HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2008-09-22 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Distribution:
City of Tukwila J. Duffle G. Labanara
J. Hernandez K. Matej
f`? Community Affairs and V. Griffin M. Miotke
D. Quinn B. Noland
Parks Committee P. Linder C O'Flaherty
D. Robertson N. Olivas
Joan Hernandez, Chair Mayor Haggerton J. Pace
1908 R. Berry D. Speck
Verna Griffin E. Boykan R. Still
De'Sean Quinn B. Fletcher K. Narog(cover)
M. Hart S. Kirby(emaii)
V. Jessop S. Norris(emaii)
S. Kerslake L. Miranda
AGENDA
MONDAY, September 22, 2008, 5.00 PM
Conference Room #3
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION Pace
1. PRESENTATIONS)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Contracts for Structural Plan Review; a. Forward to 9/22 C.O.W. Pg.1
Bob Benedicto Building OfflCial DCD and 9/22 Special.
b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment b. Forward to 10/13 C.O.W. P9.15
Capital Facilities Element; and 10/20 Regular.
Lisa Verner, Project Manager, DCD.
c. Tukwila Urban Center Plan Briefing; c. Information only. Pg.35
Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner, DCD.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, October 13, 2008
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 for assistance.
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development
Jack Pace, Director
INFORMATION MEMO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Community Affairs & P~S Committee
Jack Pace, DCD Directo
September 15, 2008
Structural Plan Review Services Contracts
ISSUE
The Department of Community Development requires consultant services to provide
structural plan review for building permit processing. Currently, there is no consultant
under contract to provide this service. The aggregate sum of compensation and the
proposed term of the new contract requires Council approval. Council approval would
then allow these contracts to be effective for the remainder of 2008 in addition to a full
two year term that would end in December of2010.
BACKGROUND
For the past thirteen years Reid/Middleton, Inc. has provided structural plan review
services to the Department of Community Development. The standard contract for
services was approved with the condition that it could be reviewed and approved
annually for a maximum of four contract extensions This year was the end of a four
extension cycle for Reid/Middleton. The need to advertise an RFQ and policy protocol of
the process has delayed the award of a new contract for services. The Department of
Community Development has been without the services of a structural plan review
consultant since July 31,2008.
ANALYSIS
The contract language and the scope of work for structural plan review services remain
unchanged from the previous contracts. Each contract requires work under the same
stated conditions. Past procedures allowed one consultant to provide the City with
structural plan review services and remain as a sole provider of this service for an
extended period oftime. This may have contributed to the minimal response to the RFQ.
The award of a structural plan review contract for two firms will give the department
flexibility in assigning work load, it will provide for a backup service provider and it will
eliminate the perceived ownership of an exclusive contract for services with the City.
1
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 · Tukwila, Washington 98188 · Phone: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-3665
REVENUE SOURCE
The consultants are paid for each plan review as a separate project. Their fee for each
project is paid from permit fees collected with each permit application. There is no
impact to the general fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the contract for Reid! Middleton, Inc. and for Sound Inspections & Investigative
Engineers, LLC. Forward to September 22,2008 COW with recommendation for
approval.
Attachments:
Contract for Services for Reid/Middleton, Inc.
Contract for Services for Sound Inspections & Investigative Engineers, LLC
2
Contract No.
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, Washington, a non charter
optional municipal code city hereinafter referred to as "the City", and ReidfMiddleton, Inc.
, hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant", whose principal office is located at 728 - 134m Street SW,
Suite 200, Everett, Washington 98204
WHEREAS, the City has determined the need to have certain services performed for its citizens
but does not have the manpower or expertise to perform such services; and
'VIIEREAS, the City desires to have the Consultant perform such services pursuant to certain
terms and conditions; now, therefore,
IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope and Schedule of Services to be Performed by Consultant. The Consultant shall
perform those services described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
as if fully set forth. In performing such services, Consultant shall at all times comply with all Federal,
State, and local statutes, rules and ordinances applicable to the performance of such services and the
handling of any funds used in connection therewith. The Consultant shall request and obtain prior
written approval from the City if the scope or schedule is to be modified in any way.
2. Compensation and Method of Payment. The City shall pay the Contractor for services
rendered according to the rate and method set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. A new schedule of charges will be issued no_later than Junel and become
effective July 1 each year beginning in the year 2009. Charges for all work, including continuing
projects initiated in prior years, will be based on the schedule of charges for period in which the work
was performed.
3. Contractor Budget. The Contractor shall apply the funds received under this Agreement
within the maximum limits set forth in this Agreement. The Contractor shall request prior approval
from the City whenever the Contractor desires to amend its budget in any way.
4. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period
commencing from the signature of all parties of this contract through December 31, 2010. The
Consultant shall not begin work under the terms of this Agreement until authorized in \\'fiting by the
city.
5. Independent Consultant.. Consultant and City agree that Consultant is an independent
Consultant with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the
parties hereto. Neither Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits
accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not
be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or
contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an
employer with respect to the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant..
6. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, including
attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property to the extent occasioned
by any negligent act, omission or failure of the Consultant, its officers, agents and employees, in
performing the work required by this Agreement. With respect to the performance of this Agreement
and as to claims against the City, its officers, agents and employees, the Consultant expressly waives
its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for
injuries to its employees, and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless
provided for in this paragraph extends to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the
Consultant. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any
damage resulting from the sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of
. the damages referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence
of the City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid
and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its officers, agents, and
employees.
H:\Reid M contract 08.doc
1m 9/17/2008
Page 1 of3
7. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and mamtam m full force throughout the duration
of the Agreement msurance as follows:
A. General liability msurance, \:vith a minimum coverage of $500,000 per occurrence and
$1,000,000 aggregate of personal mjury; and $1,000,000 per occurrence laggregate for property
damage.
B. Professional liability msurance, with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000. per occurrence
and $2,000,000. aggregate against claims arismg out of work provided for m this contract.
Said general liability policies shall name the City of Tukwila as an additional named insured and shall
include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy except upon thirty (30) days prior written
notice to the City.
Certificates of coverage as required by Paragraph A and B above shall be delivered to the City within
fifteen (15) days of execution ofthis Agreement.
8. Record Keepinl! and Reportinl!.
A. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property,
financial and programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs
of any nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such
records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of this Agreement.
B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof
unless permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RC\V
Chapter 40.14 and by the City.
9. Audits and Inspections. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by
this Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by law during the
performance of this Agreement.
10. Termination. This Agreement may at any time be terminated by the City giving to the
Consultant thirty (30) days written notice of the City's intention to terminate the same. Failure to
provide products on schedule may result in contract termination. If the Contractor's insurance
coverage is canceled for any reason, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
immediately.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee,
applicant for employment, or any person seeking the services of the Consultant to be provided under
this Agreement on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, marital status or
presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap.
12. Assil!nment and Subcontract. The Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any portion of
the services contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the City.
13. Entire Al!reement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties
hereto and no other Agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement,
shall be deemed to exist or bind any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes in the
agreement. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written
amendments to this Agreement.
14. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the address provided by the Consultant upon the
signature line below.
15. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of \Vashington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other
proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and
agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such
action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit.
DATED this
day of
CITY OF TUKWILA
By:
Title: Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By:
H:\SoundLLCstruct 08.doc
kn 9/1712008
,20
CONSULTANT.
By:
Title:
Printed Name:
Address:
Date approved by City Council:
(Applicable if contract amount is over $25,000)
Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT 'A'
SCOPE OF WORK
The objective of this Agreement is to provide structural code compliance plan review for
proposed new and remodeled buildings within the City of Tulcwila as specifically
requested in writing by the Building Official or his designee. The consultant shall
perform all services and provide all necessary equipment, materials and professionally
trained, licensed, and experienced personnel to accomplish the plan review as outlined
below.
1. On behalf of the Department of Community Development - Building Division, the
consultant will perform structural plan review to establish compliance with the
structural provisions of the International Building Code as amended by the State
and as adopted by the City ofTukwila.
2. During the plan review process, the Consultant may contact the permit applicant
directly to request submission of additional information to the city. The
Consultant will keep a written record ofthis communication in the project file.
3. Upon completion of each plan review, the Consultant ,vill furnish a summary plan
review letter directly to the Building Official and a copy to the permit applicant
outlining discrepancies in the plans, reports, and/or calculations (if any).
4. The Consultant will perform follow-up plan reviews as required to confirm that
plans have been corrected adequately according to the original plan review. In
these instances, the Consultant will furnish additional letters directly to the
Building Official and a copy to the permit applicant summarizing the results of
the review. When the Consultant is satisfied that the proposed structural 'work is
in compliance with the structural provisions of the Building Code, the Consultant
will issue a fmalletter stating that there are no further comments.
5. The plan review services for each permit applicant will be treated as an individual
project, the Consultant will track all associated labor and material costs according
to each project and invoice the City accordingly. The consultant will invoice the
city prior to the 10th of each month.
6. The City may need other structural engineering services throughout the term of
the on-call agreement. For these instances, the Consultant will perform structural
engineering services as mutually agreed to by both parties. The scope of work,
fee, and schedule for the additional structural engineering services will be defined
and negotiated at the time the additional work is requested.
7. The City, in entering into this agreement, does not guarantee that any services will
be requested nor guarantee any specific dollar amount of work during the term of
this Agreement.
8. The city shall respond to the consultant's telephone or E-mail inquires concerning
interpretation of City Standards within three (3) working days.
9. The Consultant shall complete the specified work generally within (15) calendar
days ofwrirten notification by the City. (Large and/or complex projects may take
longer to review but require concurrence by City oftime extension).
10. The Consultant shall perform all work described in this Agreement in accordance
with the latest edition and amendments to the Washington State Building Code as
adopted and amended by the City of Tukwila.
11. The City shall administer issuance of building permits and certificates of
occupancy. The consultant will assume no responsibility for proper on-site
construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor's failure to
perform its work in accordance with approved plans, contract documents, and
permit conditions.
12. Corrections or comments made during the review process do not relieve the
project proponent or designer from compliance with requirements of codes,
conditions of approval, or permit requirements. Nor is the designer relieved of
responsibility for a complete design in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington.
Reid Middleton, Inc.
Exhibit'" Schedule of Charges
Effective July 1, 2008 through ,June 30, 2009
Compensation shall be based on time and expenses directly attributable to the project and shall follow the schedule
below unless another method of compensation has been expressed in the written agreement.
I. Personnel Hourly Rate
Principal 180.00 225.00
Principal Engineer /Principal Planner /Principal Surveyor S 170.00 190.00
Senior Engineer /Senior Planner/Senior Surveyor 145.00 165.00
Project Engineer /Project Surveyor/ Project Planner 115.00 135.00
Design Engineer /Senior Designer /Surveyor /Senior Technical Writer 95.00 105.00
Engineer /Planner /Senior Technician 85.00 95.00
Project Administrator 80.00 85.00
Technician 60.00 70.00
Survey Crew (2 PersonlRTK/Robotic) S 165.00
Survey Crew (3 Person/GPS) 250.00
Expert Witness/Forensic Engineering 1.5 times usual hourly rate (4 hour minimum)
Individuals not in the regular employ of Reid Middleton may occasionally be engaged to meet specific
project requirements. Charges for such personnel will be comparable to charges for regular Reid
Middleton personnel.
A premium may be charged if project requirements make overtime work necessary.
Ii. Equipment Rate
Design Software /Computer Aided Drafting 12.00/hour
Reimbursable Expenses
Local Mileage Automobile 0.65 /mile
Local Mileage Survey Truck 0.55 /mile
Expenses that are directly attributable to the project are invoiced at cost plus 15 These expenses
include, but are not limited to, subconsultant or subcontractor services, travel and subsistence,
communications, couriers, postage, fees and permits, document reproduction, special instrumentation and
field equipment rental, premiums for additional insurance where required, special supplies, and other costs
directly applicable to the project.
A new schedule of charges is issued and becomes effective July 1 each year. Charges for all work,
including continuing projects initiated in prior years, will be based on the latest schedule of charges.
IV. Client Advances
Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, charges for the following items shall be paid by the client
directly, shall not be the responsibility of Reid Middleton, and shall be in addition to any fee stipulated in
the agreement: government Fees, including permit and review fees; soils testing fees and costs; charges for
aerial photogra ?iy; and charges for monuments. If Reid Middleton determines, in its discretion, to
advance any of these costs in the interest of the project, the amount of the advance, plus a fifteen percent
administrative fee, shall be paid by the client upon presentation of an invoice therefore.
1 C \DOCijORiviS \ExI II13I CS12008- A- Preliminary.doc
1/1 5/08 (mai)
Contract No.
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, Washington, a noncharter
optional municipal code city hereinafter referred to as "the City", and Sound Inspections &
Investigative Engineers, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant", whose principal office is
located at PMB 223, 1802 "A" Street SE. Auburn, Washington 89002
\VHEREAS, the City has determined the need to have certain services performed for its citizens
but does not have the manpower or expertise to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have the Consultant perform such services pursuant to certain
terms and conditions; now, therefore,
IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope and Schedule of Services to be Performed by Consultant. The Consultant shall
perform those services described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
as if fully set forth. In performing such services, Consultant shall at all times comply with all Federal,
State, and local statutes, rules and ordinances applicable to the performance of such services and the
handling of any funds used in connection therewith. The Consultant shall request and obtain prior
written approval from the City ifthe scope or schedule is to be modified in any way.
2. Compensation and Method of Payment. The City shall pay the Contractor for services
rendered according to the rate and method set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. Compensation shall be limited as set forth in Exhibit A.
3. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period
commencing from the signature of all parties of this .contract through December 31, 2010. The
Consultant shall not begin work under the terms of this Agreement until authorized in writing by the
city.
4. Independent Consultant.. Consultant and City agree that Consultant is an independent
Consultant with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the
parties hereto. Neither Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits
accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not
be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or
contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an
employer with respect to the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant..
5. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, including attorney's fees,
arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any act, omission or
failure of the Consultant, its officers, agents and employees, in performing the work required by this
Agreement. With respect to the performance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City, its
officers, agents and employees, the Consultant expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the
Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees, and agrees
that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to
any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Consultant. This waiver is mutually
negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting from the sole
negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages referenced by this
paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents or
employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid and enforceable only to the
extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its officers, agents, and employees.
6. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force throughout the duration of the
Agreement insurance as follows:
A. General liability insurance, with a minimum coverage of $500,000 per occurance and
$1,000,000. aggregate of personal injury; and $1,000,000 per occurance /aggregate for property
damage.
H:\SoundLLCstruct 08.doc
kn 9/17/2008
Page 1 of3
B. Professional liability insurance, with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000. per occurrence
and $2,000,000. aggregate against claims arising out ohvork provided for in this contract.
Said general liability policies shall name the City of Tukwila as an dditional named insured and shall
include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy except upon thirty (30) days prior written
notice to the City.
Certificates of coverage as required by Paragraph A and B above shall be delivered to the City within
fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement.
7. Record Keeping and Reporting.
A. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property,
[mancial and programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs
of any nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such
records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of this Agreement.
B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof
unless permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RCW
Chapter 40.14 and by the City.
8. Audits and Inspections. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by
this Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by law during the
performance of this Agreement.
9. Termination. This Agreement may at any time be terminated by the City giving to the
Consultant thirty (30) days written notice of the City's intention to terminate the same. Failure to
provide products on schedule may result in contract termination. If the Contractor's insurance
coverage is canceled for any reason, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
immediately.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee,
applicant for employment, or any person seeking the services of the Consultant to be provided under
this Agreement on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, marital status or
presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap.
12. Assignment and Subcontract. The Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any portion of
the services contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the City.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties
hereto and no other Agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement,
shall be deemed to exist or bind any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes in the
agreement. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written
amendments to this Agreement.
14. Notices. Notices to the City ofTukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the address provided by the Consultant upon the
signature line below.
15. Applicable Law~ Venue~ Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other
proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and
agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such
action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit.
DATED this
day of
CITY OF TUKWILA
By:
Title: Mayor
,20
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By:
H:\SoundLLCstruct 08.doc
kn 911 7/2008
CONSULTANT.
By:
Title:
Printed Name:
Address:
Date approved by City Council:
(Applicable if contract amount is over $25,000)
Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT 'A'
SCOPE OF WORK
The objective of this Agreement is to provide structural code compliance plan review for
proposed new and remodeled buildings within the City of Tukwila as specifically
requested in writing by the Building Official or his designee. The consultant shall
perform all services and provide all necessary equipment, materials and professionally
trained, licensed, and experienced personnel to accomplish the plan review as outlined
below.
1. On behalf of the Department of Community Development - Building Division, the
consultant will perform structural plan review to establish compliance with the
structural provisions of the International Building Code as amended by the State
and as adopted by the City of Tukwila.
2. During the plan review process, the Consultant may contact the permit applicant
directly to request submission of additional information to the city. The
Consultant will keep a written record of this communication in the project file.
3. Upon completion of each plan review, the Consultant will furnish a summary plan
review letter directly to the Building Official and a copy to the permit applicant
outlining discrepancies in the plans, reports, and/or calculations (if any).
4. The Consultant will perform follow-up plan reviews as required to confmn that
plans have been corrected adequately according to the original plan review. In
these instances, the Consultant will furnish additional letters directly to the
Building Official and a copy to the permit applicant summarizing the results of
the review. When the Consultant is satisfied that the proposed structural work is
in compliance with the structural provisions of the Building Code, the Consultant
will issue a fmalletter stating that there are no further comments.
5. The plan review services for each permit applicant will be treated as an individual
project, the Consultant will compute the plan review fee in accordance with the
contract schedule for each project and invoice the City upon completion ofthe
plan review. The consultant will invoice the city prior to the 10th of each month.
6. The City may need other structural engineering services throughout the term of
the on-call agreement. For these instances, the Consultant will perform structural
engineering services as mutually agreed to by both parties. The scope of work,
fee, and schedule for the additional structural engineering services will be defmed
and negotiated at the time the additional work is requested.
7. The City, in entering into this agreement, does not guarantee that any services will
be requested nor guarantee any specific dollar amount of work during the term of
this Agreement.
8. The city shall respond to the consultant's telephone or E-mail inquires concerning
interpretation of City Standards within three (3) working days.
9. The Consultant shall complete the specified plan review generally within (15)
calendar days of written notification by the City. The (15) day period shall result
in written comments to the engineer of record or a return of the plans to the City,
approved for issuance. (Large and/or complex projects may take longer to review
but require concurrence by City oftirne extension).
10. The Consultant shall perform all work described in this Agreement in accordance
with the latest edition and amendments to the Washington State Building Code as
adopted and amended by the City of Tukwila.
11. The City shall administer issuance of building permits and certificates of
occupancy. The consultant will assume no responsibility for proper on-site
construction techniques,job site safety, or any construction contractor's failure to
perform its work in accordance with approved plans, contract documents, and
permit conditions.
12. Corrections or comments made during the review process do not relieve the
project proponent or designer from compliance with requirements of codes,
conditions of approval, or permit requirements. Nor is the designer relieved of
responsibility for a complete design in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington.
2
EXHIBIT'B'
COMPENSA nON SCHEDULE
Sound Inspections & Investigative Engineers will follow the payment schedule that the
City of Tukwila has in place at this time. Our fees will be based off of the fee schedule
for permits and plan review as adopted by the City of Tukwila We will charge 70% of
the plan review fee collected by the City. Example: If the plan revie\v fee is $1000.00 we
will charge $700.00 for the plan review service.
When we are complete with our review the plans will be ready to issue for permit. Our
turn around time will be 2 weeks max, meaning if corrections are required we will have
red lined plans back to the engineer of record within that two week period or returned to
the City for issuance.
Il\TfORlvlA TIONAL MEMORA1\TDUM
TO:
Community Affairs and Parks Committee (action)
Finance and Safety Committee (information only)
CC:
Mayor Haggerton
Rhonda Berry
FROM:
Lisa Verner, Mayor's Office
DATE:
September 22, 2008
RE:
1) Request for "Emergency" status of proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2) Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
ISSUE
1. Determine this Amendment is an "emergency amendment"
2. Forward this Amendment to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation
3. Amend the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to add "Fire"
to the list of uses funded by the General Fund and to add Level of Service goals for
Fire and Parks services.
PROPOSAL
The proposal is to amend the Capital Facilities Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan on
an "emergency" basis to add "Fire" to the list of uses funded by the General Fund and to add
Level of Service goals for Parks and for Fire services.
· Add "the 2008 Fire Master Plan" and "the 2008 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan"
to the 3rd paragraph under Purpose (page 161) so that it will read:
o The City has prepared a comprehensive list of proposed capital facility
improvements, estimated their cost and identified their potential benefits. The
current information is contained in the Financial Planning Model and Capital
Improvement Program, 2004-2009, the 2008 Fire j\1aster Plan, the 2008 Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan and in the Capital Facilities Element
Background Report Supplement, dated 2004, all 00th of which are adopted by
reference as part of this Plan. The City annually reviews and updates this
information and will continue to do so as the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan proceeds.
CAP Informational Memorandum
Page 2 of6
. Add the word "Fire" to the 3rd bullet point under "Issues: General Government
Facilities" (page 162) so that it will read:
o The General Fund includes money forjire, parks, trails and fisheries projects
· Add "and services" to Goal 14.1 (page 165) so that it will read:
o Public facilities and services that reflect desired levels of quality, address past
deficiencies, and anticipate the needs of growth through acceptable levels of
service, prudent use of fiscal resources, and realistic timelines
· Add the Level of Service goals for Fire services to be adopted \vith the Fire Department
Master Plan as "Policy 14.1.14" (page 166) as follows:
o Use the following levels of service to guide City investments in Fire services:
· Establish a goal of response to calls for service within the City in 5
minutes 33 seconds 90% of the time
· Operate 4 Fire Stations distributed throughout the City
· Provide the following fire services: prevention, suppression, aid, rescue,
haz mat response, and public education
· Maintain equipment level of 3 front line fire engines, I front line aerial
fire engine, and I front line aid car
· Maintain personnel level of 3 shifts of professional firefighters per day
· Add Level of Service goals for Parks services to be adopted as an amendment to the
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan as "Policy 14.1.15" (page 166) as follows:
o Use the following levels of service to guide Parks acquisition and improvement
decisions:
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS
2022
2008 Population: 24,719
Population: 17,930 (estimated)
ParkfF acili ty Service Current Unit of LOS Surplus LOS Surplus
Type Area Inventory Measurement Demand (Deficit) Demand (Deficit)
up to 1/2 1.2 0.07 acres per
Mini Park mile acres 1,000 pop. 1.20 0 1.65 (0.45)
Neighborhood 1/2 to 1 50.4 2.81 acres per
Park* mile acres 1,000 pop. 50.40 0 69.48 (19.08)
Community 1-5 25.0 1.39 acres per
Park miles acres 1,000 pop. 24.97 0 34.43 (9.46)
5-20 132.0 7.36 acres per
Regional Park ** miles acres 1,000 pop. 131.99 0 181.97 (49.98)
33.5 1.87 acres per
Open Space acres 1,000 pop. 33.50 0 46.18 (12.68)
Neighborhood 1.9 0.90 miles of trail
COlmector*** ntiles per 1,000 pop. 16.11 (14.20) 22.21 (20.30)
11.4 0.64 miles of trail
Regional Trail miles per 1,000 pop. 11.40 0 15.72 (4.32)
Community 1 1 per
Center center 15,000 pop. 1.20 (0.20) 1.65 (0.65)
* 22.3 acres of neighborhood parks are school dish.ict property developed as a park.
CAP Informational Memorandum
Page 3 of6
** The acreage above includes only parks in the City of Tuk\vila.
Regional park needs can be met outside of the City boundaries.
*** Includes neighborhood connectors listed in the \'Valk & Roll Plan.
BACKGROUND
1. The City is initiating a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Capital Facilities
Element of the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Element
presents the goals and policies for Tukwila's Capital Facilities and begins on page 161 of
the Comprehensive Plan. Planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) differs
from traditional capital improvement plans because it must identify specific facilities,
include a realistic financing plan, and adjust the plan if funding is inadequate or if
development requires previously unanticipated expansion.
The Capital Facilities Element does not currently list "Fire" as one of the functional areas
which may need capital facilities. It does list "Parks" as such an area. The Capital
Facilities Element also does not list levels of service for existing and for future
development for Fire and Parks services.
2. The City Council adopted the new Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan in June, 2008
by Ordinance 2207; it did not include a specific level of service standard. Since then,
levels of service for Parks have been discussed by Council. The Parks level of service
will be adopted in September, 2008.
A new Fire Department Master Plan was submitted to the City in August, 2008 and the
review process by City Council has begun; it is anticipated that the Master Plan will be
adopted in November, 2008. The levels of service for Fire were discussed in conjunction
with the Plan. The Fire level of service will be adopted when the Master Plan is adopted.
3. The Administration is evaluating new sources of revenue for the City. One such source is
"impact fees" through which ne\\' development helps to pay for capital facilities
necessitated due to the new growth. Mayor Haggerton's goal is to analyze options and to
adopt impact fees by the end of 2008.
In order to have a discussion of whether or not to adopt Fire and Parks impact fees, the
City must have the following foundation:
A) Adopted Parks and Fire Master Plans with identified levels of service
B) Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies
Fire and Parks
C) List of Fire and Parks capital facilities needed solely due to anticipated
new growth and development
The Gro"Yvth Management Act allows impact fees for parks services and for fire services,
in addition to the traffic impact fees the City has already enacted. In order to consider and
CAP Informational Memorandum
Page 4 of6
adopt impact fees, the City needs to have adopted a Fire Master Plan and identified a
level of service goal for fire services.
DISCUSSION
Determine Emergency
The \Vashington Growth Management Act stipulates that jurisdictions may amend their
Comprehensive Plans no more frequently than once per year unless it is an emergency as defined
by the jurisdiction. TMC 18.80.020 describes the docketing procedure, including the criteria for
the emergency amendment.
An emergency amendment is a proposed change or revision that requires "expeditious" action to
address one or more of the follm,ving criteria:
1. Preserve the health, safety or welfare of the public;
2, Support the social, economic or environmental well-being of the City;
3, Address the absence of adequate and available public facilities or services;
4. Respond to decisions by the Central Puget Sound Grov.rth Management Hearings
Board, the state or federal courts, or actions of a state agency or the legislature.
This proposed amendment is considered an "emergency" under TMC 18.80.020 and necessitates
expeditious action in 2008 in order to allow a discussion about and possible adoption by Council
of impact fees for Fire and Parks by the end of2008. It meets the criteria for emergency
comprehensive plan amendments:
1. It preserves the health, safety and welfare of the public by adding fire services and
levels of service for fire services and parks services into the adopted process for
determining capital facilities necessary to provide these services to the community.
2. It supports the economic well-being of the City by meeting the Growth Management
Act and establishing a foundation for future discussions on revenue to provide fire
services and parks services.
Review Process
The City's comprehensive plan amendment process states that the Council's first review will be
to determine whether or not the proposed amendment is something it would like to consider and,
if so, forward it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
The CAP Committee determines whether or not the proposed amendment is something the
Council should consider. CAP can accept the proposal as is, modify the proposal or reject the
proposal. Consideration of this proposal is a legislative decision.
If CAP Committee accepts or modifies the proposal, it fonvards the proposal to COW with a
recommendation to continue the process and forward the amendment to the Planning
Commission. If the full Council forwards the proposed Amendment after a public meeting, the
CAP Informational Memorandum
Page 5 of6
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in late October or early November and revie\v
the substance of the application.
After the Plmming Commission forwards a recommendation, the Council will schedule a public
hearing and COW discussion in November. A decision on whether or not to adopt the proposed
amendment would be scheduled for the Regular Meeting in either late November or early
December.
Forward to Plamling Commission
The following criteria are used by CAP Committee and the full Council to evaluate the proposed
amendment:
1. Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan?
2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the
proposed change?
3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need?
4. Will the proposed change result in a new benefit to the community?
The issue is not already addressed in the Comprehensive Plan There is a public need for the
proposed change; the change will recognize a variety of facilities and services which need City
capital facilities planning and implementation as well as levels of service for Fire and Parks
services. Amending the Comprehensive Plan is the best way to meet this need and it is
consistent with Growth Management Act and RCW 80.02 (Impact Fees) specifications. Adding
the Fire and Parks levels of service (LOS) will allow the City to evaluate and prioritize new fire
and parks capital facilities needs and expenditures; the community benefits when future capital
facilities needs are identified, prioritized and funding determined prior to being required.
RECOl\1lVIENDATION - THRESHOLD DETERlVIINATION
1. Detelmine this Amendment is an "emergency amendment" and forward this
recommendation to COW
2. Determine this Amendment should be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendation and forward this recommendation to COW
3. Recommend holding a public meeting at the Regular Meeting after CUW discussion
Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attac1mlent 3:
Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element, pages 161-2, 165-6
TMC 18.80 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations
Application
CAP Informational Memorandum
Page 6 of6
FOOTNOTE:
INFORl\1ATION FOR CO'V DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AFTER
PLANNING COl\1MISSION RECOl\1l\1ENDATON
Review Process
The full Council will use the following Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria identified in
the Tukwila Municipal Code:
1) TMC 18.80.010
2) TMC 18.80.050
After reviewing compliance with the criteria, Council may:
1) Adopt the proposed amendment
2) Adopt a modified version of the proposed amendment, or
3) Reject the amendment
Amendment
The current Capital Facilities Element language in the comprehensive plan does include "Parks"
but does not include "Fire" as one of the functional areas in which general government facilities
(capital facilities) are needed or planned. The Capital Facilities Element also does not list levels
of service for existing and for future development for Fire and Parks services.
The amendment will provide a substantive base in the Comprehensive Plan for the inclusion of
capital facilities for the Fire Department in the City's CIP (Capital Improvements Plan). The
identification of both the Fire and Parks levels of service (LOS) will allow the City to evaluate
and prioritize new fire and parks capital facilities needs and expenditures. The inclusion of
"Fire" and the addition of levels of service provide more specific direction concerning the
spending of City funds from the General Fund.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) allows cities to adopt impact fees for parks, fire, traffic
and schools under RCW 82.02.090(7) if the Capital Facilities Element (CFE) of the
Comprehensive Plan identifies the servioe(s) for which impact fees might be charged. The
amendment will allow the City to evaluate whether or not to adopt impact fees for both Fire and
Parks. These are actions which will allow the City to operate more efficiently and evaluate new
and additional sources of revenue.
Also, see application materials addressing each criterion in TMC 18.80.010 and .050.
Recommendation
Amend the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to add "Fire" to the list
of uses funded by the General Fund and to add Levels of Service for Fire and Parks services as
proposed
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
. . Capital Facilities
CAPITAL FACILITIES
PURPOSE
This element of the Comprehensive Plan presents the goals and policies for
Tukwila's Capital Facilities. It is based upon a 6-year Capital Improvement
Plan, subject to annual review and updating to address changing needs and
the long-term goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning under the Growth Management Act differs from traditional capital
improvement plans because it must identify specific facilities, include a
realistic financing plan, and adjust the plan if funding is inadequate orif
development requires previously unanticipated expansion. A key
requirement is concurrency-public facilities must be available when the
impacts of development occur.
The City has prepared a comprehensive list of proposed capital facility
improvements, estimated their cost and identified their potential benefits.
The current information is contained in the Financial Planning Model and
Capital Improvement Program, 2004-2009, and in the Capital Facilities
Element Background Report Supplement, dated 2004, both of which are
adopted by reference as part of this Plan. The City annually reviews and
updates this information and will continue to do so as the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan proceeds.
The Capital Facilities Element is divided into two categories:
. General Go1/emment Funds, which are the capital funds for all
general needs, such as residential streets, arterials, buildings, parks
and trails, and other improvements.
(Figure 41)
. Enterprise Funds, which are funds whose source and use aresrestricted to a respective enterprise and which cannot be used for
another purpose (in Tukwila, water, sewer, surface water, and the
Foster Golf Course). (Figure 42)
November 22, 2004
161
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Capital Facilities
ISSUES
General Government Facilities
There appear to be sufficient revenues, combined with developer
participation, grants, local improvement districts, and other miscellaneous
sources, to enable the City to meet its capital goals. The General
Government Funds are composed of the following funds:
The Residential Street Program which includes projects specifically
identified for residential street improvement.
The arterial street program is the Transportation Improvement
Program designed to correct deficiencies in arterial streets.
The program uses City funds, grants, developer funds, local
improvement districts, and mitigation payments. Many of
the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Element will
significantly reduce the current long term deficiency list.
The General Fund includes money for parks, trails, and fisheries
projects.
1S2 November 22, 2004
TUKWlLA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Capital Facilities
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 14.1
Public facilities that reflect desired levels of quality, address past
deficiencies, and anticipate the needs of growth through
acceptable levels of service, prudent use of fiscal resources, and
realistic timelines.
Policies
These polides are intended to ensure the availability of financing to
accomplish the goals expressed in the various other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan over the next 20 years.
General G01Iemment Policies
14.1.1 Ensure that capital facilities are provided within six years of
the occurrence of impacts that degrade standards.
14.1.2 Update the six-year financial planning model annually to
review and reassess growth, revenue, and cost totals and
forecasts.
14.1.3 Review capital facilities needs every three years.
14.1.4 Continue to target a minimum of 33 percent of total sales
tax proceeds to pay for capital projects.
14.1.5 Balance infrastructure investment between the residential
and commercial sectors.
14.1.6 Support policies and practices that will maintain an A-I
bond rating or better for the City by sound governmental
budgeting and accounting principals, revenue diversity, and
promoting the economic well-being of the City.
14.1.7 Allow issuance of bonds for facilities if repayment can be
made from revenue allocations.
14.1.8 Consider projects identified in the Capital Improvement
Plan for general operating revenues if substantial funding
from grants, developers, other jurisdictions, or other
funding sources becomes available.
14.1.9 Include a dedicatedfacility fund and allocation for future
building needs in the financial planning modeL
November 22, 2004
165
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Capital Facilities
14.1.10 Consider City funding for preliminary engineering and
design of commercial street projects if the City determines
that the public's health, safety, and welfare will be
benefited.
14.1.11 Use a mitigation-based fee system for each affected City
function as determined in the State Environmental Policy
Act evaluation of individual development applications.
14.1.12 Continue to pay for and improve residential area local
access streets and collector arterials in accordance with the
prioritized list of residential street projects, and provide
interfund loans or transfers for neighborhood water and
sewer deficiencies.
14.1.13 To provide a more timely option for residential street
improvements, property owners may form local
improvement districts and the City may pay for the design,
preliminary engineering, construction engineering, and local
improvement district formation costs. Residents will pay
the other costs such as, under grounding utilities in the
street and under grounding from the street to their house,
for the actual construction, and for any improvements on
private property such as rockeries, paved driveways, or
roadside pla.ntings.
Enterprise Fund Policies
14.1.14 Structure utility rates and charges for services to ensure
adequate infrastructure development in addition to
operation and maintenance requirements.
14.1.15 Maintain adequate reserved working capital balances for
each enterprise fund's annual expenditures.
14.1.16 Provide sewers to all residential and commercial areas in the
City as a safety and health issue by using a combination of
operating revenues, grants, loans, bonds, voluntary local
improvement district formations, and interfund loans.
14.1.17 Use bonded indebtedness as a funding alternative when
there is a general long-term benefit to the respective
enterprise fund.
14.1.18 Continue to fund the correction of single-family residential
neighborhood infrastructure deficiencies.
166
November 22, 2004
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 18.80
AMENDMENTS TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.80.010 Application
18.80.015 Documents to be Submitted with
Application
18.80.020 Docket
18.80.030 Notice and Comment
18.80.040 Staff Report
18.80.050 Council Consideration
18.80.060 Council Decision
18.80.010 Application
Any interested person (including applicants, citi-
zens, Tukwila Planning Commission, City staff and
officials, and staff of other agencies) may submit an
application for an amendment to either the compre-
hensive plan or the development regulations to the
Department of Community Development. Such
applications are for legislative decisions and are not
subject to the requirements or procedures set forth in
TMC Chapters 18.104 to 18.116. In addition to the
requirements of TMC 18.80.015, the application shall
specify, in a format established by the Department:
1. A detailed statement of what is proposed
and why;
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of
the change, including the geographic area affected and
the issues presented by the proposed change;
3. An explanation of why the current
comprehensive plan or development regulations are
deficient or should not continue in effect;
4. A statement of how the proposed
amendment complies with and promotes the goals and
specific requirements of the Growth Management Act;
5. A statement of how the proposed
amendment complies with applicable Countywide
Planning Policies;
6. A statement of what changes, if any,
would be required in functional plans (Le., the City's
water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the
proposed amendment is adopted;
7. A statement of what capital improvements,
if any, would be needed to support the proposed
change, and how the proposed change will affect the
capital facilities plans of the City; and
8. A statement of what other changes, if any,
are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to
implement the proposed change.
(Ord. 1770 $52, 1996; Ord. 1758 $1 (part), 1995)
18.80.015 Documents to be Submitted with
Application
A. Applications for amendments to the compre-
hensive plan or development regulations shall provide
the following documents in such quantities as are
specified by the Department:
1. An application form provided by the
Department.
2. King County Assessor's map(s) which
show the location of each property within 300 feet of
the property which is the subject of the proposed
amendment.
3. Two sets of mailing labels for all property
owners and occupants (businesses and residents) ,
including tenants in multiple occupancy structures,
within 300 feet of the subject property.
4. A vicinity map showing the location of the
site.
5. A surrounding area map showing compre-
hensive plan designations, zoning designations, shore-
line designations, if applicable, and existing land uses
within a 1000 foot radius from the site's property lines.
6. A site plan, including such details as may
be required by the Department.
7. A landscaping plan, including such details
as may be required by the Department.
8. Building elevations of proposed structures,
including such details as may be required by the
Department.
9. Such photo material transfer or photostat of
the maps, site plan and building elevation, including
such details as may be required by the Department.
10. Such other information as the applicant
determines may be helpful in evaluating the proposal,
including color renderings, economic analyses, photos,
or material sample boards.
B. The Department shall have the authority to
waive any of the requirements of this section for
proposed amendments which are not site specific or
when, in the Department's discretion, such informa-
tion is not relevant or would not be useful to considera-
tion of the proposed amendment.
(Ord. 1770 $53, 1996)
18.80.020 Docket
A. The Department shall maintain a docket of all
proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations that are submitted. If either
the Department or the Council determines that a pro-
posed change may be an emergency, the Department
shall prepare the staff report described below and
forward the proposed change to the Council for
immediate consideration, subject to the procedural
requirements for consideration of amendments. An
emergency amendment is a proposed change or
revision that necessitates expeditious action to address
one or more of the following criteria:
Page 18-134
Printed January 2006
1. Preserve the health, safety or welfare of
the public.
2. Support the social, economic or environ-
mental well-being of the City.
3. Address the absence of adequate and avail-
able public facilities or services.
4. Respond to decisions by the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, the state
or federal courts, or actions of a state agency or the legis-
lature.
B. Non-emergency changes shall be compiled and
submitted to the Council for review on an annual basis
in March so that cumulative effects of the proposals can
be determined. Proposed changes received by the
Department after January 1 of any year shall be held
over for the following year's review, unless the Coun-
cil or the Department determines the proposed change
may be an emergency.
(Ord. 2071 91, 2004; Ord. 1770 954, 1996;
Ord. 175891(part), 1995)
18.80.030 Notice and Comment
The docket. of proposed changes shall be posted in
the offices of the Department and made available to any
interested person. At least four weeks prior to the
Council's annual consideration of the changes proposed
on the docket, the City shall publish a notice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, generally
describing the proposed changes including areas
affected, soliciting written public input to the
Department of Community Development on the
proposed changes, and identifying the date on which
the Council will consider the proposed changes.
(Ord. 175891(part), 1995)
18.80.040 Staff Report
A. At least two weeks prior to Council
consideration of any proposed amendment to either
the comprehensive plan or development regulations,
the Department shall prepare and submit to the
Council a staff report which addresses the following:
1. the issues set forth in this chapter;
2. impact upon the Tukwila Comprehensive
Plan and zoning code;
3. impact upon surrounding properties, if
applicable;
4. alternatives to the proposed amendment;
and
5. appropriate code citations and other
relevant documents.
B. The Department's report shall transmit a copy
of the application for each proposed amendment, any
written comments on the proposals received by the
Department, and shall contain the Department's
recommendation on adoption, rejection or ,deferral of
each proposed change.
(Ord 175891(part), 1995)
TITLE 18 - ZONING
18.80.050 Council Consideration
A. The City Council shall consider each request
for an amendment to either the comprehensive plan or
development regulations at a public meeting, at which
the applicant will be allowed to make a presentation.
Any person submitting a written comment on the
proposed change shall also be allowed an opportunity
to make a responsive oral presentation. Such oppor-
tunities for oral presentation shall be subject to reason-
able time limitations established by the Council.
B. The Council will consider the following in
deciding what action to take regarding any proposed
amendment:
1. Is the issue already adequately addressed
in the Comprehensive Plan?
2. If the issue i.s not addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the
proposed change?
3. Is the proposed change the best means for
meeting the identified public need?
4. Will the proposed change result in a net
benefit to the community?
C. Following Council consideration as provided
by TMC 18.80.050A and 18.80.050B, the City Council
shall take action as follows:
1. refer the proposed amendment to the
Planning Commission for further review and a
recommendation to the City Council;
2. defer further Council consideration for one
or more years to allow the City further time to evalu-
ate the application of the existing plan or regulations; or
3. reject the proposed amendment.
(Ord. 1856 91, 1998; Ord. 1770 955, 1996;
Ord. 175891(part), 1995)
18.80.060 Council Decision
Following receipt of the Planning Commission's
recommendation on a proposed amendment referred
to the Commission, the City Council shall hold a
public hearing on the proposal, for which public notice
has been provided as required under the Public Notice
of Hearing chapter of this title. Following the public
hearing, the City Council may:
1. adopt the amendment as proposed;
2. modify and adopt the proposed amendment; or
3. reject the proposed amendment.
(Ord. 185692, 1998; Ord. 175891(part), 1995)
Printed January 2006
Page 18-135
APPLICATION
Amendment to
Capital Facilities Element
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
REQUEST:
The proposal is to amend the Capital Facilities Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan to
add "Fire" to the list of uses funded by the General Fund and to add Level of Service goals for
Parks and for Fire services.
. Add "the 2008 Fire Master Plan" and "the 2008 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan"
to the 3rd paragraph under Purpose (page 161) so that it will read:
o The City has prepared a comprehensive list of proposed capital facility
improvements, estimated their cost and identified their potential benefits. The
current information is contained in the Financial Planning Model and Capital
Improvement Program, 2004-2009, the 2008 Fire Master Plan, the 2008 Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan and in the Capital Facilities Element
Background RepOli Supplement, dated 2004, all 00tft of which are adopted by
reference as part of this Plan. The City annually reviews and updates this
information and will continue to do so as the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan proceeds.
. Add the word "Fire" to the 3rd bullet point under "Issues: General Government
Facilities" (page 162) so that it will read:
o The General Fund includes money for fire, parks, trails and fisheries projects
. Add "and services" to Goal 14.1 (page 165) so that it will read:
o Public facilities and services that reflect desired levels of quality, address past
deficiencies, and anticipate the needs of gro\vth through acceptable levels of
service, prudent use of fiscal resources, and realistic timelines
· Add the Level of Service goals for Fire services to be adopted with the Fire Department
Master Plan as "Policy 14.1.14" (page 166) as follows:
o Use the following levels of service to guide City investments in Fire services:
· Establish a goal of response to calls for service within the City in 5
minutes 33 seconds 90% of the time
· Operate 4 Fire Stations distributed throughout the City
· Provide the following fire services: prevention, suppression, aid, rescue,
haz mat response, and public education
· Maintain equipment level of 3 front line fire engines, I front line aerial
fire engine, and 1 front line aid car
· Maintain personnel level of 3 shifts of professional firefighters per day
· Add Level of Service goals for Parks services to be adopted as an amendment to the
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan as "Policy 14.1.15" (page 166) as follows:
o Use the following levels of service to guide Parks acquisition and improvement
decisions:
Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 2 of 7
2022
2008 Population: 24,719
Population: 17,930 (estimated)
Park/Facility Service Current Unit of LOS Surplus LOS Surplus
Type Area Inventory Measurement Demand (Deficit) Demand (Deficit)
up to 1 /2 1.2 0.07 acres per
Mini Park mile acres 1,000 pop. 1.20 0 1.65 (0.45)
Neighborhood 1 /2 to 1 50.4 2.81 acres per
Park* mile acres 1,000 pop. 50.40 0 69.48 (19.08)
Community 1 -5 25.0 1.39 acres per
Park miles acres 1,000 pop. 24.97 0 34.43 (9.46)
5 -20 132.0 7.36 acres per
Regional Park miles acres 1,000 pop. 131.99 0 181.97 (49.98)
33.5 1.87 acres per
Open Space acres 1,000 pop. 33.50 0 46.18 (12.68)
Neighborhood 1.9 0.90 miles of trail
Connector*** miles per 1,000 pop. 16.11 (14.20) 22.21 (20.30)
11.4 0.64 miles of trail
Regional Trail miles per 1,000 pop. 11.40 0 15.72 (4.32)
Community 1 1 per
Center center 15,000 pop. 1.20 (0.20) 1.65 (0.65)
22.3 acres of neighborhood parks are school district property developed as a park.
The acreage above includes only parks in the City of Tukwila.
Regional park needs can be met outside of the City boundaries.
***Includes neighborhood connectors listed in the Walk Roll Plan.
There are three reasons for this amendment:
Inclusion of "Fire" provides a substantive base from which to include fire capital
facilities in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); "Parks" is already listed.
Identifying the levels of service for Fire and Parks provides a foundation to determine
what has been achieved and what will be achieved in the future.
This amendment is one of the necessary steps which must be accomplished before the
City of Tukwila may evaluate whether or not to adopt impact fees for Fire and Parks
services. The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the impact fee section of the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) call for Fire and Parks services to be identified in the
adopted Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan (RCW 36.70A.070(3) and
RCW 82.02.050(4)) before impact fees are adopted.
BACKGROUND:
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS
The City Council adopted the new Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan in June, 2008 by
Ordinance 2207; it did not include a specific level of service standard. Since then, levels of
Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 3 of7
service for Parks have been discussed by Council. The Parks level of service will be adopted in
September, 2008.
A new Fire Department Master Plan was submitted to the City in August, 2008 and the review
process by City Council has begun; it is anticipated that the Master Plan will be adopted in
November, 2008. The levels of service for Fire \vere discussed in conjunction with the Plan.
The Fire level of service will be adopted when the Master Plan is adopted.
This proposal is considered "categorically exempt" from environmental review under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), per WAC 197-11-800 (20).
EMERGENCY:
This proposed amendment is considered an "emergency" under TMC 18.80.020 and necessitates
expeditious action in 2008 in order to allow a discussion about and possible adoption by Council
of impact fees for Fire and Parks by the end of2008. It meets the criteria for emergency
comprehensive plan amendments as demonstrated below:
· It preserves the health, safety and \velfare of the public by adding fire services and levels
of service for fire services and parks services into the adopted process for determining
capital facilities necessary to provide these services to the community.
· It supports the economic well-being of the City by meeting the Growth Management Act
and establishing a foundation for future discussions on revenue to provide fire services
and parks services.
CRITERIA WHICH l\1UST BE MET BY THE PROPOSED Al\1ENDMENT:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AiVIENDlVIENT CRITERIA (Tl\1C 18.80.010)
1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why
Please see statements above.
2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area
affected and the issues presented by the change
The amendment will provide a substantive base in the Comprehensive Plan for the
inclusion of capital facilities for the Fire Department in the City's CIP (Capital
Improvements Plan). The amendment 'will comply with a Growth Management Act
(GMA) requirement and the impact fee section of the Revised Code ofvVashington
(RCW); it will allow the City to evaluate whether or not to adopt impact fees for both
Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 4 of7
Fire and Parks (RCW 36.70A070(3) and RCW 82.02.050(4)). This amendment
applies city-wide.
3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations
are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific,' cite policy numbers and
code sections that apply!)
The current Capital Facilities Element language in the comprehensive plan does
include "Parks" but does not include "Fire" as an area in which general government
facilities (capital facilities) are planned (see Bullet point #3 under "Issues: General
Government Facilities" in the Capital Facilities Element, page 162). The current
language does not include levels of service for either Fire or Parks. The inclusion of
"Fire" and the addition of levels of service provide more specific direction concerning
the spending of City funds from the General Fund. They also allo\\' the City's
consideration of Fire and Parks impact fees.
4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals
and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act
The Growth Management Act (GMA) allows cities to adopt impact fees for parks,
fire, traffic and schools under RCW 82.02.090(7). In order to do this, the Capital
Facilities Element (CFE) of the Comprehensive Plan must identify the service(s) for
which impact fees might be charged. Currently, "Parks" is identified in the CFE but
"Fire" is not; the amendment will correct this and meet the GI\1A.
5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide
Planning Policies
Four Countywide Planning Policies address levels of service, capital facilities plans
and/or parks:
LU-29
All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with
applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with
adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six year
intermediate household and employment target ranges consistent with LU-
67 and LU-68. These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally
adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent
with the Growth Management Act requirements. (rest of policy not
reproduced) (emphasis added)
LU-45
Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for Urban Centers shall demonstrate
compliance with the Urban Centers criteria. In order to promote growth
within Centers, the Urban Center plan shall establish growth strategies
which:
Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 5 of7
c. Provide a \vide range of capital improvement proj ects, such as street
improvements, schools, parks and open space, public art and
community facilities; (rest of policy not reproduced) (emphasis
added)
CC-ll
All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to ensure parks and open spaces
are provided as development and redevelopment occur. (emphasis added)
CC-13
All jurisdictions shall develop coordinated level-of-service standards for
the provision of parks and open spaces. (emphasis added)
Regarding LU-29, The City has a 6 year CIP and will adopt "service levels" (levels of
service) for Fire and Parks. It will adopt lists of capital facilities needed to support
anticipated future growth as existing levels of service as additions to the CIP. This
proposed amendment supports these actions and is consistent \vith this Countywide
Planning Policy.
Regarding LU-45, the City currently identified needed capital facilities and
improvement projects for Parks. It will identify capital facilities needed as a result of
future growth; these will be added to the CIP and, it is anticipated, be funded through
impact fees. This proposed amendment supports these actions and is consistent with
this Countywide Planning Policy.
Regarding CC-ll, the City adopted a new Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan in
June, 2008 which addresses facilities needed as development and redevelopment
occur. This proposed amendment supports these actions and is consistent with this
Countywide Planning Policy.
Regarding CC-13, the City is in the process of adopting clear and easily administered
level of service standards for Parks. It is anticipated these standards will be adopted
on September 2,2008. This proposed amendment supports these actions and is
consistent with this Countywide Planning Policy.
6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in fill1ctional plans (ie, the
City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is
adopted
No changes will be required in the City's functional plans if this amendment is
adopted. It allows the City to fully implement the adopted Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Plan and the to-be-adopted Fire Department Master Plan (functional
plans).
7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, 'would be needed to support the
proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plan
of the City
Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 6 of7
No capital improvements would be needed to support the proposed change. In future,
the proposed amendment will provide a substantive basis for including "Fire" capital
improvements in the CIP. A list of capital facilities that are needed to maintain the
levels of service and are due solely to future gro\vth \vill be added to the City's CIP in
the event Fire and Parks impact fees are adopted. As impact fees become available,
projects on these lists will be constructed or purchased.
8. A statement of what other changes, if any are required in other City codes, plans or
regulations to implement the proposed change
Level of service standards have been adopted for Parks; they will be adopted for Fire
in Fall, 2008. - After review and evaluation, if the City Council decides to move
fOlward on impact fees, an ordinance for Fire and Parks impact fees will be adopted.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Al\1ENDMENT CRITERIA (Tl\'lC 18.80.050)
1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not
adequately addressed, is there a need for the proposed change?
Yes, there is a need for the proposed amendment. The cunent Capital Facilities
Element language in the comprehensive plan does include "Parks" but does not
include "Fire" as an area in which general government facilities (capital facilities) are
planned (see Bullet point #3 under "Issues: General Government Facilities" in the
Capital Facilities Element, Comprehensive Plan page 162). The cunent language
does not include levels of service for either Fire or Parks. The inclusion of "Fire" and
the addition of levels of service provide more specific direction concerning the
spending of City funds from the General Fund. They also allow the City's
consideration of Fire and Parks impact fees.
2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need?
What other options are there for meeting the identified public need?
The proposed amendment is a necessary step which must occur in order for the City
to have a discussion concerning whether or not to adopt impact fees for "Fire" and
"Parks." The Growth Management Act requires that the Capital Facilities Element
identify the services for which impact fees might be obtained. There are no other
ways to accomplish this step.
3. Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? Ifnot, what
type of benefit can be expected and why?
The amendment will provide a substantive base in the Comprehensive Plan for the
inclusion of capital facilities for the Fire Department in the City's CIP (Capital
Improvements Plan). Both the Fire and Parks levels of service (LOS) will allow the
Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Page 7 of7
City to evaluate and prioritize new fire and parks capital facilities needs and
expenditures.
The amendment will comply with a Gro\\rth Management Act (GMA) requirement
and allow the City to evaluate whether or not to adopt impact fees for both Fire and
Parks. These are both actions which will allow the City to operate more efficiently
and evaluate new and additional sources of revenue.
The community benefits \vhen future capital facilities needs are identified, prioritized
and funding determined prior to being required.
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development
jack Pace, Director
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Community Mfairs and Parks Committee
Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner L ~
September 18, 2008 "
Subject:
Tukwila Urban Center Plan Briefing
Issue
On October 23,2008, a Joint City CouncilJPlanning Commission worksession will be held on the
public review draft Tukwila Urban Center (ruC) Plan. In preparation for that meeting, Staff
would like to review with the Commissioners the work done to date, including a chronology of
public workshops held during the planning process and the status of the current draft Plan.
Included in this briefing will be the anticipated timeline for public review and plan adoption.
Please see the attached materials for a chronology ofthe TUC planning process and a summary
of public comments.
Background
In 2002, Tukwila received a $1.4 million federal grant to prepare a subarea plan for Southcenter,
one of the region's urban centers, including the area designated for transit-oriented development
(TOD) around the Sounder commuter rail/Amtrak station. The project's objectives were as
follows:
. Prepare a redevelopment strategy for the TUC that creates more business activity and
related property and sales tax revenue in the future, encourages a broader mix of uses and
densities in a pedestrian-oriented environment to support improved transit (particularly in
northern part of the ruc and the TOD area), improves internal circulation and access to
the urban center, and creates a sense of place.
. Identify and coordinate the improvements necessary to initiate and support the plan.
. Develop regulations and guidelines implementing the plan.
. Complete the evaluation of environmental impacts from proposed development and
designate the plan as a "planned action".
The last briefing to the Council was on May 11,2004 at a Joint City Council/Planning
Commission worksession. In 2005, an "administrative review draft" of the plan was prepared by
FTB and delivered to staff. The draft Plan consisted of three parts: the vision for the urban
center, development standards and design guidelines to implement the vision, and recommended
city improvements/actions. The plan was based on the concepts developed over a two year
period through six public workshops and three joint City Council/Planning Commission
1
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 · Tukwila, Washington 98188 · Phone: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-3665
Worksessions (see Attachment A for a chronology of public involvement, and Attachment B for
the summary of comments received during the public workshops). Since 2005, Staff and the
consultants have been "testing" proposed regulations on development projects in the ruc and
using their comments to refme the implementation measures and prepare the public review draft
(see Attachment C for a summary of recent activity).
Next Steps
October 23,2008.
· A public workshop on the public review draft ofruC Plan at the Sky Terrace in Westfield
Southcenter Mall from 9:30 a.m. to noon.
· An evening Joint City Council/Planning Commission worksession with ruc Plan
consultants at City Hall from 6 to 9 p.m.
Preliminary Schedule
November 2008 - February 2009
· Planning Commission review and public hearing on the public review draft ofruC Plan.
· Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the ruc Plan as a "planned
action" is distributed for public review.
January - February 2009
· Staff prepares Planning Commission draft ofTUC Plan for City Council review.
March - June 2009
· City Council review and public hearing on Planning Commission draft of ruc Plan.
· Final SEIS on draft ruc Plan is distributed
June 2009
· City Council adopts draft ruc Plan and implementing ordinances.
Attachments:
A. Chronology of Public Involvement
B. Summary of Public Comments from Workshops
C. Summary of Recent Activities
2
A. Tukwila Urban Center Planning Process - Chronology of Public
Involvement
The following represents a chronology of community workshops and j oint City Council/Planning
Commission workshops that have been held to date on the Tul0.\'ila Urban Center (TUC)/Transit oriented
development (TOD) subarea plan. Please note that originally, separate workshops were held on the TOD
area and the ruc area. Since the TOD area was seen as an integral to the TUC, in 2004 a combined
workshop covering both areas was held.
Phase I: Developed an understanding of the market forces and forecasts, land use relationships
and transportation system in the TUC.
May 13,2002
March 25, 2003
Council of the Whole. ECONorthwest briefmg on their preliminary market
forecast and trends for the Tukwila Urban Center.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting. Summarized Phase I fmdings
on existing land use, transportation and market conditions, issues and
opportunities for the ruc study area.
Phase II: Prepared preliminary alternatives and a preferred alternative for the TUC/TOD area
May 21,2003
June 30, 2003
July 1, 2003
Sept. 15, 2003
Sept. 16, 2003
Nov. 20, 2003
Feb. 26,2004
May 11,2004
ruc Public Workshop #1. Summarized land use, transportation and recent
market issues and began refming the vision for the area.
ruc Public Workshop #2. Presented several 'broadbrush" concepts based on
feed back from 1st ruc Public Workshop.
TaD Public Workshop #1. Summarized emerging land use, transportation,
utility and market issues and their impact on redevelopment potential for the
TaD area.
TUC Public Workshop #3. Presented preliminary land use and transportation
alternatives, and associated market implications.
TOD Public Workshop #2. Presented several alternative land use and
transportation concepts for future development, based on feedback from the 1 st
TaD Public Workshop.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting. Reviewed the planning
process and concepts for the ruC. Presented the preliminary evaluation of
market feasibility.
Combined ruC/TOD Final Public Workshop. Presented implementation
strategies, preliminary recommendations for land use and development policies,
and traffic impacts and improvements.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting. Council directed staff and
consultants to prepare the draft plan based on the "Mall to Station" scenario, after
reviewing the recommended vision and alternative implementation strategy
alternatives.
B. Summary of Public Comments from Workshops
City ofTukwila, Washington
Public Workshop #1
On
Tukwila Urban Center Plan
Summary of Public Comments
DoubleTree Suites
May 21,2003
1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The first public workshop on the Tukwila Urban Center Plan was held on May 21, 2003.
Approximately sixty people attended. The workshop focused on presenting how existing
land use, economic and transportation conditions and opportunities could shape the
various directions that the Southcenter area can begin to grow. A series of questions was
posed to the attendees regarding the future of the area. Public responses to these
questions were recorded as "bullet points" during the workshop. These comments have
been organized below into four sections: Urban Design, Transit & Transportation, Market
and General. Also included is a summary of written comments received after the
workshop.
Ouestions to the Community:
1. How do you react to what you saw?
2. What do you want to see more of? What works? What doesn't? What do you want to
see less of?
3. What do you see in your mind as success?
Workshop Comments:
Urban Design
· Uses bordering the TUC on the north side of
1-405 should be part ofTUC area.
· Underground infrastructure such as storm
drainage is hindering opportunities for
development while fiber optics need to be
considered for future development; all
infrastructure considerations should be part
of the ongoing planning process.
t:;---~
f~ '
i' ,-:
I '
"t;
~ "- ,~.:.
:';i;t"'L,'c,:,'1f
-- v~:~-~"
1
.
How can the "public realm" emerge? Is it huge buildings; changes in Land use, or
Code, or Zoning?
(Response: Zoning requirements and market power.)
The Idea of "District" as shown in Land Use & Development Opportunities
diagram is a good idea; good for retailers. The size of the existing blocks is a
point of frustration. The spine connecting Tukwila Parkway on the north through
the shopping center to the south is intriguing idea. This is also supported by an
east-west spine connecting Strander Boulevard to the Sounder Station.
Southcenter Parkway can be another good spine. The idea of a shuttle bus is good.
Freeway access is a problem.
.
.
.
. There could be clustered nighttime
activities with theaters as anchors to
draw people.
. . Residential is an important component
in an urban center, to create nighttime
population and safety. Detroit and
Phoenix moved residential uses out of
their centers, but there was a lack of
safety and activity; residential is now
being re-introduced in these
communities.
What type of residential would be appropriate? The Plan cannot dictate housing
types but can identify areas, which would be conducive as locations for specific
residential housing types: river-oriented townhouses, flats, condos, at a cost range
of $180 to $190/SF, but no high-rise residential in the near future.
Create amenity, to make it attractive for housing (and other uses).
Should be a "town".
Centralize Tukwila Pond; make the Pond a
major focus.
PIano, TX: community with focus on a
lake with major plaza.
Las Colinas and Fort Worth also have
lakes and plazas as focus - large draw for
people.
There are not enough pedestrian connections
from the hotels on the eastside of the Green
River to ruc center. Should there be an
additional bridge for pedestrians?
The Green River Trail is an asset, but underutilized, as uses and buildings back
onto the trail.
:~~
~~ ~ ,: --~:.. '.
.
.
.
~~
~ .y~
... --ri"t;/ _ _. ._'
'- JJ ~.-- """"';.~j~i';~ ....:r4
... - 'I.. _...~,
.. Pm"~
o. }. "'~-L-j ..
.~
.
.
2
Transit Transportation
Location is a major TUC asset! But
accessibility is an issue.
Civic Uses: should City Hall be in the TUC?
Residential uses along the river and Tukwila
Pond is a good idea, but not in anywhere else
in the center of TUC. From a marketing point
of view residential uses need to be located
close to amenities.
Residential and civic uses surrounding the
pond; what about the pond's sensitive
ecology? (Audubon Society)
Residential if people don't have a car, how can they get there?
Two well utilized transit routes already exist. They should be integrated into the
area: north south (Seattle- Auburn) and east west (Renton SeaTac).
Traveling through the CBD without traffic
congestion is important.
Auto oriented uses (such as auto repair) in
the TUC depend on people getting there
by car. Customers need to be able to reach
other TUC destinations while they wait for
their cars (31/2 hours).
Coming in/out by car has to be better. Ease
access and circulation conflict.
Tukwila needs a bus system that moves people in and around the TUC
circulatory bus system.
Commuter, shuttle -type service connecting facilities (auto dealers to malls) and
car pool area will be great assets.
Tukwila is located at the crossroads of access by car, air and sea this is a great
asset.
Invest in transit to provide easy accessibility to future destinations in the TUC.
Addresses (and finding your way) need to be clear and consistent (often the same
street has multiple names).
Cars need to be able to move freely through the TUC (center) don't create plans
that would make it less accessible for cars.
Accessibility is crucial for office businesses.
Need "super" accessibility!
3
Market
to stay.
Protect employment in TUC.
Provide options for people to live and work
(supported by multimodal accessibility).
Vacancy rate for office/ retail: "habitual" or
"seasonal
What type of residential? Where do you put a
Safeway?
How should Tukwila, Renton and South Puget
be tied together in the region? Job creation
with economic development (Renton/
Tukwila/ Kent) it is of great importance to
preserve jobs.
Nighttime activity what kind?
Get more people into the area.
Office growth should be oriented towards the center of TUC, instead of
southward.
What will happen to businesses that are auto oriented if more people are brought
in?
We are a mix of uses.
Tukwila does not have a strong "regional voice Tukwila is perceived as a
17,000 people community
Retailers at south end of Southcenter Parkway consider it a good business day if
40% of the customers arrive by
3pm.
Tukwila makes money!!
What is success? Bellevue with
high -rises and mix of uses. 1
Question: To bring in more people
is what you want or what you
need? Response: I think you
should leave it, as it is, no need for residential (businesses that rely on car
customers as Firestone and car dealers thrive as they are).
Response: Bring in more retail!
Consider other developments outside of TUC as potential liability Segale
property and their planning needs to be considered!
Identity of place rather than image of absentee landlords.
Need market support.
Who can stay and who needs to go to transform Tukwila Urban Center? Retail has
kpi-Aq
4
General
A lot of family activities and a
sense of community would be a
great asset for the TUC.
Residents should attend the TUC
workshops, not only business
representatives.
Summary of Written Comments Received:
Do not push out warehouse/ industrial. Keep in as much employment as possible.
Do not drop the idea of having a light rail connection.
Hotel occupancy is down. Need to do something to get folks to stay in TUC
hotels, especially on weekends. Occupancy rates are terrible, particularly from
Thursday through Sunday. The City has spent millions of dollars a year to market
hotels in SeaTac and Tukwila.
Do not turn the central Tukwila core into the ugly set of high -rises that now
pollute the central Bellevue core. These buildings obliterate the view and beauty
of the area. One of the strengths of the Tukwila area is its accessibility to smaller
companies trying to get started, and to the wide diversity of people who live and
work in the area. Wants to maintain a down home ambience. Envisions a more
developed waterfront incorporating riverfront office specialty retail. East side
of river for hotels. Easy access to the river from the Southcenter area and
Southcenter Parkway. Wants to find a way to find a viable place in the area for
warehouse /distribution/light industrial facilities don't push these uses out.
5
City ofTukwila, Washington
Public Workshop #2
On
Tukwila Urban Center Plan
Summary of Public Comments
Embassy Suites Hot~l
June 30, 2003
1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The input received at the workshop - from both verbal and written comments - is
summarized below. The comments have been organized into four sections: Land Use &
Urban Design, Implementation, Others, and Summary of Written Comments.
Workshop Comments:
Land Use & Urban Design
. There is a 200'+ setback along the Green
River to protect the Chinook Salmon, an
endangered species. How much setback is
appropriate for the uses proposed along the
river's edge? Ifresidential is a land use,
which the community supports, the setback
can be of any depth, from 50' to 200'.
Residential is a great idea, even ifthere are
possible problems with wildlife, i.e. salmon.
. The proposed ideas are impressive; there is
something missing. The idea of
civic functions is missing, with
civic center functions connecting
their current location on the hill to
the Center or locating directly in
the Center. Library, Youth Center,
Post Office, even a Hotel wi
Convention Facility.
~;
I~_. ~
"'-..
~,tIp~. O~lE-tc.T
. W/pJ:rMc....
,I
"'. -./
:...Ll~ Tffl~ l~.! _
'"
,
"
\
"
· If residential were located at the
river, would it include retail
1
.
services? Yes, it could such as ground floor retail with residential above, in
specific strategic locations. (comer store, not competing with Center retail). All
districts would be planned to be mixed-use, with special attention to where uses
are located.
Tukwila Pond is a very good area to focus energy; make it feel that the entire
ruc is part of a unified business community. An example is PIano, Texas where
business focuses on a lake as
central feature. Uses (office and
residential) don't back up directly
onto the lake but leave a public
realm ledge with space in between.
. Southcenter Parkway as a "spine"
is a good idea, the idea of the Pond
as a spine is a good idea. Expand
the idea by adding other amenities,
like an amphitheater. The idea of 4
. ,. - . \. districts in the rue is a good idea.
Transportation and transportation improvements need to service pattern.s of
development rather than traffic improvement decisions being made in the absence
of the physical realities of the center and its proposed changes.
Currently people leave the center in the evening. If residential would become a
use, other residential support uses would need to be brought in, together with
other evening activity which would help the center. Evening activity should be
focused on the pond, (like in Providence, RI).
. The pond edge (space between the
pond and adjoining development)
needs to be a place where people can
walk and relax. There needs to be
room for open space (a park-like
setting) and activity, a little of both.
The north half should be developed,
the south half should be park/open
space/natural.
. There should be a marker/
monument marking the axis; where the pond becomes the meeting place (a
meeting place for all kind of reasons!)
The pond as a meeting/gathering place is a good idea, with multiple linkages/
connections. (a raising of hands showed a larger number of people supporting the
idea of a portion of the' . ~;
pond edges being kept as
natural open space rather
than being ringed with
development).
If the center is to become a
walkable district, there
\OIW"L.A ~'O -Ic~uo ~~-rre- (
.~~. -.~ ~
.
.
1Jr-'~';\J'
};Ffv\l-,.\ <-
.
.
,y~~~
-~ ~-..
. .... -. -,.-'
- ".-~~ -.~
'V~ -k'-' - .l-J~~
~err( tf- .4\lvfTl~~. ~ ~l
2
needs to be reasons for people to walk. The idea is restructuring the center, not
redevelopment.
The ideas shown in Alternative 3 are good; the idea of three (3) zones is not a
good idea. Alternative.3 makes
best use of the pond as the focus.
The idea of Southcenter
Boulevard as a focus is not a
good idea. The Pond as focus,
with a spine is a better concept.
The idea is a "walkable", "nice
center" .
Alternative 3 should expand
retail further south into an
extended long L-shape,
extending all the way to the south
end of the TUC site, to include
the Big Box retail zone on the east side of the TUC, at Minkler.
In Alternative 3, can residential uses being extended to border the pond? While
that is a possibility, it would probably require shifting retail uses further south.
Where do hotels fit in? Hotels locate well at the edge of the river; they combine
well with residential uses, to have the residential district feel. Hotel/lodging could
be anywhere in the TUC.
.~---'------~'\ '
{' 1""'\ - 1 ~ - ~ \~
..? NoT 1?f.)t>V6H l}.'.~-!2!-. ~;. ,_.....
_--f~ _ i "'-'o...-f"::..
: ( J..r:r- 2-
'.- c-",- N.VvH \"'c~lo- f"WGF-.,
.
.
.
.
· In Alternatives 1 and 3, there may
not be enough area dedicated for
workplace. Alternative 2 has too
much workplace; there should be a
medium between the two
approaches.
u . . What is workplace as a land use?
Where is it going? It includes office, warehouse and distribution.
The neo-traditional ideas about the Urban Center as shown in the Alternatives are
good, particularly as a transit-focused Urban Center, The focus of the TUC as
workplace is to stay, which maintains a big daytime population.
.
Implementation
· Do improvements/changes in the public realm come first; what leads? For
example, in the case of Strander Blvd.: Put in streetscape improvements first,
prioritize changes, establish cost estimates for intended changes and determine
how to implement changes. Are changes treated
as City incentives, or are they incremental ~ ?
improvements, implemented as you go along?
Or are they done all at once, with payback later?
(public expenses/private expenses or shared
expenses).
3
. Concern over piece-meal implementation.
. Is the idea of creating districts tied to the idea of market absorption, like 20-year
absorption cycles? FTB believes that cycles of change are shorter, more like 7 to
10 years.
Others
. The Segale project, which is being planned south of the TUC, has large-scale
plans that may compete with the TUC. To date no information has come forward
to know what exactly is being planned. (Segale's representative at the workshop
offired the following: Segale bought Gateway Business Park (600 acres) from
Boeing. The property is being planned by Design Workshop as a mixed-use/
multi-use development, with a major focus on residential, not as a retail mall.)
Summary of Written Comments Received:
. The City should work with the developers, etc to get a drugstore to come in. One
has to go over to Renton or up the hill to the Safeway in McMicken Heights to
buy any of the many products a drugstore carries. Many of the workers in the area
would like to take care of errands on their lunch break or after work. Perhaps a
drugstore/ grocery would be good.
. Do not turn the central Tukwila core into the ugly set of high-rises that now
pollute the central Bellevue core. These buildings obliterate the view and beauty
of the area. One of the strengths of the Tukwila area is its accessibility to smaller
companies trying to get started, and to the wide diversity of people who live and
work in the area. Wants to maintain a down home ambience. Envisions a more
developed waterfront incorporating riverfront office & specialty retail. East side
of river for hotels. Easy access to the river from the South center area and
Southcenter Parkway. Wants to find a way to find a viable place in the area for
warehouse/distribution/light industrial facilities - don't push these uses out.
. As the city develops plans for the Southcenter business area, 1'd like to be notified
of the coming workshops because I think our business community would be very
well served by ensuring that trees, native plants, drought-tolerant plants, and
landscaping for wildlife are part of this plan.
4
City ofTukwila, Washington
Public Workshop #1
On
Transit-oriented Development (TOD) Plan
Summary of Public Comments
Embassy Suites Hotel
July 1,2003
1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The input received at the workshop - from both verbal and written comments - is
summarized below. The comments have been organized into three sections: Land Use &
Urban Design, Opportunities & Constraints, and Implementation.
Workshop Comments:
Land Use & Urban Design
· If residential uses are proposed for the TOD, how do odors from the Renton
Sewage Treatment facility affect housing? (Odor control technology is being used
to upgrade facility in the near future.)
· The impact of noise and vibration are issues;
while noise is easy to mitigate, vibration is
not.
· There should be more pedestrian connections,
more people movement space and fewer cars
in the TOD.
· What are ideas about building density and height for the TOD?
· Ifthere are tall buildings in the TOD what are the requirements for vertical
clearance from the power lines?
ff~tt~p'"r i.kL, ~ " -"<?,u
~~ ~
> .r"-- ~~ "~1\- -
\f l.2:.~(f,1J~ ~ ~_-
· Similar to the TUC, the TOD
needs a focus area.
· One vision for the TOD
includes residential/office/ and
retail/mixed-use. Retail would
be neighborhood -serving
retail; building heights would
1
range from 65-ft to 125-ft.
Another vision for the TaD is high-density suburban, pointing to "place", a well-
designed neighborhood, good signage, a place, not reaching for the freeway, but
being a place on its own.
Residential-serving support retail like a grocery store is important. Location of
retail near the station is a good idea.
The TaD needs to be a destination, not just a pass-through. It should have small-
scale retail, like a place to hang out.
The station needs to have a park (a greenish square), a place to linger, with cafes.
Parking should be
discouraged for
residential/office uses.
What does the word:
"Tukwila" mean? It is the
Indian name for a tree
type.
Looking from the station
platform, you could see
the river, looking west
you would see Longacres . .
Park, looking east you .~,tr~....&o ..~
would see the connection to the mall, and you would know where you are; there
would be a sense of orientation.
West Valley Highway is a separator, it is too wide and pedestrian unfriendly.
Create connections, integrate access!
Are residential uses a viable option for the TOD? Is the presence of the power line
and the railroad tracks a deterrent for residential development? Perhaps office
uses are a better alternative?
Residential development is a good idea for the TaD, it will bring residents to the
valley floor.
Residential uses need support services, like an elementary school; if that is
provided it would work.
Tukwila has historically been a crossroad: it misses a light rail station, a modal
transfer station, where all modes come together in one place. This may lead to
considering two alternatives:
"l~ ',Iv~i.'t;;
--" - .:~
- :;.~!:;... : -.-- - -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~~_~~-:~:<7 ~____d_-.
7----rl- . . 'r- Tt:.
..~ ;.~: !~r.:~y~_ -,;, ~1'~L!
-",~J'~ . Uwi r.It'-:t!\J.'I~lJ1'-.'S n-\~~*~'Il~_
~~Jr~ ;)\. i;;rfi;~~~~~f;.if:~~::-~
.,-.- - '" ~'1
1"1'- t4t~~
A. Mixed-
use/residential-oriented
alternative
B. Dense-activity
oriented alternative
Is residential a viable use
for the TaD site? Site
size?
.
2
Opportunities & Constraints
. Can the two railroad easements be consolidated together with the Puget Energy
high-voltage power line easement, all pushed to the eastern edge of the site?
. The number of trains using Sounder Station will be increased; Amtrak will have
26 trains per day stopping at Sounder Station. The station should be made more
accessible. The idea is to bring people from SEA TAC airport to the station to take
the train to Portland or Va,ncouver, BC.
e There will also be an increase in freight trains.
. Regarding the issue of rail line consolidation into one shared easement, this
alternative should no longer be pursued as an option due to the planned increase
in train frequency on the tracks.
. Current landowners (6-8) may not want to participate in any changes; however the
transit station is a fact. If in addition tracks would be moved, then there could
perhaps be a vision for change.
. Can high-tension power lines be moved east? This requires further research.
. If all constraints remain, should the station just become a train stop with a parking
lot? Or should it be a station with an in-town feel?
e Consider expanding the TaD boundary to the west, to the edge of the Green
River!
. What is happening with the Boeing Longacres project, is it real, and how many
people will be on the Boeing site?
. There are a number of regional components like the BRT and the 405
improvements. How do they interplay with the TOD?
Implementation
. What is a realistic time factor regarding development of the TaD, and what is the
length oftime for transition? Is there a moratorium, and how will that affect
plans? (the current development moratorium will end in August; it will most
likely be extended for another 6 months, until plans for the TaD are completed.)
. How long will it take to implement the TOD - there is concern over the length of ,
time required to implement the TOD.
. What happens in the transition phases when implementing this kind of a project?
What happens to parking, now, in the interim and at final built-out?
o There are concerns about the costs involved to achieve the TOD.
. There is concern that this project needs to be expedited quickly; and if railroads
don't commit within a reasonable timeframe to move ahead (lyear), current
development patterns should remain, to function as they are today.
. Will each alternative have its own market analysis so people could judge on the
viability of each alternative? (There will be a general market analysis about
trends in the market. This will befol/owed by afinancial analysisfor the
preferred alternative at a later point in the study.)
· There is a need for project milestones and key decisions with a time line to track
project progress.
3
City of TukwUa, Washington
Public Workshop #3
On
Tukwila Urban Center Plan
Summary of Public Comments
Embassy Suites Hotel'
September 15, 2003
1 p.m. to 3 :30 p.m.
The input received at the workshop - from both verbal and written comments - is
summarized below.
. Create connections to the
transit center both on
Strander and Baker
Boulevards in the long
term. Strander will be
mainly for vehicles and
Baker for pedestrians.
. Really like both
alternatives. Want to do
both of these concepts.
. Keep going with these
two concepts!
. Love Mall to Pond
connection better. It
makes the ruc core
more special. Hope the Westfield will expand toward the Tukwila Pond. The
Tukwila Pond should be a focus of the ruc core. The Pond has to change
dramatically. (Many participants supported the Mall to Pond connection.)
. Either overpass or underpass across Strander for the north-south connection
between the Mall and Pond may mitigate traffic congestion.
· Indoor space could be considered instead .of the open linear connections for the
TUC Core because of rainy weather in Tukwila.
WorkshoD Comments:
~> - t~ri#"'t-1~=~ If" j-"~l~tT_~~"
-. p :...:...
- - . ~':6~#~v;.){!,;,,~i?'iJg;,-y~ 3L
.',' 1~'~ fu.. -!", ,,-j'~"*
-- t-:./.-.,.--..---.-...r-..--...-;;-----1~-"'-~.-~.,,~~ ~
~- -, A. _.!'....~~,rj;.~@:k_~_ _. /,__--_-~_:__ o:-~
a,..~ot'..r.vJi-.--Cr'. -
"h..
~ :;;:.;~. ~
t
....,..
.~.
{~Of.~ t t..p f~- ~ ~ L~;
f:: ~-" -q..<...........
f~'
-----.~-";--.
1
The distance from the esplanade to
the Tukwila Pond is a concern. It
seems too close to protect vegetation
and provide a panoramic view of the
Pond. Check the distance again.
Do not develop the Tukwila Pond.
The Tukwila Pond should be kept as
the Pacific North West kind of
amenity. Keep the distance from the
Tukwila Pond to surrounding
developments.
Do Pond to Mall linkage! Invest most
money to this improvement.
Improve Southcenter Parkway and S. 180
through signage guidelines - requires
minimum investment.
Which changes are better, big public
changes or incremental changes? It should
be between these two, since neither
Mizner Park nor Santana Row is
commercially successful.
Focus not only on the pond but also on the
river. Make the river more recreational
and introduce cafes, office parks and
housing.
H-shape structure composed by Strander
Boulevard, Mall-Pond connection and the
Green River is important. The Mall-Pond
connection and river should provide
different activities.
Station should be located on Baker in both alternatives.
connection to the housing in the TOD area.
Both concepts are great, but mall owner will not control anybody else's
properties. The issue is who do first, either the mall or city.
Need to project how much Tukwila will grow to determine how much housing is
necessary in the future. Currently, there are 17,000 people.
Like Southcenter Parkway median concept. Do not take out any functional
convenience for retail.
Median on Southcenter Parkway will cause a visibility issue.
Taking out a left-turn lane from Southcenter Parkway will reduce the capacity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'~'!.t:;i",jjl,'~ ,"
~ .
:::t' -,;~W' t~tt*-- -.il?.!) of ~P[).
=tMillm_-~-~~:c ----:-- ~ ---~ ~ "_ .
'1I~~fllil ~ . ~
~f:~.J~__ _:f~..,~).~Jht~tr1~1;_
~ ~ 1
~-<A1;~~~ i-'t~~-
fnitiaf Catalyst
2
City ofTukwiJa, Washington
Public Workshop #2
On
Transit-oriented Development (TOD) Plan
Summary of Public Comments
Doubletree Guest Suites
September 16, 2003
1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The input received at the workshop - from both verbal and written comments - is
summarized below.
W orkshon Comments:
· The TOD area is expanded and the original wedge-shape area is now in the Phase
II. What is the current status of moving the railroad tracks?
· The focus of both schemes is moving toward west (the Mall) and away from the
original TOD area. Concern is that investments are also moving away from the
area.
· The original TOD area is under moratorium and cannot do an}1hing with it. Need
to know when it will be expired?
· Having residential up to Andover Park West is a good idea.
· Like both alternatives! (Many people supported both concepts)
· Prefer Mall-Pond concept. (Multiple people supported this concept.)
· Prefer Baker concept because of the better connection from tIle transit center to
the mall. (Some people supported this concept.)
· The Mall expansion will affect both concepts. Need to know what the mall owner
really wants to do and what
improvements will happen to Klickitat.
· Show Strander extension in all
drawings. ri/;t'.
. Both concepts are excellent! Strander
and Baker bave to be connected 10 the
relocated station and have to go
through to Boeing. Timing issue is
also crucial.
~ 1m " " rr-~-~ I CV'~-. U
- -- -,-,,- ) ~- " -
-:..~.-.--.:....: !-, ~
ti:fit. .. 0" J' ~_....~
-~ -:, <_.-- . ~~
~.{'( ~ ~. f I O"Jo __ ~
~rl;c' ;~~~\\-!':~~ii~:!;~
:-..- -;.~
~E"':":;2?7~im~i<<:-?'~~- '= -t-. - "0 <f)P'1"1:
. ~,~ -":l;'F ~t"
~f2 . '{
I
Move Mall to Pond connection toward west and
locate retail stores on the west side of pond. There
are fewer constraints. If do something on the
Tukwila Pond, do it now! Create all three
connections in the long run including Baker and two
Mall to Pond connections.
Expand the retail cluster on Baker and create an
esplanade along the river. Locate TOD core along
the river with convenience retail and cafe.
Like to see something by the river that is convenient
for walking along the river. (Multiple people
supported this idea.)
Need to coordinate with the Army Corp.
Engineer about developments along the i.
river.
In Baker alternative, the distance between
the transit center to the Mall might be too
far. A shuttle bus service should be
considered.
Like new bridge on extended Baker
Boulevard.
A pedestrian bridge across West Valley
Hwy may be necessary.
Enough commuter trains are necessary to
make something happen around the
station.
Bring in civic uses such as a visitor information center.
-±1
A;g4
4.
2
City ofTukwila, Washington
Public Workshop #4
On
Tukwila Urban Center Plan
&
Transit-oriented Development (TOD) Plan
Summary of Public Comments
Double Tree Hotel Guest Suites
February 26th, 2004
1 :00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Implementation Strateev
. The Tukwila Pond still looks very urbanized. It will destroy water habitats.
Should create viable natural environment on three edges at least. Water comes
down from the hill and flows into the Tukwila Pond. Connect Tukwila Pond to
the Green River with a creek.
. On the south side of the Tukwila
Pond, move 168th street to the south
and produce more space between the
pond and development.
(Underground power line goes
through abutting the planned 16Sth
street and it looks like a sidewalk.)
. ***More than a half people
supported the idea to implement the
Mall to Station fIrst and nobody opposed.
. Should change Tukwila before it dies.
. Like to see more housing along the river. (There are townhouses along the river
but they are not visible enough from a distance.)
. Open space is precious for wildlife habitats and plants. Interpreted displays of
wildlife habitats and plants are good for public and environmental education.
. Convention center in the "wedge" is a good idea.
. Asphalt/permeable surface issue should be written in the policy document.
. Relocate the city hall on the south side of the Tukwila Pond.
rf.;rr';~'~'if"~ !." ;. '''''" ,.' I "~1
~~~~;<<~'~:~,,,.~, ,:,<}~
:~}~:,,:;\l ht> l),lI<"J;1g {iu~l.': ~.L~~
:-::):_.~.~-,' .:-:-'-. . - 1.-.~ -~ ~-:'~; -:.;H~i ~~':Fr.-"":"",: t
:q~:r .1." ,,'
1
Land Use & Development Policy
Should permit as high
buildings as possible
ifF.A.R. allows.
Put conditional use
permit for the area
between the mall building and Tukwila Parkway.
Extend 12/140 area all way up to Tukwila Parkway.
Housing in the ruc Core will be impacted by traffic and noise.
the Tukwila Pond is better for housing.
Five-story housing is too tall. Should be three stories.
Height transition
toward the Green
River is a good idea,
i.e. lower height limit
along the river.
Office may not be
feasible in the ruc
because TUC is a
retail area.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
f~!~~---":: '",
~'"';'~~>I~.~" '-;'
:,,__ __" - =-~_r. - =-.'~ _
.,. - -~ ~ _._~ -"- :
ff,W:'nf!,il~-J.:iIl~,T;T;;';';i.t-~f;::;_ ;
.l ".'
I .~ t~li'"f~"-~'~ !-5-ti ->.'"~-~ !)~j~;
',I :L -I l 1 .
" r .."'. :1.:;~.~ 1
, \"0' l4~.\lJ 1
The south side of
l' -'. l
~~- __~l:~~~;~21.~l~;~~!.I;~~ " r/~,-- ';1
" l \d L ~"-.- - --
1. . ". ,r~'
. ~". -...:~. ~:'-'" .'. '.. . -"~ - - - ..............---..--. - :
-<" ".., 0"".- - t.- .
. . rI ~ .....:. -
. - /~~$'__._ ~-t;". """J~L,",,,;_~ ./ ..;;.,,~
~.....-;~;-d~~~~__~~~~'PI_- -~Ct.."<i;r.. + :w~- -
(.1).--t~{~. !-~i.l 1 ~ ~ ~~~~q'
...
{,uF!' _
Traffic Impacts & Necessary Improvements
. Need to study traffic impacts beyond 2020.
. The 61 st Street Bridge should be relocated to the T-intersection of Andover Park
West and Tukwila Parkway because Andover Park West will be a major arterial
in the ruC.
(There is an elevation change between Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila
Parkway and Tukwila Parkway needs to be moved to the south to relocate the
bridge.)
. Traffic improvements proposal is not as aggressive as land use change proposal.
Should think about how to bring people in the ruc including mass transit.
. Need aggressive solution such as a system that people want to try.
. Use Klickitat improvement to instigate LRT connection to the TUC.
-::'1.~~ l-~'P' u-. . ,t.fih l~llf~1-~.:!~";.Ij"> t;'{.m t>f 1-' h~~6<iV~
, ,c '" d t::::i~~ ~~:~j
, / ~ ~ / - ..-~J((it#j
't;'t- . " FT' .1 ~ t!':;c~~. ':.'. .jJt.itJ--~&.s.
~ "-"! -.'~' l-~"'l__ -....: --4 _'>
~ !~. ,r- ~ l~~'
2
c. Summary of Recent Activities (2005 - 2008)
Since the administrative review draft of the TUC Plan was delivered to Staff by FTB, Staff
has worked on the following activities related to the Plan:
A. Plan Review
. Key DCD and Public Works staff reviewed the Plan.
. After their initial review, Staff sought peer review and a "reality check" ofthe Plan's
recommendations by:
o Organizing an Urban Land Institute Technical Advisory Panel worksession
(comprised of local public and private experts in real estate, development, planning
and finance) to review the Plan concepts and proposed implementation measures.
o Meeting with local and regional mixed use, housing and retail developers on an
individual basis to [md out "does this plan work" and "what else is needed to get the
types of development we need?" These meetings were very informative and, in
general, confirmed the plan's direction and strategies for redevelopment.
Staff further refined their comments on the plan based on these peer group discussions.
B. Plan Implementation
Even though the plan has not yet been adopted, three key points should be noted:
1) The City has been successfully applying for funding to construct some of the key projects
identified to implement the plan;
2) The City has worked with Metro, Sound Transit and WSDOT to ensure that local and
regional transportation investments in Tukwila strongly support the TUC vision; and
3) The types of development envisioned in the Plan are already being proposed in the TUC.
The following list of projects underscores the points outlined above:
Mall to Station Scenario
e Pedestrian Bridge across the Green River - Tukwila received $200,000 in Transportation
Enhancement funds to prepare a type, size and location study for the bridge - an important
landmark for the TUC. The bridge will create a direct link between the rail station and the
adjacent areas planned for transit-supportive, high density mixed use development, the
Southcenter Transit (bus) Station, and shopping and employment areas in the urban center.
. New Southcenter Transit (bus) Station - King County Metro and the City of Tukwila are
designing the new transit center using funding from Metro, Westfield Corporation, and
Tukwila. Remaining TOD grant funds will go towards design and construction.
. Permanent Tukwila Commuter Rail/Amtrak Station - Sound Transit is developing
preliminary engineering and construction plans for the Station. Sound Transit will be
relocating the station to line up with the pedestrian path leading to the urban center. Project
construction will be phased, dependent on available funding.
. Westfield Mall's Transit Connection - As part of the Mall expansion, Westfield is
integrating transit and retail by constructing a direct pedestrian link from the Mall to the new
Transit (bus) Station on Andover Park West.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Area:
. Moratorium - The moratorium was successful in preserving land available for
redevelopment and restricting land uses that do not implement the vision for the TOD area
until TUC Plan is in place.
. Tukwila Station - A 300 unit condo development is proposed, capitalizing on its location
just north of the Rail Station. It will include 5,000 sq. ft. ofretail space.
. Relocation of Union Pacific Railroad - The City of Renton, as part of the Strander
extension project, received a grant to relocate the UP line adjacent to the BNSF line, opening
the area up for redevelopment. To ensure this is able to occur, Tukwila preserved a 100 foot
right-of-way in the parcel proposed for the Tukwila Station development. Renton anticipates
track relocation will occur in 2009/1 O.
Other Projects:
A number of significant redevelopment projects have occurred in the urban center. Again, even
though the Plan was not been adopted, Staff worked with developers to ensure these projects
consistency with the Plan's overall goals and vision:
. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter
. Southcenter Square - Redevelopment of the Penny's Warehouse site
. Baker Boulevard Retail Center - Redevelopment of warehouse/industrial into retail/office.
Included public frontage improvements.
. California Pizza Kitchen - redevelopment of Fatigue property; included publicly accessible
plaza with amenities at key intersection.
. Radovich Project - Redevelopment of the old Texaco site at the comer of Tukwila Parkway
and Andover Park East into retail; includes public frontage improvements.
. Tukwila Pond - A master plan for the pond "edges" and park that enhances and broadens the
functions of the pond in its role as an urban refuge for humans and wildlife is currently
underway. Next steps also include studies on viable water quality improvement options. The
Pond is a focal point of the TUC Plan.