR 181 to SR 167 It will also
Contractor/Consultant construct one additional southbound lane from SR 169
HNTB Corporation is the lead consultant of the General to SR 167
Engineering Consultant Team
Recent Progress
Completed QNQC and Technical Review of 5% Nickel design. Continued preparation of cut sheets I
plans for Design - Build RFP documents. Started strength testing of the existing shoulders of 1-405 and
SR167 to determine suitability for carrying traffic loads. Carried out annual CEVP analysis to determine
estimated construction costs. Met with Utility owners and agencies in January 2005 Review of as-built
utility drawings and identification of potential conflicts is ongoing. Environmental documentation process
started in January 2005 Held Public and Agency Scoping meetings in late January 2005 and prepared
draft responses to comments. Continued field surveying delineated wetlands and existing utilities
Continued coordination with Environmental Banking Oversight Committee (BOC) and the City of Renton
to establish credits for Springbrook wetland mitigation site Finalized Interdisciplinary Design Team (IDT)
Site Visits and prepared Report summarizing results. Continued coordination with the Cities of Tukwila
and Renton, local neighborhoods and businesses to resolve issues and concerns early in the Nickel
project development.
Design Construction Impacts
The West Valley Highway to Maple Valley Highway (Nickel) project is essentially a widening project for
northbound and southbound 1-405 legs approaching the SR 167 Interchange. Retaining walls will be utilized
wherever necessary to minimize impacts to adjacent properties, wetlands and drainage facilities. The Benson
Structure Overcrossing, including the center pier located in the 1-405 median, will be replaced to accommodate the
proposed widening of 1-405 and the final alignment of 1-405 anticipated for the Master Plan. The project also
extends the southbound SR 167 HOV lane north to begin under the 1-405 Structure. Vllidening and restriping of
southbound SR 167 will also be required.
Environmental Impacts / Compliance Impacts to Traffic
A corridor wide Record of Decision for the programmatic
FEIS was received in October 2002. The project It is expected that impacts to the traveling public can be
Environmental documentation began in January 2005 minimized during construction.
Conceptual design work is continuing for an "Early
Environmentallnvestiment" site near Springbrook Creek
in Renton.
Project Milestones Scheduled Attained Milestone Outlook
Preliminary July 2003 July 2003 Nickel funded engineering work began on schedule.
Engineering Start
(Nickel funding)
Finding of No January2007 On schedule, no issues at this time.
Significant Impact
Right of Way October 2007 On schedule, no issues at this time.
Certification
Request For Proposal April 2007 On schedule, no issues at this time.
Open to Traffic December 2010 On schedule, no issues at this time.
Project Cost Summary: Dollars in Percent Planned vs. Actual Expenditures
of Total (Total Project Cost)
millions __ Plan -- Revised Plan - Actual
Preliminary Engineering 21 15%
1.~
Right-of-Way 20 15% 1.2 ~"
95 70% II
Construction 1
I!
Funded Project Costs 136 100% 0.8 il
0.6 11
o.~
Nickel funds included in 136 100% 0.2 ~.
above costs ,,---.,; .-&4:,
Q
,,~) <4:1'~ ~~ .to .I....
~ ~~ <'% ~/~
For more information, go to \wlW.wsdotwa.Qov/projects
Stacy Trussler, WSOOT Project Manager @ (425) 456-8563 or E-mail:
trussler@wsdotwa.Qov
Transportation Committee
June 13, 2005
Present.
Jim Haggerton, Chair; Joe Duffie, Pam Carter
Jim Morrow, Frank marte, Bob Giberson, Robm Tischmak, Lucy Lauterbach,
Joe Giacobazzi, Nandez Miller-KPG
1. Interurban Ave Conceptual Design Analvsis Robin saId Interurban Ave from S 143rd to
Fort Dent 'Way was the last piece of Interurban to be finished. KPG's desIgn that included some
boulevard elements was so interestmg that staff asked KPG to extend it further north beyond S.
143rd north almost to 1-5 Joe G said the large frontages on Interurban lent themselves to a
boulevard design. Speedmg is also an issue on Interurban, and trees planted in the median as well
as on the edges of the street may slow traffic Nandez talked about the plan for breaks in the
medians for left turns, and how u-turns could be done at some left turn pockets.
Jim M said the new design follows what the Council has approved for recent streets like TIB
and Southcenter Parkway and Boulevard. Jim H asked what trees are in the 12' median
landscaped area, and whether an Identifiable theme with sImilar trees was bemg mstalled on
other improved streets in the City. Robin said they have learned not to plant trees that are round
in shapes, as trucks will knock offleaves and branches. Instead they are looking at columnar
shapes, but they wIll use similar trees as in other projects. Pam C said the design looked great,
and was a welcome improvement. Robin said by adding a median the project would receive a
higher score at TIB ratmgs There have also been some fatalities on Interurban, so safety
improvements will help. The Committee asked agam that small signs be put warnmg dnvers that
a certain mtersectiOn is commg up so driving decisions don't have to be last minute. Jim also
noted that because S. 160th is a u-turn route for southbound dnvers in TIB, vehicles coming from
S. 160th to TIB often need to wait for the left turns to finish before they can turn onto the
highway. The committee wholeheartedly supported the design. Recommend design to June 27
CO\V, and authorize move toward final design.
"L, 2. \VSDOT Construction Schedule Although there are not any state constructiOn projects
./1' scheduled for this year m Tukwila, there are several on 1-5,99, and 509 that could affect dnvmg
in the regiOn. 1-405 m Tukwila is scheduled for 2008 Information.
,/(" 11
-........ J/h fir Committee chair approval
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MONTH MEETING 1 - MEETING 2 ... MEETING 3 - MEETING 4 -
REGULAR C.O.W. REGULAR C.O.W.
June 6 13 20 27
See agenda packet
cover sheet for this
week's agenda
(June 27, 2005
COlllmittee of the Whole
lvfeeting).
. June 30 (Thurs.)
Special Meeting
(Joint Council/
Planning Commission
work session)
6:00-9:00 PM
Council Chambers
Unfinished Business:
Consideration of Master
Plan, zoning issues and
finances for Tukwila
South Dfoiect.
July 5 (Tuesday) 11 18 25
4'''_ Special Presentation: Public Hearing:
Independence Presentation of $500 Proposed Zoning Code
Day (City grant check to Tukwila amendments (9 total).
offices closed) Police Department from
Limited Brands.
Special Issues:
Comprehensive Plan
amendments (public
meeting format)
August 1 8 15 22
29'h _ Public Hearing: Unfinished Business:
Fifth Monday Tukwila South project. Tukwila South project.
of the month- COJ\1JvIITIEE OF THE
no CounciL WHOLE MEETING TO
meeting BE FOLLOWED BY A
scheduLed SPECIAL MEETING.
. August 3 (W'ed~)
SpecialMeeting
(Work Session)
5:00-8:00 PM at the Aug. 25 (Thurs.)
Community Center
Unfinished Business: Special Meeting
Consideration of Master (Joint Council!
Plan, zoning issues, Planning Conimissioll
finances and devel- work session)
oper's agreement for 5:00-8:00 PM
Tukwila South project. Council Chambers
Unfinished Business:
Transportation element.
Upcoming Meetings & Events
JUNE & JULY 2005
27th (Monday) 28th (Tuesdav) 29th (Wed.) 30th (Thursday) lIst (Friday) 2nd (Sat.)
>- Transportation )> Community Affairs >- Special Meeting Deadline to Philadelphia
Cmte, 5'00 PM & Parks Cmte, (Joint City sign up for the Boys Choir
(CR #1) 5:00 PM COlll/cil/Plalllzil/g Community performance
;- City Council (CR #3) ~ Court Commissiol/ Garage Sale (if
Committee of the work sessiol/) YOll u'an( to be A
Whole Mtg., 6:00 to 9:00 P;"! included in the . . .
7'00 PM (Council published list of
(Council Chambers) sale locations). 4'00 PM
Chambers) Register at (Fosler High
www.ci. School s
tukwikwa,usl Performing Arts
yardsale.htm Center)
or call 206- Free admission;
433-7178 donations
accepted to
(Garage sale dates benefit Tu\nvila
are July 16 & 17) Children's
Foundation
4th (Monday) 5th (Tuesday) ; 6th (Wed.) 7th (Thursday) 8th (Friday) 9th (Sat.)
Independence Day- > Chamber of )> Utilities Tukwila Days Event: Tuln\'ila Days Eyent: TUKWILA
CITY OFFICES Commerce Gov't. Cmte, Water Carnival Artists' Reception DAYS
CLOSED & Community 5:00 PM at Tukwila City Pool 6:00 to 7'00 PM COMMUNITY
Affairs Cmte., (CR #1) 2:00 to 4:00 PM at the Community FESTIVAL
4TH OF JULY EVENT 12:00 NOON AI\'D Center -W~~"~'
Enjoy family fun (Chamber Office) Family Movie Night
at Fort Dent >- Aft5 at Tukwila City Pool ",?, f-
Commission, 7'00 to 9:00 PM
4:00 - 11:00 PM Both pool e"ems are
CA!lCELLED PilI/cake
. " .. - FREE. bllt canned food
"<::::0. ~ ~"... Breakfast:
.p" >- Finance & Safety will be collected at the
flP Cmte, 5:00 PM door for the Tukwila 8:00-10:00 AM
(CR #3) Food Pantry For more Kids Parade:
Kids activities begin at info call 206-267-2350, 10:00 AM
4:00 PM. > City Council
Musical entertainment Regular Mtg., > Equity & Public Art
begins at 5.30 PM. 7'00 PM Diversity Show and
(Council Chambers) Commission, Competition:
Fireworks show starts 5 15 P~j 10'00 AM to
at 10:00 P~I sharp. Tukwila Days Event: (Showalter AJidd(e 3'00 PM
Sports for Hunger School Library) Family fun &
Volleyball Tourney,
6:00 PM at the PUBLIC MEETING entertaillmel/1
Community Center Link Light Rail 011 stage:
Construction Update 10:30 .>\'\1 to
5.30 PM 3'00 PM
Foster Library
~ Court
> Apartment Managers' Networking Lunch: 3rd Thurs., 12:00 Noon (brim! a lunch). TCC. Contact Robbie Bums at 206-242-8084
> Arts Commission: 1st Tues., 5:00 PM. Tukwila Community Center Contact Kimberly Matej at 206-767-2342.
> Chamber of Commerce's Tukwila Government and Community Affairs Committee: 1st Tues., 12:00 Noon. Chamber Offices,
Contact Nancy Damon at 206-575-1633
;;.. Chipper Days, sponsored by the Wash. State Dept. of Agriculture: 3rd Sat., 10:00 AM to 1 :00 PM. Foster HS Main Parking Lot.
> City Council Committee of Whole (C.O.W) Meeting: 2nd & 4th Mon., 7:00 pm, Council Chambers at City Hall.
;.. City Council Regular Meeting: 1st & 3rd Mon., 7:00 PM. Council Chambers at City Hall.
>- Civil Service Commission: 2nd Mon., 5:00 PM. Conf. Room #3 Contact Bev Willison at 206-433-1844
> Community Affairs & Parks Committee: 2nd & 4th Tues., 5:00 PM. Conf. Room #3 Agenda items for 6/28/05 meeting'
(.4) Renew current moratorium within the transit-oriented development plannillg area, (B) Amendment to Commercial Development
Solutions contract.
> COPCAB (Community Oriented Policing Citizens Adv. Board): 4th Wed., 6:30 PM. Conf. Rm #5 Marja Murray (206-433-7175).
>- Crime Hot Spots Task Force: 3rd Wed., 10:001\.\1. Conf. Room #5 Contact Marja Murray at 206-433-7175
> Domestic Violence Task Force: 3rd Thurs., 12:00 Noon. Conf. Room #5 Contact Evie Boykan or Stacy Hansen at 206-433-7180
>- Equity & Diversity Commission: 1st Thurs., 5.15 PM. Showalter Middle School Librarv Contact Lucy Lauterbach at 206-433-1834
> Finance & Safety Committee: 1st & 3rd Mon., 5:00 PM. Conf. Room #3
.,. Highway 99 Action Committee: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM. Tukwila Community Center Contact Chief Dave Haynes at 206-433-1812.
>- Human Services Advisory Brd: 2nd Fri. of even months, 10:00 AI..1. Human Services Office. Contact Evie Boykan at 206-433-7180.
> Human Services Providers: 11.301\.\1. TCC (tentative schedule: 3/18. 6/17. 9/16. 1212). Contact Stacy Hansen at 206-433-7181
}> Library Advisory Board. 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM. Foster Librarv Contact Bruce Fletcher at 206-767-2343
> Parks Commission. 3rd Wed., 5.30 PM. Senior Game Room at Community Center Contact Kimberly Matej at 206-767-2342.
}> Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review' 4th Thurs., except 2nd Thursday in Nov & Dec., 7:00 PM.
Council Chambers at Citv Hall. Contact Wynetta Bivens at 206-431-3670.
>- Sister City Committee: Contact Lucy Lauterbach at 206-433-1834
> Transportation Committee: 2nd & 4th Mon., 5:00 PM. Conf. Room #1 Agenda items for 6/27/05 meeting' (.4) Traffic calming
update, (B) Tukwila Urban Center Signal Interconnect and ITS Project (consultant selection and agreement for preliminGl)'
engineering services),
>- Utilities Committee: 1st & 3rd Tues., 5:00 PM. Conf. Room #]
jij' Court = Busy Court andlor Jury Calendar (noted to alert employees and citizens of potential parking difficulty).