Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-01-CA - CITY OF TUKWILA - BARBER SHOPS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT89-1-CA 89-01-ca po zone denied city of tukwila BARBER SHOPS ZONING CODE Febri'lry 13, 1989 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Swearing in of Police Officer Daniel Ross V// SPECIAL ISSUES Request for amendment of zoning code to allow Beauty /Barber Shops in the P -0 zone. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Council Chambers MINUTES Council President Stoknes called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, MARILYN G. STOKNES (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS L. ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen, Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), John Colgrove (City Attorney), Tom Keefe (Fire Chief), Lucy Lauterbach (Council Analyst), John McFarland (City Administrator), Robert McQueen (Assistant Police Chief), Steve Robinson (Assistant Police Chief), Ron Waldner (Police Chief). Mayor Van Dusen swore into office Daniel Ross as Police Officer. Police Officer Ross was introduced to members of the City Council. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report on the request of Don Crisp for an amendment of zoning code to allow beauty /barber shops in the P -0 zone. The issue is whether or not the City wants to begin to bring in these uses from the C -1 zoning to P -0 zoning. Don Crisp, applicant, 6291 South 153rd, objected to the procedure that was used by the Planning Commission in recommending denial of the request. He felt the main reason the Planning Commission recommended disapproval was that it might open the door to others. Each case should be judged separately. The traffic to each type of business was compared with medical office buildings generating 55 trips per day and a barber /beauty shop generating 24 trips per aay. Doctors and dentists perform personal services and so do harber and beauty shops. These services are the same in a certain sense. Since we are thinking and talking about buffer zones this would be a good buffer between zones. Signs would not be the issue. Councilmembers discussed the issue. Councilmember Moriwaki asked for a reverification of the traffic generated by medical offices as compared to barber /beauty shops. Councilmember Robertson stated this is a change to the zoning code and not a specific use. Councilmember Bauch said if the zone change is made it would start eliminating the P -0 zoning. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW BEAUTY /BARBER SHOPS IN THE P -0 ZONE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WITH THE INTENT TO SUSTAIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED. Discussion on F.D. #1 City Attorney Colgrove stated the vote by Fire District #1 to annex Annexation. to the City passed; the vote to assume the bonded indebtedness of of the City did not pass. The City Council must decided whether or not to go forward with the annexation. This will require an ordinance and the other issue will be the effective date for the annexation to take place. The County Council will accept the results of the vote during the day on February 21, 1989. The County will make known the results to the City. It is possible tnt City can take action on February 21 or wait until February 27. Th actual date of annexation could be March 1, 1989. Mayor Van Dusen stated this is a big policy decision. We cannot bring in new police officers and send them out in an unknown area immediately. The City should discuss what is to be done. The Councilmembers asked for the Mayor's recommendation. Mayor Van Dusen stated the decision to annex Fire District #1 without their assuming bonded indebtedness is up to the City Council. ZONING AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL _ "LAR MEETING MINUTES February 1989 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Authorize Mayor to execute an agreement to transfer owndership of Fort Dent Park to Tukwila - contd. Council president Stoknes stated she agreed with Councilmembers Harris and Duffie. Fort Dent is a beautiful park. It will always be in Tukwila and will always be a park. The agreement is not acceptable; just policing Fort Dent is an issue. The monetary requirements and the time schedule they have presented are not favorable. We might not be able to meet some of the schedules and then they could take back the park. Councilmember Bauch stated this is a park in Tukwila and it should be owned and operated by Tukwila. Councilmember Hernandez stated she did not like the way the agreement is written. The City could spend $2 million by 1996. The agreement is not favorable to the City. The Quit Claim Deed is not really that kind of a document. Councilmember Moriwaki stated the City is not buying Fort Dent, the County is turning the park over to the City. The improvements they are asking us to make are things that should be done anyway. It is valuable property -- 51 acres of waterfront property that has been totally developed. This kind of property is not available at any price. It is a major recreation complex which will raise revenues. The money that the City puts into the park is not going to be lost. Councilmember Robertson stated there are arguments on either side. The issue is the money that would have to be expended over the next 7 - 8 years. He stated he would like to see the contract changed so it becomes a quit claim deed with the provision that the City make the improvements when they can. A better negotiated contract is needed. Becky Reid, 5103 South 164th, member of the Park Commission, stated the Park Commission would like to have Fort Dent come into the City. This much property cannot be acquired at present. The County is asking the City to maintain and improve the park. They want the City to put in basketball and volleyball courts. We do not have any in the City. King County is asking the City to make a.commitment to maintain the park and make improvements. King County will never put in these improvements. The revenue the City will receive will make it break even. We may lose an opportunity for a valuable park. Councilmember Harris stated the park is for all of the people and we all paid for it. Fort Dent is for the adults; we need to have a place for the youth. King County wants to be relieved of the maintenance. Charles Simpson, audience, stated he would like to see the money spent on Fort Dent. The park has diminished. Little League fields are needed. The City could use the park to full capacity. We have always had Tukwila police down there, the County does . not seem to police it. * MOTION FAILED, WITH BAUCH AND MORIWAKI VOTING YES. Councilmember Robertson stated the Mayor has been instructed to go back to the County and negotiate on the contract. Council upholds the MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT COUNCIL UPHOLD THE recommendation of the PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND DENY PROPOSED ZONING Planning Comm. to deny CODE AMENDMENT TO MAKE BEAUTY /BARBER SHOPS A PERMITTED USE IN prop, zoning code amendment COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -THE P -0 ZONE. * '\ ment to make beauty/ barber shops a permit- Council President Stoknes stated she'felt beauty salons and barber ted use in P -0 zone. shops are compatible. She suggested this be a conditional use in the P -0 zone. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated beauty /barber shops are not permitted in the P -0 zone. There are very few conditional uses in the P -0 zone. TO: Community and ( ks Committee FROM: Lucy Lauterbach DATE: February 9, 1989 SUBJ: T.M.C. Text Amendment - Beauty Parlors LL:nb An applicant has requested the City change its T.M.C. to allow beauty and barber shops to operate in a P -0 zone. The P -0 zone currently does not allow personal services outright, with the exception of medical and dental offices. The applicant has argued that because beauty shops are not substantially different from medical offices they should also be allowed to operate in a P -0 zone. Both the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission recommendations were to not change our T.M.C. Their decisions were based on the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies regarding the P -0 zone and how it differs from the C -1 zone. The P -0 zone was intended to be different from the next highest zone, which is C - 1. C -1 does allow neighborhood retail including personal services such as beauty shops. The rationale for having a P -0 zone with only offices and professional associations allowed was to allow for a buffer zone between residential and more intensive commercial areas. Office areas generate fewer daily traffic trips than retail or commercial, and they generally are open only during the day, with no evening and weekend hours. They also don't generally need advertising signs. When the Zoning Code was adopted in 1982, medical and dental officers were allowed in P -0. Possible reasons this may have been allowed are because medical offices are also generally daytime uses; they are generally thought of as professional offices rather than businesses; they do not usually display their profession through windows; and they don't use outside advertising signs. These may or may not be justifiable reasons for allowing medical offices specifically in a P - zone that otherwise allows only office uses. The applicant has argued that a beauty parlor is very much like a medical office. In some ways they are similar, but in other ways a beauty shop is more like other personal services like laundry, dry cleaning, shoe repair, travel agencies and photography studios. These are the kinds of uses our C -1 zone is designed for. If beauty and barber shops are allowed in our P -0 zone, then the other personal services will argue they should also be allowed. This would effectively eliminate the current P -0 zone, which would mean C -1 would be the next highest zoning designation after RMH. As stated before, the P -0 zone was originally meant as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial uses. Offices generally have lighter environmental and traffic impacts than commercial establishments. Finally, only one other city, Bothell, allows beauty shops in their office zone. Renton, Kent, Aburn, Bellevue and Redmond do not; King County does not have a a- 0 zone. The Committee will discuss this issue Monday before the Committee of the Whole reviews it. The applicant who wants this text amendment is very anxious for the Council to carefully consider the issue, as they are reserving space in a new office building in hopes the Council will change this. Formal action will be taken February 21 based on the C.O.W. discussion on the 13th. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Knudson, Kirsop and Verhalen. Mr. Coplen was absent. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Cerr Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR CAGLE MOVED AND MR. VERHALEN SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 11, 1989 MINUTES AS WRITTEN. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 -1 -CA TUKWILA ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Request to amend the Tukwila Zoning Code to allow barber and beauty shops and other personal services as permitted uses in the PO- Professional Office zone. Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviawed the staff report, entering it into the record as Exhibit A. She indicated that staff recommended denial of the request. She' alto entered' into the record as Exhibit B a letter in support of the request from Mr. Don Crisp, dated October 7, 1988. It was then distri- buted to the Commission for review. The applicant, Mr. Don Crisp, 6291 S. 153rd favor of the proposal stating that beauty and comparable to doctor, lawyers and other prof permitted uses in PO zones. He requested th approve the request. Mrs. Doris Walters, 6250 S. 153rd felt that benefit by the addition of a beauty shop in thi a small beauty shop like this one would gi attention to clients. The public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Discussion ensued on the proposal. treet, spoke in barber shops are ssions which are t the Commission the City would area. She felt e more personal APPENDIX El Planning Commission January 26, 1989 Page 2 MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO DENY APPLICATION 89 -1 -CA TO AMEND THE TUKWILA ZONING CODE TO ALLOW BARBER AND BEAUTY SHOPS AND OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE PO- PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE. THE MOTION FAILED WITH MR. HAMILTON AND KIRSOP VOTING YES; AND MR. VERHALEN, CAGLE AND KNUDSON VOTING NO. After further discussion a second motion was made. MR. VERHALEN MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION 89 -1 -CA TO ALLOW ONLY BEAUTY AND BARBER SHOP USE AS AN ADDITION TO EXISTING USES IN PO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE. THE MOTION FAILED WITH MR. VERHALEN AND CAGLE VOTING YES; AND MR. HAMILTON, KIRSOP AND KNUDSON VOTING NO. Further discussion ensued and a final motion was made. MR HAMILTON INDICATED HE WISHED TO RESTATE HIS ORIGINAL MOTION WHICH WAS TO DENY APPLICATION 89 -1 -CA TO AMEND THE TUKWILA ZONING CODE TO ALLOW BARBER AND BEAUTY SHOPS AND OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE PO- PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. HAMILTON, KIRSOP, KNUDSON VOTING YES AND MR. VERHALEN AND CAGLE VOTING NO. (Chai rman Haggerton did not vote) DIRECTORS REPORT Mr. Pace introduced Marilyn Stoknes, City Council President, and discussion ensued as to the role of the Planning Commission from the standpoint of the City Council. After some discussion, it was determined that it would be beneficial for the City Council and the Planning Commission to hold a joint meeting at some time in the future, the date to be determined at a later time. Mr. Pace discussed the status of the annexations as well as some of the issues the Planning Commission will be dealing with in the coming year. Planning Commission January 26, 1989 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT To the Planning Commission Prepared January 20,1989 January 26, 1989 89 -1 -CA: TUKWILA ZONING CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT Don Crisp Amend the Tukwila Zoning Code to allow barber and beauty shops and other personal services as permitted uses in the PO- Professional Office Zone. Area -wide amendment Ex A- Determination of Nonsignificance A. Letter from applicant B. Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map (Full -sized map of City and proposed annexation areas will be distributed at meeting.) STAFF REPORT to the BAR BACKGROUND This proposal is the result of a request to amend the Professional Office (PO) zone to allow barber and beauty shops (see Attachment A). The Tukwila Zoning Code underwent comprehensive revision in 1982. Until recently, there have been few text amendments. Lately, due to the new neighborhoods proposing to annex, and the changing desires of the community, several sections of the Zoning Code have been changed. FINDINGS A. PROCEDURE FOR CHANGE B. BASIS FOR CHANGE 88 -4 -DR: Foster Center Page 2 The Council may amend the regulations of the Tukwila Zoning Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code "). Before making any changes to the text of the Code, the proposed amendment must be referred to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan (hereinafter referred to as "the Plan ") reflects the desires of the community and directs growth and development. It creates an intent that is carried out in the Zoning Code, its implementing tool. Does the applicant's proposal meet the intent and desires of the community as expressed in the Plan? If not, have there been changes in circumstances, in community conditions that would change the desires, goals and policies of the community for. its environment, thereby warranting an update of the Plan? The following goals, policies and objectives are excerpted from the Plan and are relevant to the request regarding use location. Obj. 1 p. 45 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses by using topography and open space. Comment: The purpose of the PO zone is to provide a transition between residential and commercial /industrial use by using land use. Therefore, use compatibility between the proposal and residential uses is desired. Policy 1 p. 60 Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services. Comment: Allowing the right mix of uses is important to achieving this STAFF REPORT to the BAR Policy 8 p. 62 Comment: Obj. 4 p. 65 Comment: Policy 1 p. 66 Comment: Policy 1 p. 67 Comment: Policy 3 p. 67 Comment: 88 -4 -DR: Foster Center Page 3 policy. It can be argued that beauty /barber shops grouped with office development would be economically beneficial to each other. Encourage a diversity of business uses to promote maximum occupancy. By allowing a wider and varied range of uses in the office zone, maximum occupancy would be encouraged. Encourage the establishment of office uses. Favors a balancing of land uses and suggests using office areas as a transition between retail and residential uses. Encourage the use of commercial office developments as buffers between residential land uses and other land uses. The scale and character of office buildings are not larger than multi family and therefore have the least impact on residential uses. Encourage the grouping of land uses which vary in business hours to maximize the usage of parking spaces. The Plan refers to making land more attractive to potential developers by encouraging diversity in type of land use. Encourage flexibility in the categories of land use. The description for this policy refers to retail, light and heavy industrial uses accommodating other uses but does not refer to office areas as accommodating additional uses. C. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 1. The purpose of the PO zone as defined in the Zoning Code is to provide for areas appropriate for professional and administrative offices. It is characterized by generally light environmental and traffic impacts and daytime use. These areas are also intended to serve as buffers between residential areas and commercial and /or industrial areas. 2. The zone also permits accessory uses, such as retail sales and food service, which serve the occupants and patrons of the primary office use, provided there is no exterior display or advertising on the building. 3. Attachment B shows the location of office areas as designated on the "Plan" for the current City limits and for proposed annexation areas. Except for the area just southwest of the METRO Park 'n' Ride on Interurban Avenue, the office areas are all adjacent to designated collector STAFF REPORT to the BAR and secondary arterials. 4. Traffic generation per aver 1,000 gross leasable square is 18 per 1,000 gross squar office buildings generate 6 (walk -in) and specialty ret weekday. 5. The proponent states that than and are similar to m zone. 6. Barber /beauty shops are Business Zone. The purp activities to serve the gen primarily convenience re 7. Other personal service us which are also permitted clinics, artist studios, etc. normal business hours unlike most administrati 1. The Plan, while desiring flexi • industrial land use areas, cons category of land use that is di categories. Tukwila's PO zon - residential uses from intense up the zone to additional uses the zone and its limited natu 2. The Code allows accessory us s to provide services and retail uses to office uses in the PO zone. However, the size of the parcels designated for office use in Tukwila limit the size of any . ffice development. This in turn limits the location of accessory uses in t e PO zone due to the lack of a big enough market in the office to support the accessory use. 3. Increase in traffic generation does not correlate directly with the uses in the C1 a factor. zone and does not appear to 88 -4 -DR: Foster Center Page 4 ge weekday for barber shops is 24 trips per feet. Office trip generation per average weekday feet. Government office buildings and medical and 55 respectively. For comparison, banks '1 are 169 and 40 trips respectively per average arber /beauty shops generate impacts no worse dical /dental offices, a permitted use in the PO permitted use in the C -1 Neighborhood se of the C -1 zone is for limited commercial ral surrounding community, characterized by ail with some general commercial use. s similar to the requested use amendment n Tukwila's C1 zone include tailor, shoe repair, All these uses typically operate other than d are often open weekends and evenings, e and professional offices. C 1 NCLUSIONS ility and diversity in its commercial and ders the Office designation as a unique, limited tinct from the other retail and industrial is a relatively benign zone used to buffer ommercial development. Therefore, opening should be done cautiously so that the intent of • is maintained. STAFF REPORT to the BAR 88 -4 -DR: Foster Center Page 5 • Allowing barber /beauty shops and possibly other personal service uses creates a conflict with the purpose section of the Code which refers to "daytime" uses. Some of these uses are often open in the evenings and on weekends, unlike most professional office areas. • Circumstances in the City, and circumstances relating to the uses under review do . not appear to have changed substantially since the Code was adopted in 1982. Therefore, given the range and type of uses allowed in the C1 zone, it seems more appropriate to keep the use in the neighborhood business zone. 6. Any amendment to include a review of barber /beauty shops would necessitate review and amendment to include other service - oriented uses such as shoe repair, dry cleaning, tailors, banks, loan and finance companies, etc., which sell a personal service. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the Comprehensive Plan and purpose of the PO zone, the Planning Department recommends denial of the proposed amendment to move beauty /barber shops to a permitted use in the PO zone. If the Planning Commission feels the desires and needs of the community have changed, then the policies of the Plan should be reviewed and amended, thereby allowing review and change of the purpose and permitted use sections of the PO zone. Mr. Jack P. Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila, Washington SUBJECT: Request for Change of Zoning Code Manual REFERENCES: Don Crisp 6291 S. 153rd St. Tukwila, WA 98188 October 24, 1988 1. My letter to Mr. John McFarland, same subject, dated October 7, 1988. 2. Mr. McFarland's reply to Reference 1, dated October 12, 1988. 3. Meeting involving my wife and I and you and Mr. McFarland, October 24, 1988. This letter is to formally request that Zone Code PO (professional office) be changed to specifically allow barber and beauty shops. My reason for this request / S presented in Reference 1. Please process this request as soon as possible. As you know, I feel that allowing doctors and dentists in zones which do not also allow barbers and beauticians, is blatently unfair. Therefore, I consider this request as a request to correct an injustice, and not a request for a permit to do something for which a permit is required. Yours sincerely, 411111aIIIWAr 1 on Crisp / 655 -9564 office) 248 -2387 (home) ATTACHMENT A t;+.ird.'vAhn - ':.;�a i "::5:,:,+ -. - .�arf!Lr.V.•. r.:�..... �..._...._..,� ... Mr. John McFarland City Administrator City of Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. McFarland, C x 8 Don Crisp 6291 S. 153rd St. Tukwila, WA 98188 October 7, 1988 RECEIVED OCT 1 0 1988 First of all, I wish to thank you for meeting with me today about the matter which I am about to formalize herein. Your calm, compe manner did much to soothe my frustration. Mr. Bruce Solly is in the process of erecting a building at the northwest corner of Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Avenue South, and he has agreed to lease space to my wife, Luduvina, for the purpose of a beauty salon. After meeting with Mr. Solly, I went to your planning department and learned that a beauty salon could not be established in the proposed building, because it is zoned PO (professional office). I also learned that medical and dental offices are specifically allowed in PO-zoned buildings, so it appears that barber and beauty salons were not also allowed because of an oversight; because, in a business - category sense, medical and dental offices are the same as barber and beauty shops. Medical and dental offices perform a personal service for a fee, and so do barber and beauty shops. Doctors and dentists must be licensed by the State Bureau of Professional Licensing, and so do barbers and beauticians. Doctors and dentists serve clients from all walks of life, and so do barbers and beauticians. As far as causing traffic, medical and dental offices cause more; because, at any particular time, more people are waiting on a doctor or dentist than are waiting on a barber or a beautician. Further- more, a doctor sees more people in a day than does a beautician. In essence, there appears to be no justifiable reason whatsoever for allowing medical and dental offices in buildings where barber and beauty shops are not also allowed. In view of the foregoing, please consider this letter as a formal request for a permit to operate a beauty salon in the aforementioned building. The salon will be nice but small (about 800sf) and would occupy the western end of the building. Approximately four beauticians would be working there, and . there would be no sunbeds or exercise equipment -- just a nice beauty salon serving the immediate community. Page 1 of 2 Pages Request you give this request your immediate attention and disposition. Because of the zoning problem, Mr. Solley is not holding the space for us, so the space could, at any time, be leased to another client, as the location and building are of the first order; also, configuring the building for a beauty salon, now, could be much less expensive than at a later date. Page 2 of 2 Pages Yours sincerely, Do rasp 655 -9564 (0 fice 248 -2387 (home) � ,.....�,,..,.,...- .,......... City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Mr. Knudson was absent. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1989 �•J The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by Chairman Randy Coplen. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Coplen Kirsop and Verhalen. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 21, 1988 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ELECTION OF 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO REELECT RANDY COPLEN AS CHAIRMAN FOR A SECOND TERM. Mr. Coplen declined the nomination. MOTION AND SECOND WITHDRAWN BY MR KIRSOP AND HAMILTON. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO NOMINATE JIM HAGGERTON AS CHAIRMAN. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. COPLEN MOVED AND HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO NOMINATE LEE CAGLE AS VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 1989. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Haggerton commended Mr. Coplen for a job well done. The Commissioners concurred. 88 -4 -DR FOSTER CENTER - Request for design review of the const- ruction of two retail office buildings with a total of 78,895 square feet on 5.72 acres. Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended approval subject to conditions noted in the Staff Report. Mr. Hamilton expressed a concern regarding continued public access to the river. .. J�� >ii �:? �li�; �'::.'(, "..:�`�Y:SG�,:. ��'yieiwX " u%➢ �i; t'.{ iui :ilv' {.'.L:.!kea:,'ab7A.t:'tt. • Planning Commission January 11, 1989 Page 2 1,52't Discussion ensued on the project. The conditions are as follows: MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. rw�..cnnr,.mt.��1-:w.aA m' esd. n.:,. aa. Fa 'tt�al::cc�,n•iS• Mr. Robert Fadden, project architect and applicant represen tive, explained circulation other design features. He considered it appropriate to mark the parking stalls at the easterly end of the southerly building as public available parking for weekends and prior to 8:00 am and after 5:00 pm to provide access to the river. He concurred with the conditions outlined by staff. Michael Rice, President of Park Properties and purchaser of this property, reviewed the tenant interest already expressed and explained that interest has been very strong. He concurred with the provisions of the project to ensure public access to the river. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT BUILDING AS PROPOSED IN 88 -4 -DR WITH THE PROVISION THAT THEY COMPLY WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 THROUGH 5 AS LISTED AND INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF A REASONABLE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS. 1. Complete vacation of Maule Avenue and eliminate any internal lot lines; 2. Provide pedestrian walks having a minimum 4 -foot usable width along buildings and illumination which does not produce off -site glare; 3. Provide rolled curbs at the northern emergency access driveway and sod with grasscrete; 4. All trees shall be root pruned and balled prior to issuance of a building permit; and 5. Final landscape plans to be stamped by a Washington or Oregon State licensed landscape architect, reflect 80% ground coverage in two years, and note provision of an automatic irrigation system serving all planting areas. A five - minute recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:40. 88 -12 -DR - TUKWILA POND Request for design review of a 170,000 square foot retail shopping center adjacent to Tukwila Pond. The proposed development would occupy, with buildings and paved areas, about 14 acres of the total 39 -acre site. ?!Y::Cti :'jTw."n: 7:, is H\ ir}.u•Yt `tkYM�: +Ir_!u('.a+4 Planning Commission January 11, 1989 Page 3 Discussion ensued on the project. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and site plan for the project which will contain a Target store. He stated staff's recommendation is for approval, subject to condi- tions contained in the staff report. Mr. Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners, represented the applicant. He further described the project adding that they concur with staff's recommendations of approval. Vincent Ferrese, Mithun Partners, described architectural features of the project. Joe Miles, Seattle Audubon Society, 619 Joshua Green Building, Seattle stated that they have had concerns regarding the environ- mental impacts, especially wildlife, this project may have on Tukwila Pond. He felt that these concerns have been addressed for the most part. Jerry Adams, Seattle Audubon Society, submitted a letter from the Audubon Society, which was entered into the record as Exhibit I. He supported the use of native plants to prevent human encroach- ment to the pond as well as the other measures the project will incorporate to preserve the fragile pond environment for such things as wildlife habitat. Peggy Dunlap, 15639 - 16th Avenue S.W., Burien, concurred with the comments made by the Audubon Society and added there are too few wetlands that remain and every effort should be made to preserve the Tukwila Pond for wildlife habitat. MR. COPLEN MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE 88 -12 -DR TUKWILA POND DEVELOPMENT, AFTER REVIEWING THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF, WITH THE COLOR OF THE TARGET STORE TO REMAIN AS FIRST PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER. THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COPLEN, HAMILTON, CAGLE, HAGGERTON VOTING YES AND MR. KIRSOP AND VERHALEN VOTING NO. Mr. Pace asked if the Commission intent was to include the conditions contained in the staff report. They indicated that this was their intent. DIRECTORS REPORT Mr. Pace pointed out Mr. Haggerton and Mr. Coplen's terms expire March 31, 1989. He updated the Commission on the annexation progress. He suggested the Commission review the 1989 Work Plan and Design Review Standards at a future meeting. Discussion ensued on the City Council's expectations of the Planning Commission and Mr. Hamilton felt that any concerns the City Council has regarding the Planning Commission should be relayed to the Commission directly. The Commissioners concurred with his comments. Mr. Coplen conveyed his appreciation for the Planning Staff's work and felt it is the best in the State. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary October 12, 1988 Mr. Don Crisp 6291 So. 153rd St. Tukwila, WA 98188 ;yr"m City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor J.1XMT.i,31 .nvf. :F s,': 511 'VV:.",7+,:i1riFSNII!r'i0VM1n 4 !' MV,OrAsf.,•ver∎orarI :�vMY.Mty twist nhlfe,W Dear Mr. Crisp: Thank you for your letter concerning our discussion regarding the dilemma you face with the placement of your business within a Professional /Office zoned area. As I indicated on Friday, I both understand and am sympathetic to your situation. As I also explained, the administration is constrained by the Tukwila Municipal Code regarding action that can be taken to mitigate the problem. The only legal avenues in addressing this issue are represented by a request for rezone of the property, or a change to the zoning code. Both procedures require review by the Planning Commission and appraisal of the City Council. Of the two actions, the request for amendment of the zoning code would likely stand the greatest chance for success. It must be stated that no guarantee of success can be given, however. In terms of time, it could take between three and four months to process a request of this nature. I have included some literature with this letter that more clearly spells out the process. I have spoken with the Planning Director and he is prepared to assist you in any way he can and to try and expedite matters any legal way possible. I trust you understand and appreciate the limitation of our ability to provide you relief administratively. The Tukwila Municipal Code constitutes local law in regard to land use action. If the legislative authority agrees with the merits of your position, that law can be modified. Only the legislative authority is empowered to direct those changes. Neither my office, the Planning Director, nor the Mayor are empowered to grant any variances to these laws. ...'I 3 ttS.4t:F ; zcitti f[FbYr'. i ?..tt wktia Im'. rs+ f{YYf YB �. Mr. Don. Crisp October 12, 1988 Page 2 The Planning Department is prepared to assist you at your request. Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance or information. Best of luck with your business endeavors. I hope things work out in a manner that allows you to realize your objectives. Sincerely, 1 John M. McFarland City Administrator JMM /jec Enclosure cc: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Rick Beeler, Planning Director 'Alb YOtluE tOrom.riTr.4atataabilOrrirlitAt442417101 aYI.W : .....,.,..,... ..........,,..�........_....._. 18 .72.030 -- 18.30.020 18.72.080 Appeal. The action of the board of adjust- ment in granting or denying the application for a variance shall be final and conclusive, unless, within ten days from the date of the board's action, the original applicant or an aggrieved party makes an application to the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982). Sections: 18.80.010 18.80.020 18.80.030 18.80.040 Chapter 18.80 AMENDMENTS Hearings -- Council authority -- Commission recommendations. Protest against zoning change. Rezone -- Building or use becomes nonconforming. Changes initiated by city planning commission. 18.80.010 Hearings -- Council authority -- Commission recommendations. The council may amend, change, modify or repeal regulations and restrictions as established in this title, and may change, restrict or extend the boundaries of the various districts established in this title. Before acting upon any proposed amendment, modification, change, restriction, extension, or change in the maps or text of this title, the same shall be referred by the council to the city planning commission. The commission, after due public notice and hearing, shall submit a report to the council containing its recommendation thereon. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982). 18.80.020 Protest against zoning change. In the case of a protest against any zoning change duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of ten percent or more, either of the areas of the land (exclusive of streets and alleys) in- cluded in such zoning change or within an area determined by lines drawn parallel to and one hundred eighty -five feet distant from the boundaries of the district proposed to be changed, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of a majority of all members of the city council. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982). • 319 -7 (Tukwila 8/82) • rAtcoi,^:.fa: Sections: 18.80.030 Rezone -- Building If, by amendment of this title, a ferred to another district of dif change in the district boundaries existing in such transferred area ment, may be continued in the dis ferred as a nonconforming buildin provisions of Chapter 18.70. (Or 18.80.040 Changes initiated The city planning commission may due public notice and hearing at • and citizens may have an opportun prepared and proposed to the city mending the altering or changing restrictions as provided in this 1982) . 18.84.010 18.84.020 18.84.030 18.84.040 18.84.050 18.84.010 Submission to pla for a change in zoning of any dis boundary lines thereof as shown o submitted to the planning commiss made on such formal application f planning commission and filed wit tions shall be accompanied by a f Chapter 18.88 and shall contain s required by the planning commissi After due public notice, the transmit its recommendations ther with any necessary covenants or a fully executed by the petitioner. N.+ph;t:Ati±U:l. Chapter 1 REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN ZONING 319 -8 ., rnittCNI) 1 gr..:71....4Yt:Fhft nier,n�.•n.��vr.. ++. 18.80.030 -- 18.84.0 20 r use becomes nonconform ing. y area is hereafter trans - erent classification by a a building or use, lawfully at the time of such amend - rict to which it is trans - or use, subject to the 1247 §1(part) , 1982) . by city planning commission. n its own initiative, after hich parties in interest ty to be heard, cause to be council an ordinance recom- f the use, height or area itle. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), .84 Submission to pla ning commission. Submission to cit council -- Action. Criteria for gran ing zoning map reclassifications. Petitions for dec'sion review. Final action. ning commission. Any request rict or area, or of any the zoning maps, shall be on. Said requests shall be rms as specified by the the city clerk. All applica- ling fee as required in ch information as may be n . planning commission shall on to the city council along reements which have been (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.84.020 Submission to cit council -- Action. Upon receipt of all necessary document and the recommendations of the planning commission, the city council may act on said recommendation without further pu•lic hearing. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). (Tukwila 8/82) TOPIC # 09/19/77 Ord. #1039, 'dopting a Comprehensive Land Use Policy -0- Plan and Map 03/16/82 Ord. #1247, adopting a new zoning code and shoreline -0- regulations 04/20/82 Ord. #1251, mending Ord. #1247 by repealing Sect. 5 -0- - 0- 07/16/84 Res. #921, a•proving an Unclassified Use Permit for 4 Seattle Rendering Works 07/16/84 Public Heari g on the Unclassified Use Permit to allow 4 Seattle Rendering to construct a small building 06/03/85 Ord. #1349, - stablishing zoning classification for 2 51st Ave. So. annexation 06/24/85 Public Heari g to rezone McMicken Hts. Annexation area 5 - 0- 07/15/85 Discussion o proposed ordinance amending zoning map 9 on McMicken 1eights Annexation 07/15/85 Discussion o proposed ordinance amending Land Use map 8 to change L Density Resid. & Commercial to Prof.Office 08/19/85 Ord. #1360,Amending zoning map for McMicken Hts. 6 Annexation 08/19/85 Ord. #1359, amending Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan 2 Map 09/16/85 Res. #975, approving Unclassified Use Permit for con- 5 struction o biotower filter system by Seattle Rendering 11/18/85 Ord. #1372, establishing zoning on property annexed 2 to City kno n as 51st Ave. So. between So. 164th & 166th 02/03/86 Public Hear ng to consider zoning on Fostoria Annexation 2 - 0- 02/03/86 Ord. #1381, Establishing zoning for property known as 2 Fostoria An exation 02/18/86 Public Hear ng held on zoning of McLees Annexation 2 (So. 135th) 03/10/86 Forward zon code amendment to Community Affairs Com. 1 -0- 03/24/86 Public Hear ng on McLees zoning classification 1 - 0- 03/24/86 Set public earing for April 14 on High Tech. zoning 1 amendment 04/07/86 Ord. #1385, Adoption of pre- annexation zoning on McLees 6 Annexation 04/14/86 Public Hear ng on zoning code amendment to allow high 1 tech uses a- conditional uses 04/21/86 Ord. #1386, allowing certain high technology uses in 1 C -2 zones w th a Conditional Use Permit 05/19/86 Ord. #1388, Annexing property known as McLees Annexation 1 (So. 135th) 10/20/86 Ord. #1404, amending zoning map by establishing zoning 3 of M -1 for lling Halvorson property at 4621 So. 134th 10/20/86 Public Hear ng to consider zoning classification of 3 M -1 (light ndustry) for property at 4621 So. 134th Pl. 05/04/87 Public Hear ng on zoning proposal for Renton /Tukwila 2 Boundary Ex hange 05/04/87 Public Hear ng to approve zoning for Park /Croissant 4 property re ently annexed to the City Sg a • 7.83 CITY OF TUKWILA C DATE ACTION OF CO CIL PAGE # DATE TOPIC # 05/04/87 05/04/87 05/04/87 05/04/87 07/06/87 07/20/87 08/17/87 09/08/87 11/02/87 02/16/88 03/07/88 03/14/88 06/06/88 09/19/88 09/26/88 10/03/88 10/03/88 10/17/88 10/17/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 11/07/88 11/07/88 11/07/88 11/21/88 ACTION OF COUNCIL 305 Public Hearing amendments for Public Hearing amendments for Discussion and and comp. plan Discussion and and comp. plan CIT:'.OF TUKWILA • +1,:• :n�4,: . . ... � �>�.�♦ .:�.t Ord. #1428, establishing zoning classification for 9 property commonly known as the Park /Croissant annexation Discussion on proposed ordinance amending the Comp. plan 9 map & establishing zoning on Metro Park & Ride annex. Ord. #1424, establishing zoning classification for 4 Renton /Tukwila Boundary Line annexation Res. #1040, approving an unclassified use permit for 5 Seattle Rendering Works Ord. #1433, making ink and paint manufacturing permitted 2 uses in the M -1 District Ord. #1437, making rubber processing a permitted use in 1 the M -1 District Ord. #1444, amending the Comprehensive Plan Use Map 2 designation for property at 5665 So. 178th Council decided they should proceed with establishing 6 pre- annexation comp. plan and zoning for Fire Dist. #1 Ord. #1447, requiring BAR review of commercial develop- 3 ment plans in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. Ord. #1452, to require BAR review of proposed commercial 2 dev. plans in excess of 10,000 sq.ft. in C -2 & C -M zones Res. #1067, approving an unclassified use permit for 5 mixing and storage of topsoil for Renton Sand & Gravel Res. #1068, approving an unclassified use permit for 3 Seattle Rendering Wks. /incinerator & waste -heat boiler Ord. #1467, adopting zoning regulations and map for 5 Fire District #1 annexation study area Ord. #1477, adopting zoning regulations and zoning map 5 for 29 acres south of So. 178th, Schneider annexation Council discussed pre- annexation zoning for the proposed 2 Riverton annexation Ord. #1480, Adopting zoning regulations and map for 1 Riverton annexation area Ord. #1481, Amending the Tukwila zoning code for the 2 Riverton annexation on pre- annexation zoning and comp. plan 2 the Foster annexation on pre- annexation zoning and comp. plan 2 the Thorndyke annexation motions made on pre- annexation zoning 1 amendments for Thorndyke annexation motions made on pre- annexation zoning 1 amendments for Foster annexation Ord. #1487, adopting zoning regulations and zoning map 6 for the Thorndyke annexation area Ord. #1488, amending zoning code to be effective upon 6 annexation of the Thorndyke area Ord. #1485, adopting zoning regulations and zoning map 5 for the Foster annexation Public Hearing on effectiveness of equipment installed 1 at Seattle Rendering Works PAGE # r DATE TOPIC # 01/14/80 01/19/81 01/19/81 03/02/81 04/20/81 06/02/81 09/15/81 11/03/81 02/16/82 03/16/82 03/07/83 05/29/84 06/18/84 06/25/84 11/26/84 12/17/84 05/06/85 09/16/85 10/07/85 11/04/85 01/20/86 03/10/86 04/07/86 08/04/86 05/04/87 05/04/87 05/18/87 •..,.::uyt gib'- �.a'sK '�.:.. �.. ^Y.•J;.:n ACTION OF COUNCIL 280 .-- CITY..OF TUKWILA �g ....+......i:...t.t.....;.i ;? 6 pRio'S, S (*Ad), Ord. #1140, reclassifying property Planning Division File #79 -34 -R Ord. #1200, reclassifying certains R -3 and R -4 (Wynn) Ord. #1201, reclassifying certain C -2 Ord. #1206, reclassifying certain (Schneider /Nilsen) Ord. #1210, reclassifying certain C -2 (Shimatsu) Ord. #1216, reclassifying certain (Sunwood) Ord. #1231, reclassifying certain -0- Ord. #1237, reclassifying certain lands from R -1 to C -2 - 0- Ord. #1244, amending portions of Ord. #1237 for purposes of modifying setback requirements Ord. #1246, amending the Comprehensive Plan Map - 0- Ord. #1289, allowing Planned Residential Development (PRD) in single family districts Public Hearing on Western Pacific Properties rezone request Discussion on proposed resolution to grant an unclassi- fied Use Permit to Seattle Rendering Public Hearing to consider Western Pacific Properties rezone request Public Hearing on rezone of property on Southcenter Blvd. (Western Pacific Properties) Ord. #1339, reclassifying certain property known as the North Hill Rezone from RMH to P -0 Public Hearing on appeal of determination of signifi- cance for Springridge Short Subdivision, Pond Site Public Hearing on proposed Planned Residential Develop- ment by Group 5 Apartments; forward to future C.O.W. Discuss proposed Planned Residential Development by Group 5 and approval of Staff Report of 08/23/85 Ord. #1369, approving a planned residential development for property referred to as the Group 5 Apartments PRD Radovich /Lewison Request for Comp. Plan Amendment Denied -0- Set public hearing of April 7 to hear Group Four/ Schneider Homes request on Mapletree Village PRD Public Hearing on Schneider Homes request for approval of Mapletree Village PRD -- Planning Com. decision upheld Approval of Planning Commission's Findings & Conclusions for Mapletree Park Subdivision (So. 151st & 65th) Public Hearing on comprehensive plan amendment and rezone for Metro Park & Ride Lot annexed to City Public Hearing on Kato Comp. Plan amendment and rezone -0- Ord. #1430, amending the Comp. Plan Map for property at 15419 62nd So. from R -4 to P -O from R -1 -12 to C -2, lands from R -1 -12 to lands from R -1 -7.2 to lands from R -4 to C -1 lands from R -1 -7.2 to lands from R -3 to R -4 lands from R -3 to C -1 PAGE # - 0- -0- -0- - 0- - 0- - 0- - 0- - 0- - 0- - 0- - 0- 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 9 1 2 4 4 3 5 .. i "Aii$ aakiii.4107v54.n�!� a1VArYikSt'?1FK.i1;iSSalltLri!la tlfd'aV.I. iL0∎14WISN7hF: DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL TOPIC # 280 CITY OF TUKWILA a::"xre�uv..wkx s' mxrairat G' dscf�zC+ X. NEt+ s7ftn4YS1 ^1ftCJpf.2123'!w^.'+f'x'C1NVI TMAVIttai ia.M 'AEI:f54:37i44TiriVATl6 ZRAWYttiOnsw nKnwf+seed.ft 06/15/87 Council accepted the final plat for the Mapletree Park 4 Development 06/15/87 Council accepted findings & conclusions on Silverview 3 Preliminary Plat 08/17/87 Ord. #1444, amending the Comprehensive Plan Use Map 2 designation for property at 5665 So. 178th 10/05/87 Council approved final plat for Silverview Subdivision 4 located at 54th Ave. So. and Slade Way 03/07/88 Public Hearing on rezone of property east of 65th and 3 Southcenter Blvd. set for 04/04/88 03/07/88 Ord. #1454, rezoning certain property located north of 4 17015 Southcenter Pkwy. from R -1 -7.2 to C -2 03/21/88 Council accepted preliminary plat submitted by Gateway 6 Corp. Center as recommended by Planning Com. (Kaiser) 04/04/88 Public. Hearing on rezone located east of intersection 1 of 65th & Southcenter Blvd. (Schneider) 04/04/88 Council denied Schneider rezone at intersection of 65th 3 & Southcenter Blvd. 09/19/88 Council approved Gateway Corporate Center Subdivision 5 final plat PAGE # APPLICATION DATE FILE NUMBER l I PROJECT NAME ADDRESS FILE APPLICANT 1 CROSS REFERENCE ACTION 3/13/89 89 -1 -CPA . SYLVAN GLEN 18059 - 57th AVENUE S. PRIKMARK EPIC -4- 89/89 -1 -R/ 89_1_pu�P /89 -4 -DR/ ^ _'_ - ;c / : ;_:c- :^ =' - A VJ►f+c Rfs = =,i; —:`= 4/1/89 89 -2 -CPA CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION BETWEEN MILITARY RD. S. /HWY. 99/152ND STREET & 116TH STREET; SEATTLE, WA CITY OF TUKWILA I COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 1989 1 50K - ir .4 0 (1-(6j 4 .S.Ltc-•Va . Stw.1 te,',40:711,-.4:1' • ••••1$2t.,.. re.res tread 225.03 HASTINGS, MN. — LOS ANGELES LOGAN, OH. — McGREGOR, TX. — LOCUST GROVE, GA. U.S.A "FIN CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /8'9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REGULATING DEVELOPMENT ON SENSITIVE AREAS AND BUFFERS; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS 1247 AND 1289 AND TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TITLE 18; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1331 AND 1334 AND TMC TITLE 21.04; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 1014 AND TMC TITLE 17; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council considered regulation of development on sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila and referred the issue to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the State of Washington has subsequently through RCW 36.70A mandated that local jurisdictions pass legislation protecting sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible Official made a determination of non - significance on October 25, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council upheld the determination of non - significance at an appeal heard on December 18, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on November 9, 1989, November 16, 1989, August 30, 1990, and September 6, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council President and the Mayor appointed a citizens' committee on November 27, 1989 to study the issue; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized certain consultants' reports as follows: 1. Wetlands Inventory by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., dated September 1989; superseded by Watep Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations dated May 1990. 2. Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment by Hart Crowser, Inc., dated May 3, 1990. • 3. Geologic Hazards Evaluation by GeoEngineers dated May 9, 1990. 4. Tukwila Hillsides — Design and Development Standards by Johnson Architecture /Planning dated March 6, 1990 5. Watercourse Rating Data Sheets by Jones & Stokes, Inc., dated October 1990; and WHEREAS, After considering the testimony at public hearings, the recommendations of the citizens' committee and the consultants' reports, the Planning Commission made Findings and recommended a draft. Sensitive Areas Ordinance to the City Council on October 25, 1990; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the City Council on April 22, 1991 and April 24, 1991; and WHEREAS, after considering the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the citizens' committee, the consultants' reports and the testimony at the public hearings and after numerous public meetings of the City Council, the City Council has determined that it is necessary and desireable and in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to regulate development on sensitive areas and their buffers; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council finds as follows: 1. The environmental features identified as sensitive areas which require regulation by Tukwila are: coal mine hazard areas, areas of potential geologic instability, watercourses, wetlands and important geologic and archaeologic resources. 2. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance will implement goals and policies of the 1978 Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. 3. The 1990 Washington State Legislature approved ESHB 2929 (1990 Wash. Laws 17) (RCW 36.70A) which mandates that certain counties, and cities within those counties, address the protection of critical Sensitive Areas Ordinance 18.06.045 Applicant 1 t Pa _e 2 areas. Critical areas as defined in ESHB 2929 correlate generally with the Tukwila definitions and categories of sensitive areas. This Sensitive Areas Ordinance is designed to meet the challenges and satisfy the requirements of this act with regard to all critical areas except aquifer recharge areas and flood plains which will require a different regulatory approach or are regulated in an existing title of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 4. Regulation of the use of sensitive areas benefits property owners by preventing and avoiding activities which would have adverse impacts on property. 5. Development in wetlands, watercourses and erosion hazard areas results in: 1) increased soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream water bodies, including navigable channels; 2) increased shoreline erosion; 3) degraded water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; 4) elimination or degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; 5) loss of fishery resources from water quality degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the stream flow regimen; 6) loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow - release detention resulting in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the stream flow regimen of watersheds. 6. Development in areas of geologic instability present a danger to the development on the site as well as neighboring sites and natural resources, and require special design, construction and site development measures to minimize risks from these hazards. 7. Tukwila is in an earthquake prone region subject to ground shaking, subsidence, landslide and liquefaction. Special building design and construction measures are necessary to minimize risk from this hazard. 8. In their natural state, wetlands and watercourses provide many valuable social and ecological services, which are critical and cannot adequately be replicated or replaced, including: a. controlling flooding and stormwater runoff by storing or regulating natural flows; b. protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for naturally occurring sedimentation; c. providing areas for groundwater recharge; d. providing habitat areas for many species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on these water resources for their survival; e. providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; f. providing recreation opportunities; and g. serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education. 9. Tukwila in enacting this ordinance has relied on extensive scientific documentation and testimony concerning these sensitive areas and the appropriate methods and mechanisms for their protection. This documentation is available in the Department of Community Development in file 89 -2 -CA: Sensitive Areas Ordinance. SECTION 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1247 AND TMC 18.06 AMENDED. TMC 18.06 is hereby amended to add the following sections: "Applicant" means any person or business entity which applies for a development proposal, permit or approval subject to review under the Sensitive Areas Chapter. 18.06.049 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities. 18.06.175 Compensatory Mitigation "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project - induced wetland and buffer losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Restoration — Actions performed to reestablish wetland and its buffer functional char- acteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. Creation — Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland and its buffer at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. Enhancement — Actions performed to improve the condition of an existing degraded wetland or its buffer so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Table of Contents Definitions Sensitive Areas Designated Sensitive Areas Studies 7 Buffer Standards 8 Buffer setbacks 8 Variation of buffer standards 8 - 9 Procedures 9 Uses, general 10 wetland uses, additional 10 - 12 watercourse uses, additional 12 - 15 Pages, 2 - 5 5 - 7 areas of potential geologic instability additional 15 landscape plan required 15 geotechnical report requirements 16 disclosure, declarations covenants 16 Assurance device 17 construction monitoring 18 abandoned mine area uses, additional 18 areas of important geological archaeological evidence uses, additional 18 uses subject to exception approval 18 sensitive area tracts 18 Exceptions 18 wetlands piping use exception process 19 Appeals Recording 19 Assurance devices 19 Assessment Relief 20 Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 3 18.06.176 Constructed Wetlands or Watercourses. "Constructed wetland" or "constructed watercourses" means those wetlands or watercourses which an applicant can demonstrate were intentionally created from non - wetland or non - watercourse sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities; and does not mean those wetlands and watercourses created through compensatory mitigation. 18.06.203 Density Transfer. "Density transfer" is a percentage number which represents a credit for housing units which are not allowed to be built in wetlands, watercourses or their buffers. The density transfer is used in a formula for determining the number of residential units allowed on the buildable portion of a lot containing wetlands, watercourses and their buffers. 18.06.255 Emergent Wetland. "Emergent wetland" means a regulated wetland with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata. 18.06.262 Essential street, road, right -of -way or utility. "Essential street, road, right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility,utility system, street, road or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.295 Forested wetland. "Forested wetland" means a regulated wetland with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered by trees greater than 20 feet in height. 18.06.322 Geologist. "Geologist" means a person who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university, or a person who has equivalent educational training and has experience as a practicing geologist. 18.06.323 Geotechnical Eng,ineer. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing, geotechnical /civil engineer licensed as a professional Civil Engineer with the State of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer with experience in landslide evaluation. 18.06.385 Impervious. Surface. "Impervious Surface" means those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre- existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. 18.06.388 Isolated Wetlands. "Isolated wetlands" means those wetlands which: 1. are outside of and not contiguous to any 100 -year floodplain of a lake, river, or stream that is designated as a shoreline according to the City's Shoreline Master plan; and 2. have no contiguous hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation between the wetland and any surface water. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. "Lot Coverage" means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. 18.06.585 Ordinary High Water Mark . "Ordinary high water mark" (OHWM) means the mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation. *In any area where the OHWM cannot be determined, the channel bank shall be substituted. In braided channels, the OHWM or substitute shall be measured so as to include the entire stream. 18.06.605 Performance Standards. Specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures, which may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.625 Reach. "Reach" is a segment of a watercourse with uniform characteristics. Sensitive Areas Ordinance t Page 4 18.06.655 Regulated Activities "Regulated Activities" means any of the following activities which are directly undertaken or originate in a regulated wetland or watercourse or their buffers: 1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind; 2. The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material; 3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table; 4. The driving of pilings; 5. The placing of obstructions; 6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; 7. The destruction or alteration of wetlands, watercourses or their buffers through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland, watercourse or buffer, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under Chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or 8. Activities that result in a significant change to the water sources of wetlands or watercourses. These alterations include a significant change ii water temperature; physical or chemical characteristics, including quantity; and the introduction of pollutants. 18.06.656 Regulated Wetlands. "Regulated wetlands" means ponds or lakes thirty acres or less and those lands subject to the "wetland" definition contained in this chapter. Isolated wetlands that are 400 square feet or smaller in area may not require compensatory mitigation. 18.06.692 "Scrub -Shrub Wetland. "Scrub -shrub wetland" means a regulated wetland with at least 30 percent of its surface area covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands; watercourses; areas of potential geologic instability other than Class 1 areas; abandoned coal mine areas; and important geological or archaeological sites. 18.06.697 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Tract. "Sensitive Area Tract" means a tract which is created to protect the sensitive area and its buffer, whose maintenance is assured, and which is recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots and subsequent owners. 18.06.762 Significant Tree. "Significant tree" is any woody vegetation, in any sensitive area or buffer, that is essential to or contributes to the function of a sensitive area and its buffers. 18.06.915 Utilities. "Utilities" are all lines and facilities related to the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of water, storm and sanitary sewage, oil, gas, power, information, telecommunication and telephone cable, or refuse, and includes facilities for the generation of electricity. 18.06.935 Watercourse. "Watercourse" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds, lakes and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered wetlands for the purpose of this Chapter. However, those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands as permitted by the City shall be considered wetlands. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 5 18.06.939 Wetland Edge. "Wetland edge" means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the methodology used in the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (1989), as revised or updated. SECTION 3. ORDINANCE NO, 1247 AND TMC 18 AMENDED. A new chapter 18.45 entitled "Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone" is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 Purpose . A. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions thereon in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. B. Standards are hereby established to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public em.ergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeologic or geologic sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 8. Balance the private rights of individual property owners with the preservation of envi- ronmentally sensitive areas. 9. Prevent the loss of wetland and watercourse function and acreage, and strive for a gain over present conditions. 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation, Rating methodologies, Classifications and Applicability. A. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any legal lot of record, any portion of which is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC Sections 18.06.695 and 18.06.697, and specifically including one or more of the following and their buffers: 1. Abandoned coal mines 2. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class 2,3,4 and seismic instability areas (TMC 18.06.049 and 18.45.020(E)) 3. Wetlands (TMC 18.06.938) 4. Watercourses (TMC 18.06.935) 5. Areas that contain archaeological remnants of value to the archaeological research community, which includes but is not limited to colleges, universities or societies of professional archaeologists, or which is designated as important to save as a record of the area's past by the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. B. Sensitive Areas Maps and Inventories. 1. The distribution of many sensitive areas in Tukwila is displayed on the Sensitive Areas Maps, dated 1990, and on file with the DCD. 2. Studies, preliminary inventories and ratings of potential sensitive areas are on file with the DCD in the Sensitive Areas Notebook dated May 1990. 3. The maps and preliminary inventories and ratings are hereby adopted by reference. The actual presence or absence of sensitive areas as defined by or otherwise referred to in this chapter and as determined by the City of Tukwila will govern. The actual ratings and buffers for any sensitive area will be determined by the City of Tukwila using the methodologies and procedures provided in this chapter for each type of sensitive area. 4. All revisions, updates and reprintings of sensitive areas maps, inventories, ratings and buffers shall conform to this ordinance. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 6 C. Wetlands: For the purposes of this Chapter, wetlands are defined in TMC 18.06.938. A wetland boundary is the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland established by using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January 10, 1989, as revised or updated, and jointly published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Wetland types and rating criteria are listed below. 1. Type 1 Wetlands. Those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: a. The presence of species listed by the federal government or state as endangered, or threatened or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; b. Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; c. Wetlands equal to or greater than five acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water; or 2. Type 2 Wetlands. Those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: a. Wetlands greater than one acre in size; b. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and having three classes; c. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested wetland at least 20 percent coverage of total surface area; or d. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees. e. The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrence. 3. Type 3 Wetlands. Those wetlands which are equal to or less than one acre in size and that have two or fewer wetland classes. For the purposes of this section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States FWS /OBS -79/31 (Cowardin et al, 1979) contains the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses. D. Watercourses: For the purposes of this Chapter, watercourses are defined in TMC 18.06.935. The City of Tukwila's Watercourse Study (1990) includes the methodology and criteria that will be used for determining watercourse ratings. Watercourse ratings are based on the existing habitat functions. Each segment or reach of a watercourse is rated individually. The rating system will score a reach point total for each side of the watercourse. Watercourse types, rating scores, and rating criteria are described below. 1. Watercourse Types and Rating Scores: a. Type 1 Watercourse - 21 to 33 Points b. Type 2 Watercourse - 11 to 20 Points c. Type 3 Watercourse - -3 to 10 Points 2. Watercourse Rating Criteria a. Instream Features (1) Width of Watercourse - A measure of the average width of the channel at the ordinary high water mark. (2) Channel Capacity - Quantifies the ability of the channel to convey high flows without flooding. Channel Stability - Measures the stability of the channel by evaluating evidence of bank failure, scour, and downcutting. (4) Fish Use and Fish Habitat - Anadromous and resident salmonid need protection measures if present. Rating depends on the number of different types of habitat present. b. Corridor Quality (1) Width of Unmaintained Vegetation - A measure of the width of unmaintained vegetation from the Ordinary High Water Mark. (2) Vegetation Diversity - Quantifies the elements of terrestrial habitat associated with the watercourse corridor. (3) or more wetland class comprised of Sensitive Areas Ordinance C� Page 7 (3) Corridor Barrier Function - Provides some measure of effectiveness of the buffer to limit intrusion and disturbance. (4) Surrounding Land Use - Evaluation of the land use immediately outside the of the vegetated corridor. E. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. Areas of potential geologic instability are defined in TMC 18.06.049, and are classified as follows: 1. Class 1 areas, where landslide potential is low, which slope less than 15 percent. 2. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 per- cent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. 3. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 4. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 5. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. F. Sensitive Areas Special Studies 1 Required. An applicant for a development proposal that includes sensitive areas, shall submit those studies as required by the City to adequately identify and evaluate the sensitive area and its buffers. 2. Waiver. If there is agreement between the Director of DCD and the applicant concerning the sensitive area classification and type, the Director of DCD may waive the requirement for sensitive area studies. There must be substantial evidence that the sensitive area classification is correct, that there will be no alteration of the sensitive areas or buffers, and that the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this ordinance will be followed. 3. Review of studies. The Department of Community Development will review the information submitted in the sensitive area studies to verify the information, confirm the nature and type of the sensitive area, and ensure the study is consistent with this Chapter. G. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. H. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.030 Interpretation The provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements in their interpretation and application and shall be liberally construed to serve the purposes of this chapter. 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers A. General. 1. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: a. Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas; b. Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during development; c. • Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value; and d. Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Land alteration is permitted for public access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080. An undisturbed sensitive area or buffer may substitute for the yard setback and landscape requirements of TMC 18.50 and 18.52. 2. Wetland and Watercourse Buffers are intended to: a. Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and vegetative cover for additional wildlife habitat; b. Provide input of organic debris, and uptake of nutrients; c. Provide an area to stabilize banks, to absorb overflow during high water events, and to allow for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects; d. Reduce erosion and increased surface water runoff; i�5 Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 8 e. Reduce loss of or damage to property; f. Intercept fine sediments from surface water runoff and serve to minimize water quality impacts; g. Preserve the edge for its habitat value; and h. Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. 3. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: a. Protect slope stability; b. Provide erosion control and attenuation of precipitation surface and storm water runoff; c. Reduce loss of or damage to property; and d. Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist. B. Special Buffer Studies. Applicants for a use or development on a legal lot of record within one hundred feet of a sensitive area shall be required to conduct a sensitive area study to provide a buffer analysis for the sensitive area. This study may be waived by the DCD Director following 18.45.020 F.2. C. Ratings and Buffer Width. Ratings and appropriate buffers for wetlands and watercourses are listed below. 1. For wetlands: a. Type 1 — 100 -foot wide buffer b. Type 2 — 50 -foot wide buffer c. Type 3 — 25 -foot wide buffer 2. For watercourses, the buffer shall be as follows: a. Type 1 — 70 -foot wide buffer b. Type 2 — 35 -foot wide buffer c. Type 3 — 15 -foot wide buffer 3. Setbacks: a. All commercial and industrial developments shall be set back 15 feet and all residential development shall be set back 10 feet. This setback shall be measured from the foundation to the buffer's edge. b. The Director of DCD may waive setback requirements when a site plan demonstrates there will be no impacts to the buffer zone. 4. Variation of Standard or Creation of Variable Width Wetland/Watercourse Buffers: a. The DCD Director may reduce the standard wetland /watercourse buffers on a case -by- case basis, provided the buffer does not contain slopes 15% or greater. The approved buffer width shall not result in greater than a 50 percent reduction in width, and the reduced buffer shall not be less than 15 feet for wetlands and 10 feet for watercourses. Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DCD Director that it will not result in direct or indirect, short -term or long -term adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses, and that: (1) The buffer is vegetated and includes an enhancement plan as may be required to improve the buffer function and value; or (2) If there is no significant vegetation in the buffer, a buffer may be reduced only if an enhancement plan is provided. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the wetland or watercourse functions and values b. Buffers for all types of wetlands and watercourses will be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland or watercourse study by a qualified wetlands specialist or expert which documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (1) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland or watercourse which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width; or (2) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitor species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 9 c. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation may be removed from the buffer as part of an enhancement plan approved by the Director of DCD. Enhancements will ensure that slope stability and wetland and watercourse quality will be maintained or improved. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the DCD Director. If the vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands and watercourses with comparable specimens, approved by the DCD Director, which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years d. The DCD Director shall require subsequent corrective actions and long -term monitoring of the project if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, watercourses or their buffers are identified. D. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. 1. Each development proposal for a legal lot of record containing an area of potential . geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of Sections 18.45.060 and 18.45.080(6). The geotechnical report' shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall then include the buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. 2. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. 18.45.060 Procedures General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short subdivision or any other land use review which approves a use, development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive item numbers 1, 4 and 5 of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant that step in the procedures. 1. Sensitive Areas Study and Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. It is intended that sensitive areas studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore shall be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 2. Any new subdivision, short subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or multiple family residential proposal which includes a sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. 3. Denial of Use or Development: A use or development will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants of the development, adjacent and local properties, and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. 4. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, specialist(s) of record, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre- construction conferences prior to any work on the site. 5. Construction Monitoring: The specialist(s) of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 6. The DCD Director may require the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any development or use to be permanently identified with fencing, or with a wood or metal sign with treated wood, concrete or metal posts. Size will be determined at the time of permitting, and wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.080 Uses and Standards A. General. The following general uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer, subject to the provisions of TMC 21.04. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this section. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 10 1. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities provided no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used in the sensitive area or buffer. 2. Non - destructive education and research. 3. Passive recreation and open space. 4. Maintenance and repair of essential streets, roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. 5. Actions to remedy the effects of emergencies that threaten the public health, safety or welfare. 6. Other uses may be allowed pursuant to TMC 18.45.080 B -H. B. Permitted Uses Subject to Administrative Review. The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director. 1. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities where alteration or additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. 2. Construction of new essential streets and roads, rights -of -way and utilities. 3. New surface water discharges to wetlands or watercourses or. buffers from detention facilities, pre- settlement ponds, or other surface water management structures may be allowed provided that the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended, and does not increase the rate of flow to the wetland or watercourse beyond the level of the existing rate. 4. Regional stormwater detention areas may be allowed if use results in no decrease in rating of resource and enhances existing values and functions. Design shall be subject to the standards of this section and other applicable City of Tukwila standards. 5. Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping. C. Wetlands. 1. General: a. No use or development may occur in a Type 1 and Type 2 wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC 18.45.080 (A, B and H). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. b. Only isolated Type 3 wetlands can be altered or relocated , and then only with the permission of the DCD Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of compensatory mitigation required in this chapter. c. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC 18.45.080 (A, B and H). 2. Compensatory Mitigation: a. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the DCD Director. Wetland and /or buffer alteration or relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions. The plan shall follow the performance standards of this chapter and show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved. b. In order to achieve the City's goal of no- net -loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration, enhancement or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will compensate at a ratio of 1.5:1. c. Mitigation Location. (1) On -site compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can demonstrate that: (a) the hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those who benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be damaged by the on -site loss; and (b) on -site compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors, or (c) compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or (d) existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 11 (e) that established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of compensatory measures at another site. (2) Off -site compensation shall occur within the same watershed where the wet- land loss occurred. In selecting compensation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: (a) upland sites which were formerly wetlands; (b) idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds, or emergent vegetation; (c) other disturbed upland. d. Mitigation Standards: The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as follows: (1) Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (2) Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. (4) Detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitiga- tion techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (5) Monitoring and /or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitor- ing data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (6) Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective mea- sures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC 18.45.135. (3) (3) ( e. Mitigation Timing: Where feasible, compensatory mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will permanently disturb wetlands and immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of compensatory projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. 3. Essential Utilities a. Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and b. All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and c. Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and d. All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. 4. Essential Streets, Roads and Rights -of -Way a. Essential streets, roads and rights -of -way must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and Sensitive Areas Ordinance b. Essential streets, roads and rights -of -way must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and c. Essential streets, roads and rights-of-way must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and d. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. 5. Public Use and Access: a. Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing or seating areas, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and b. Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and c. No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and d. Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and e. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and f. Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer .areas, and must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. 6. Dredging, digging or filling: a. Dredging, digging or filling within a wetland and its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (1) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080A, B and H; or (2) Maintenance of an existing wetland; or (3) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (4) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (5) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (6) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. b. Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. c. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. D. Watercourses. 1. General: a. No use or development may occur in a watercourse or its buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC 18.45 080. Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this Section. b. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director and an approved mitigation plan. c. Any watercourse which has critical wildlife habitat or is necessary for the life cycle or spawning of salmonids, shall not be rerouted unless it can be shown that the habitat will be improved for the benefit of the species. g. Page 12 Sensitive Areas Ordinance d. Any watercourse which has no critical wildlife habitat may be rerouted if the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not • in any way adversely affect the habitat of a downstream salmonid bearing water. 2. Mitigation: a. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals of dredging, filling, diverting, and rerouting of watercourses. b. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction, wildlife and fish habitat, and general watercourse quality would be maintained or improved. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director. c. Mitigation Standards. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: (1) Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (2) Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alter- ations: (a) Maintenance or improvement of stream channel dimensions, including the components of depth, width, length and gradient of the original location; (b) Bank and buffer configuration should be restored to an equal or enhanced state of the original stream; (c) The channel, bank and buffer areas shall be replanted with native vegetation which replicates or improves the original in species, sizes and densities. (d) The stream channel bed and the biofiltration systems shall be equivalent to or better than in the original stream. (e) The original fish and wildlife habitat shall be maintained or enhanced. (f) Relocation of a watercourse shall not result in the new sensitive area or buffer extending beyond the development site and onto adjacent property without the agreement of the affected property owners. (g) A watercourse may be rerouted. (4) Detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitiga- tion techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development,proposal. Monitoring and /or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitor- ing data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (6) Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective mea- sures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC 18.45.135. (3) (5) ( Page 13 d. Mitigation Timing: DCD approved plans must have the mitigation construction completed before the existing watercourse can be modified. 3. Essential Utilities a. Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize, or where possible avoid, disturbance of the watercourse and its buffer; and Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 14 b. All construction must be designed to protect the watercourse and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and c. Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, watercourses and their buffers must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and d. All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. 4. Essential Streets, Roads and Rights -of Way a. Essential streets, roads and rights -of -way must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and b. Essential streets, roads and rights-of-way must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and c. Essential streets, roads and rights -of -way must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the watercourse and its buffer. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and d. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. 5. Public Use and Access: a. Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing and seating areas, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and b. Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and c. No motorized vehicle is allowed within a watercourse or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and d. Any public access or interpretive displays developed along a watercourse and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and e. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect watercourses and their buffers by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and f. Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas and must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. 6. Piping: a. Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if it is necessary for access purposes. Piping may be allowed in Type III watercourses if the applicant complies with the conditions of this section, including: (1) excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 -year flood event, and (2) flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. b. No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured; and g. c. Piping in a watercourse sensitive area shall be limited and shall require approval of the DCD Director. Piping projects shall be performed pursuant to the following applicable standards: (1) The conveyance system shall be designed to comply with the standards in current use and recommended by the Department of Public Works. (2) Where allowed, piping shall be limited to the shortest length possible as determined by the Director of DCD to allow access onto a property. Where water is piped for an access point, those driveways or entrances shall be consolidated to serve multiple properties where possible, and to minimize the length of piping. (3) Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( Page 15 (4) When required by the Director of DCD, watercourses under drivable surfaces shall be contained in an arch culvert using oversize or superspan culverts for rebuilding of a stream bed. These shall be provided with check dams to reduce flows, and shall be replanted and enhanced according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD. When necessary to provide for fish passage, fish ladders shall be one foot vertical rise to ten foot horizontal distance, or as approved by the Washington State Department of Fisheries. (6) Stormwater runoff shall be detained and infiltrated to preserve the watercourse channel's dominant discharge. All construction shall be designed to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse, buffer and surrounding environment. (8) Piping shall be constructed during periods of low flow, or as specified by the State Department of Fisheries. Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, and flow must be comparable. 7. Dredging, digging or filling a. Dredging, digging or filling within a watercourse or its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (1) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1), (2) and (3); or (2) Maintenance of an existing watercourse; or (3) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (4) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (5) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (6) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. b. Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. c. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. E. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. 1. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirements of a geotechnical study. 2. Exemptions: Any temporary slope which has been created through legal grading activities may be regraded without application of this chapter under an approved permit. 3. Alterations: (5) (7) (9) a. Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development, and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties; or (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated, slope stability is not decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation shall not decrease slope stability. b. Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a landscaping plan for the site shall include tree re- planting with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, preferably native, and approved by the Director of DCD. Replacement vegetation shall be sufficient to provide erosion and stabilization protection. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 16 4. Geotechnical Report: a. The applicant shall submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the Director of the Department of Community Development for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. b. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. c. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 or Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. d. Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. e. Applicants shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. f. The geotechnical engineers required under this section must meet the qualification standards approved by the Director of DCD. Applicants shall provide a list of qualifications of the firm or individuals who will be doing the technical studies, and those shall be approved by the Director of DCD. If the engineers' credentials are not sufficient, the City may require applicants to use a different engineer or firm which does meet the City's standards. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. h. An independent review of geotechnical reports will be required per TMC 21.04.140. 5. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. a. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in his /her judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development site, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. b. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. g. Sensitive Areas Ordinance (3) Page 17 c. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. d. The applicant, or the owner of the site if the applicant is not the owner, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. e. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: (1) The legal description of the Property; (2) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (4) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. 6. Assurance Devices: Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in an area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the DCD Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. 7. Construction Monitoring: a. The applicant shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The applicant shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. b. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor, during construction, compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the City at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical- related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the DCD Director. 8. Conditioning and Denial of Use or Developments: a. Substantial weight shall be given to ensuring continued slope stability and the resulting public health, safety and welfare in determining whether a development should be allowed. b. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; which could include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities such as installing erosion control and drainage systems well in advance of construction. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 18 A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement that results in an unacceptable risk of • damage to the proposed development, its site, or adjacent properties. F. Abandoned Mine Areas. 1. Development of a legal lot of record containing an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when a geotechnical report shows that significant risks associated with the abandoned mine workings can be eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval shall be obtained from the DCD Director before any building or land altering permit processes begin. 2 Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical report. 3. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems, which could include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems or erosion controls well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. G. Areas of important geological or archaeological evidence. 1. Development on a legal lot of record determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or archaeological evidence, shall be prohibited until that evidence has been studied or researched for any valuable information about our history. Removal or salvage of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW 27.53, and shall be performed in a timely manner. 2. Once the geologic or archaeological evidence or articles have been studied or researched, or the importance of the site is declared to be marginal or not of use to the scientific community, development shall be allowed on the site. Development shall not begin on such a site until the DCD Director gives approval. H. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval. Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.115. A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of this chapter and be consistent with the underlying zoning. 18.45.090 Sensitive Areas Tracts A. In development proposals for planned residential or mixed area use developments, short subdivisions or subdivisions, boundary line adjustments and binding site plans, applicants shall create sensitive areas tracts, in lieu of an open space tract, per the standards of TMC 18.46.080. B. Applicants proposing development, involving uses other than those listed in TMC 18.45.090A, on parcels with sensitive areas or their buffers, may elect to establish a sensitive area tract which shall be: 1. If under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership, which assures the protection of the tract; or 2. Held in common ownership by multiple owners who shall collectively be responsible for maintenance of the tract; or 3. Dedicated for public use if acceptable to the City or other appropriate public agency. 18.45.115 Exceptions A. General. With the approval of the Director of DCD, isolated wetlands that are 400 square feet or smaller in area, and which are low value according to the rating methodology used in the City's Water Resource Rating and Buffer Study, may not require the compensatory mitigation standards of this chapter. B. Piping. Piping will be allowed in Type 1 and Type 2 watercourses only where relocation or alteration of a watercourse is denied and would result in denial of all reasonable use. C. Reasonable Use Exceptions. 1. If application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property containing wetlands, watercourses or their buffers, the property owner or the proponent of a development proposal may apply for a reasonable use exception. 2. The application for a reasonable use exception shall be in a format specified by and filed with the Department of Community Development. Requirements may include an environmental impact statement pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197.11 -400. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 19 Reasonable use exceptions shall be decided by the Planning Commission following a public hearing noticed as specified in 18.92. 3. If-the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property, development may be allowed which is consistent with the general purposes of this ordinance and the public interest. 4. The Commission, in granting approval of the reasonable use exception, must determine that: a. No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible; b. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and /or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer; c. As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site; d. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; e. The proposed development is compatible in design, .scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; f. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible; The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this Chapter; and h. Any approved alteration of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, Board of Architectural process, review and standards shall be applied. 18.45.120 Variances A. The Board of Adjustment shall review requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless excepted by Section 18.45.115. B. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. 18.45.125 Appeals A. Any aggrieved party who objects to or disagrees with Department of Community Development decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, shall appeal to the Planning Commission. Any such appeal shall be made in writing within ten days of the interpretation, condition or decision being appealed, and shall set forth the basis for the appeal. B. In considering appeals of decisions or conditions, the following shall be considered: 1. The intent and purposes of the sensitive areas ordinance; 2. Technical information and reports considered by the Department of Community Development; and 3. Findings of the DCD Director shall be given substantial weight. 18.45.130 Recording Required The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record the City- approved site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property and provide for any responsibility of the property owner for the maintenance or correction of any latent defects or deficiencies. 18.45.135 Assurance Device A. In appropriate circumstances, the Department of Community Development Director may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to the City, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements of this Chapter. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. g. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 20 B. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the Director of the Department of Community Development may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. C. Release of the security does not absolve the property owner of responsibility for maintenance or correcting latent defects or deficiencies. 18.45.140 Assessment Relief A. Fair Market Value. The King County Assessor shall consider sensitive area regulations in determining the fair market value of land under RCW 84.34. B. Current Use Assessment. Established sensitive area tracts, as defined in TMC 18.06.698 and provided for in TMC 18.45.090, shall be classified as open space and owners thereof may qualify for current use taxation under RCW 18.34; provided such landowners have not received density credits, or setback or lot size adjustments as provided in TMC Chapter 18.46. C. Special Assessments. Landowners who qualify under Section 18.45 140B shall also be exempted from special assessments on the sensitive area tract to defray the cost of municipal improvements such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers and water mains. SECTION 4. ORDINANCE NOS. 1247 AND 1249 AND TMC 18.46 AMENDED. TMC 18.46 is hereby amended as follows: 1. TMC 18.46.010 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: 1. Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation, watercourses, wetlands, and views; 2. Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types; 3. Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements; and 4. Create and /or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general public. 2. TMC 18.46.030 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are allowed in planned residential development: 1. In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding residential character and built environment. Single unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units; however, attached two -unit dwellings will be considered if necessary to accommodate interior zero lot lines for projects with sensitive areas and /or sensitive area buffers. 2. In R -2, R -3, R -4, and RMH districts, residential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in which such residence is located, such as single - family residences, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; provided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels, and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded; 3. Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature; 4. In planned residential developments of ten acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self - service laundries. 3. TMC 18.46.040 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.040 Site acreage minimum. The minimum site for a planned residential development shall be one acre, except sites con- taining sensitive areas and their buffers. Sensitive Areas Ordinance . :.: Page 21 4. TMC 18.46.050 is hereby repealed. 5. TMC 18.46.060 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. A. 1. Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this code are waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density. 2. Building Height. Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining natural resources, significant vegetation, and enhances views within the site without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in building height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface. 3. Setbacks. Yard requirements of TMC. 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD; however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. B. Off -Street Parking. Off -street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of buildings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple family zoned sites with sensitive areas, a minimum of 2 parking stalls per unit will be allowed, with a 50% compact stalls allowance, and parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be allowed if the design does not affect circulation. C. Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. D. Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface calculated for the total development allowed on sensitive areas sites will be 50% for each single family development and each multi - family development. E. Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums if usable passive recreation opportunities within these areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems, wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic areas. F. Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas. 1 Down slope and side yard buffers - Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape coverage of 25% of the structures at time of project completion with anticipated 40% coverage within 15 years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement. 2. Any road or access drive which cuts approximately perpendicular to a slope to the ridgeline of a hill shall have minimum five foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species that provides a branch pattern sufficient to provide at maturity, 50 % coverage of the pavement area. Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of northwest native plant species. G. The Board of Architectural Review shall review guidelines for single- and multi - family developments. The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. H. For single - family developments, the site plans shall include placement and footprint of the residences, driveways and roads. 6. TMC 18.46.070 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.070 Density standards. A. The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. B. Single family. 1. In R -1 single - family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the City Council may authorize, a minimum lot size not less than the yard requirements of the 1 Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 22 R -1 -7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features listed in subsections a. through d. of 18.46.070B.2. below are substantially provided. 2. In R -1 single- family residential districts on sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the planning commission may recommend, and the City Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features listed below in subsections a. through d. are substantially provided: a. At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); and b. Advantage or enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics; and c. Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; and d. Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the compre- hensive plan. C. In multiple - family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the City Council may authorize, a dwelling unit density not more than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones or an increase equal to the allowable' density credits as set forth in 18.46.070(D), if the site contains sensitive areas or buffers following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: 1. A variety of housing types are offered; 2. At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); 3. Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural characteristics; 4. Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; and 5. Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. D. Density Transfer 1. Density transfers are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses, and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent possible. 2. Density transfers are the percentage credits to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units for a residential site containing undevelopable sensitive areas or buffers. The calculation of the maximum units per buildable acre of a site with protected areas shall be equal to: (DU = Dwelling Units) J(DU /acre)(Buildable Acres)] + ((DU /acre)(Sensitive Areas and Buffer)(Density Transfer)) 3. Density transfer credits shall be determined from the table below: PERCENTAGE OF SITE IN DENSITY SENSITIVE AREAS & BUFFER TRANSFER 1 -10 30% 11 - 20 27% 21 - 30 24% 31 - 40 21% 41 -50 18% 51 - 60 15% 61 - 70 12% 71 -80 9% 81 -90 6% 91 -100 3% 4. The density transfer can only be used within the development proposal site. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the site development process in TMC 18.60. 5. Development of the transferred density shall be confined to buildable areas of the site, and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers. Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( ` ... Page 23 7. TMC 18.46.080 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.080 Open space. A. Each planned residential development shall provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site area for common open space which shall: 1. Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas; and 2. Network with the trail and open space system of the city and provide a connection and extension, if feasible; 3. Be under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership; or be held in common ownership by all of the owners of the development by means of a home owners or similar association. Such association shall be responsible for maintenance of the common open space; or be dedicated for public use, if acceptable to the city or other appropriate public agency. B. Planned residential developments shall set aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensitive areas tract as required by Chapter 18.45.090, and will be exempted from other open space requirements of this section. 8. TMC 18.46.090 is hereby amended to read in its entirety -as follows: 18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas. A. The design and layout of a planned residential development shall take into account the integration and compatibility of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent properties. B. Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with, those of the existing development of adjacent properties or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped , the type of development which may be permitted. 9. TMC 18.46:110 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.110 Application procedure required for PRD approval. A. Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department of Community Development and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.68 and by the following: 1. Justification for the density bonus, if requested by the applicant, 2. Program for development including staging or timing of development, 3. Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of the project, 4. Basic content of any restrictive covenants, 5. Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a home owners association, or similar association, condominium development or other means acceptable to the city; 6. An application for rezone may be submitted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be in addition to those of the PRD application; 7. An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application. 8. Graphic images of development in any sensitive area or buffer, including photo - montage or computer - generated perspectives in a standardized format required by the Director of the Department of Community Development. 9. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on site as part of the preliminary plat application. A tree and vegetation retention/removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application. Such tree and vegetation retention/removal plan shall assure the preservation of significant trees and vegetation. B. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by city departments. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time. r Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 24 C. Planning Commission Recommendation. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter and forward the report to the City Council. D. City Council Public Hearing. 1. After receipt of the planning commission report, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed PRD as recommended by the planning commission. The City Council shall give approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval to the proposed PRD. 2. The PRD shall be an exception to the regulations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance. 10. TMC 18.46.112 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.112 Review criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall find that the proposed development plans meet. all of the following criteria in their decision making. 1. Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met, if appropriate; 2. Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; 3. Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; 4. Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 18.45; 5. Time limitations, if any,, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; 6. Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans; 7. Compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050); and 8. Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation recommended by the Director of Community Development. 11. TMC 18.46.120 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development: 1. Time Limitation. A complete application for the initial building permit shall be filed by the applicant within twelve months of the date on which the City Council approved the PRD. An extension of time for submitting an application may be requested in writing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the Director of DCD. If application for the initial building permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan shall be considered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code. 2. Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the DCD and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the building code. 3. Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be included in the building permit application presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public dedication documents must be approved by the City Council before the issuance of any building permits. 4. Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties, or other security device as shall be approved by the City Attorney, shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in the final plan. 5. Department of Community Development Action. The Department of Community Development shall determine whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in compliance with and carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Following approval of the DCD, the city clerk shall file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the city and the originals shall be recorded with the King County department of records and elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone. Sensitive Areas Ordinance (. Page 25 SECTION S. ORDINANCE NO. 1247 AND TMC 18.70.050 AMENDED. TMC 18.70.050 is hereby amended to add subsections (6) and (7) as follows: (6) In wetlands, watercourses and their buffers, existing structures that do not meet the requirements of Chapter 18.45 may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that: (a) the new construction does not further intrude into or adversely impact an undeveloped sensitive area or the required buffer; and (b) the new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare, and (c) the structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter. In areas of potential geologic instability, coal mine hazard areas, and buffers, as defined in TMC 18.45, existing structures may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that: (a) the new construction is subject to the geotechnical report requirements and standards of TMC 18.45.080E and F; and (b) the new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare; and (c) the new construction does not increase the potential for soil or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development or to neighboring properties; and (d) the structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter. (7) SECTION 6. ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AND TMC TITLE 17 AMENDED. 1. TMC 17.08.030 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. The following principles shall determine the acceptability of boundary line adjustments and short subdivisions: 1. Create legal building sites with respect to zoning and health regulations; 2. Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel; 3. If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into consideration the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction, as well as the requirements of this code; 4. Make adequate provision for: drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes, as deemed necessary. 5. Comply with Chapter 17.20, Design standards for the subdivision of land, and Chapters 17.24 and Chapter 17.28 Minimum standards for Residential and Commercial Subdivision Design, respectively. 6. Actions by the applicant to get a boundary line adjustment or short subdivision shall not result in the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property or create an undevelopable lot under Chapter 18.45.115 unless that lot is to be dedicated for exclusive use as open space or common tract. 2. TMC 17.08.040 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 17.08.040 Application requirements. A. Application for a short subdivision shall be made with the Department of Community Development on forms prescribed by that office Said application shall be accompanied by ten copies of the short subdivision plat. B. If the subject site is within the sensitive area overlay zone, administrative review and approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall be required for the proposed short subdivision and boundary line adjustment. The standards and criteria for PRD design and review are those listed in TMC 18.46. The procedure shall be those listed in 17.08.060. C. The short subdivision plat and boundary line adjustment shall conform to the following requirements: 1. Shall be a neat and accurate drawing by a land surveyor on reproducible material at a decimal scale. The plat map shall measure between eight and one -half inches by eleven inches and eight and one -half inches by fourteen inches. 2. Shall show how the proposed subdivision will be served by streets and utilities. 3. Each application shall be accompanied by a preliminary title report dated within thirty calendar days of the submission date. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 26 3. TMC 17.08.060 Is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 17.08.060 Review Procedures. A. Referral to Other Departments. Upon receipt of an application for a short subdivision, the planning division of the Department of Community Development shall transmit one copy of the application to each member of the short subdivision committee, and one copy to any department or agency deemed necessary. The application shall be transmitted at least five working days prior to the short subdivision committee meeting. B. Notice to adjacent property owners. If a PRD is being processed as part of the short plat application per 17.08.040 (b), notice shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, fifteen days prior to the Short Subdivision Committee meeting, notifying them of the pending proposal and requesting comments. C. Short Subdivision Committee. The short subdivision committee shall consist of the director of the office of community development, who shall be chairman; the public works director; and the fire chief; or their designated representatives. D. Short Subdivision Committee Meeting. A meeting of the short subdivision committee, attended by the applicant at his option, shall be held no later than twenty calendar days from receipt of a complete application. Said meeting shall be open to the public. Quorum. All members of the short subdivision committee or their representative must be present in order for action to be taken. 2. Action. The short subdivision committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for a short subdivision. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall be made at the meeting and the applicant notified in writing of such decision within three working days. An additional meeting may be called if a decision is not reached at the first meeting. The second meeting should be no later than seven days after the first meeting. An applicant may request to have an application on which the short subdivision committee has taken action reopened by the committee if it is found by the director of the office of community development and the applicant that new information has come to light that might affect the action taken by the short subdivision committee. 3. Appeal. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall.be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the planning commission within ten calendar days of the date of decision of the short subdivision committee. Said appeal shall be in writing to the planning commission and filed with the office of community development. The planning commission shall act on said appeal within forty calendar days unless an extension thereto is agreed to, in writing, by the applicant. The decision of the planning commission shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten calendar days, any aggrieved party files with the city clerk a written appeal addressed to the City Council. The City Council shall act on said appeal within twenty days of the date of appeal. 1. 4. TMC 17.12.030(a) and (b) are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows: 17.12.030 Preliminary plat procedures. (a) Application. (1) Application for a preliminary plat shall be filed with the planning division on forms prescribed by that office. A complete application must be filed at least thirty calendar days prior to the date of the planning commission meeting at which it is to be considered. (2) The application shall be accompanied by a fee of eight hundred dollars plus seventy-five dollars for each proposed lot. At least five copies of the preliminary plat shall be submitted ,. which shall be prepared by a land surveyor. (4) Fifteen copies of the preliminary plat, photographically reduced to eight and one -half inches by eleven inches or eight and one -half inches by fourteen inches, shall accompany the application. A list of the names and addresses of all owners of record of property within three hundred feet of the external boundaries of the proposed subdivision. (6) Environmental information shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines established under the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, Title 21 of this code, as amended, and the Sensitive Areas Overlay District, as amended in Title 18.45 of this code, as may be amended thereafter. Said information is a part of and must accompany the preliminary plat application. (3) (5) Sensitive Areas Ordinance 1... Page 27 (b) Preliminary Plat Requirements. The following shall be part of the preliminary plat: (1) Vicinity Map. Adequate to readily identify the location of the plat in relation to its surrounding vicinity. (2) Preliminary Plat. The preliminary plat shall include all of the following: (A) The subdivision name and number, and the name and address of the land surveyor; (B) The date of preparation, the true north point, a graphic scale and legal description of the property proposed for subdivision. Plats shall be drawn to an appropriate engineering (decimal) scale; (C) All existing conditions shall be delineated. The location, width and names of all existing or prior platted streets or other public open spaces, permanent buildings and structures, and section and municipal corporation lines within or adjacent to the property proposed for subdivision shall be shown. In the case of a resubdivision, the lots, blocks, streets, alleys, easements and parks of the original subdivision being vacated, shall be shown by dotted lines in their proper position in relation to the new arrangement of the subdivision; the new subdivision being clearly depicted in solid lines so as to avoid ambiguity. Existing sewer and water lines, culverts, or other underground facilities within the property proposed for subdivision indicating pipe sizes, grades and exact location as obtained from public records shall be shown. Boundary lines of adjacent lands, whether subdivided or unsubdivided shall be indicated by dotted lines for a distance of three hundred feet from the external boundary of the property proposed for subdivision and shall include the existing land use classification. (D) A survey of existing trees and vegetation with a retention /removal plan which assures the preservation of significant trees and vegetation. (E) Existing contours (solid) and proposed contours (dotted) at intervals of five feet or less and referenced to the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC & GS) datum. All contour lines shall be extended at least one hundred feet beyond the external boundaries of the property proposed for subdivision; (F) The names, locations, widths, and other dimensions of proposed streets, alleys, easements, parks and other open spaces, reservations, and utilities together with the purpose and any conditions or limitations of such reservations clearly indicated; (G) Clearly indicate the source of water supply, method of sewage disposal, and manner of surface runoff control; (H) Indicate the approximate dimensions of each lot and all lot and block numbers; (I) Indicate the acreage of land to be subdivided, the number of lots and the area of the smallest lot; 5. TMC 17.20.010 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 17.20.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable envi- ronmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve sensitive areas and their buffers, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion, and to preserve trees, vegetation, and drainage patterns. These are beneficial to the city in lessening the costs of development to the city as a whole, to the subdivider in creating an attractive and quality environment, and in attainment of the goals and objectives of the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan. 6. TMC 17.20.020 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. A. Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to the Flood Zone Control Ordinance as defined in TMC 16.52, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay zone, TMC 18.45, 18.46, the Planned Residential Development, and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. B. Trees. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on site as part of the preliminary plat application. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 28 7. TMC 17.20.040 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 17.20.040 Grading. Prior to any grading within a proposed. or approved subdivision, a land alteration permit shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. 8. TMC 17.20.050 Is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 17.20.050 Streets. A. Extension. Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the City Council in approval of the plat. Where appropriate, streets shall be extended to the boundaries of the plat to insure access to neighboring properties. The City's goal is to have an integrated system of local streets rather than a system of cul -de -sacs. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective. However, in sensitive areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the standards and procedures of the sensitive areas overlay zone. B. Names. All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval by the Department of community development. C. Intersections. Any intersection of public streets, whatever the classification, shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset insofar as practical. 9. TMC 17.24.020 is hereby amended to read In its entirety as follows: 17.24.020 Street layout. Street layout shall provide for the most advantageous development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where sensitive areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights-of-way in the sensitive areas overlay zone shall be followed. 10. TMC 17.24.040 is hereby amended to read in Its entirety as follows: 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. A. Right -of -way Width. Street widths may vary according to function, traffic generated and topography. The following minimum street widths for streets, as defined in the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan, shall apply unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the City Council in approval of the preliminary plat or by the short subdivision committee in the case of short plats. TYPE OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY PAVEMENT Major Arterial 80 60 feet Secondary Arterial 75 feet 48 feet Collector 60 feet 36 feet Local Street 50 feet * 30 feet Cul -De -Sac Roadway 40 feet 26 feet Turnaround 80 feet diameter 60 feet diameter Alley 20 feet 15 feet * Right -of -way may be reduced to 40 feet with five foot easements on each side if the subject roadway will be traversing or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. B. Design. The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the department of public works: Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( Page 29 1. Street Intersection Offsets. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure less than two hundred fifty feet from centerline to centerline. 2. Cul -de -sacs. Cul -de -sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred feet unless authorized in accordance with Section 17.32.010. 3. Street Grades. Street grades shall not exceed 15 percent. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18 percent, for not more than 200 feet when: a. exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; and b. the greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive slopes;and c. the Fire Marshal grants approval. 4. Tangents. Minimum tangents shall conform to department of public works standards. 5. Horizontal Curves. Minimum curve radii shall conform to department of public works standards. 6. Vertical Curves. Changes in grade shall conform to department of public works standards. C. Right -of -way Improvement. All right -of -way improvements shall conform to department of public works standards. D. Utilities. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground and, if located within a sensitive area, shall be designed to meet the standards of the sensitive areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the department of public works; such installation shall be completed and approved prior to application of any surface materials. 1. Sanitary Sewers: Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the appropriate health agencies, sanitary sewers shall be provided at no cost to the city and designed in accordance with city standards. 2. Storm Drainage: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water; the amount of runoff shall be determined by the rational method. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes. The diameter to be provided shall be determined by Manning's Equation, but in no case shall the inner diameter be less than twelve inches. 3. Water System: The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with city standards. E. Public Use and Service Areas. 1. Due consideration shall be given by the subdivider to the allocation of adequately sized areas for public service or usage. 2. Easements. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the public works department. F. Blocks. 1. Length. Blocks should not be less than three hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in length. Where circumstances warrant, the planning commission may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet nor more than fifteen feet in width dedicated in the city to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. 2. Width. Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the planning commission may approve a single tier. G. Lots. 1. Arrangement. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each lot must have access to a public street that is approved at the time of plat review; however rather than designing flag lots, access shall be accomplished with common drive easements. Location of yards shall reflect the prevailing pattern within the neighborhood. For example, if adjacent developed lots front on the street the subdivision's lots fronting the street should also establish front yards for those lots. 2. Minimum Size. The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet or exceed the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Sensitive Areas Ordinance 3. Corner Lots. Corner lots may be required to be platted with additional width to allow for the additional side yard requirements. 4. Through Lots. Residential through lots are not encouraged and shall only be approved if there is a topographic or traffic safety concern preventing double tiered lots. Approved through lots shall be permitted access to only one street, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and shall provide a fifteen foot rear yard buffer of native vegetation. 5. Property Corners at Intersections. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights -of- way shall have a minimum radius of twenty-five feet. H. Trees. Each lot within a new subdivision shall be landscaped with at least one tree in the front yard to create a uniform streetscape. Installation shall be required per 17.12.040(3) I. Other Improvements. 1. Monuments. a. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the department of public works. b. All other lot corners shall be marked with suitable metal or wood markers. 2. Street Signs. The subdivider shall be responsible for the initial cost of any street name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, necessary in the subdivision as required by the department of public works. SECTION 7. ORDINANCE NOS. 1331 AND 1344 AND TMC 21.04 AMENDED. Page 30 1. TMC 21.04.040 is hereby amended to read in its entirely as follows: 21.04.040 Definitions -- Additional. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197 -11 -700 through 799, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise: 1. "Department" means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order. 2. "Early notice" means the city's response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of the determination of significance likely for the applicant's proposal. 3. "Environmentally sensitive area" — see 21.04.300. 4. "Notice of action" means the notice of the time for commencing an appeal of a SEPA determination that the city or the applicant may give following final city action upon an application for a permit or approval when said permit or approval does not have a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing an appeal. 5. "Official notice" means the notice that the city shall give of the date and place for commencing an appeal of final city action upon an application for a permit or approval where said permit or approval has a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing appeal. 6. "SEPA Rules" means WAC Chapter 197 -11 adopted by the Department of Ecology. 2. TMC 21.04.130 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 21.04.130 Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. A. If the city's only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. B. In addition to the environmental documents an applicant may be required to submit the following information: 1. Conceptual site plans and building plans; 2. Other information as the responsible official may determine. 3. Environmentally sensitive areas studies as described in TMC 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( Page 31 3. TMC 21.04.140 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 21.04.140 Threshold determinations -- Environmental checklist. A. A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197 -11 -960 with the following additions: 1. If the site is an environmentally sensitive area, a sensitive area study that meets the requirements of the SEPA official may be required. The SEPA official may waive any study requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a particular use or application. Environmentally sensitive area studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City shall be paid for by the applicant, to review the geotechnical reports on Class 2 and 3 Landslide, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard areas if the geotechnical report indicates Class 3 or 4 characteristics; and will be required in all Class 4 Landslide Hazard areas. 2. Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts; 3. Description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preferred course of action. B. A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. C. The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination. D. For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide information as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal. E. The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: 1. The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or 2. The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. 4. TMC 21.04.150 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 21.04.150 Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. A. The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant. B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely. The request must: 1. Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and 2. Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal. C. The responsible official's written response to the request for early notice shall: 1. State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and 2. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and /or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. D. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. 1. If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required. 2. If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 32 3. The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. 4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. E. The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fifteen days after the date of issuance. F. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of any license issued G. If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigation DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. H. The city's written response under subsection (c) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not pbind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. 5. TMC 21.04.270 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 21.04.270 SEPA -- Policies. A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. B. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: 1. Zoning Cod-TMC Chapter 18; 2. Shoreline Master Plan- Ordinance 898; 3. Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan- Ordinance 1246; 4. Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan- Ordinance 1315; 5. Subdivision Ordinance -TMC Chapter 17.04; 6. Comprehensive Sewer Plan - Resolution 904; 7. Comprehensive Water Plan - Resolution 873; 9. Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition - Ordinance 1287; 9. Transportation Improvement Plan - Resolution 917; 10. Annexation Policy Plan - Resolution 626; 11. Sidewalk Ordinance - Ordinance 1233; 12. Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction - Ordinance 1250. 6. TMC 21.04.300 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. A. Environmentally sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and /or as defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 and pursuant to 18.45.020 or hereinafter amended, designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded hillsides, and the Green /Duwamish River and its shoreline zone as defined by the Tukwila Master Program. For each environmentally sensitive area, the categorical exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for these areas are: WAC 197 -11- 800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6)(a), (14(c), (24)(a) through (g), and (25)(d), (f), (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. B. The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. C. Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 33 SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Ordinance, as now or hereafter amended, its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or any section, provision, or part thereof not adjudicated to be invalid or unconstitutional and its application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days from the date of . publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY HE CIT UNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this / 9 day o . -e.._ , 1991. In accordance with RCW 35A.12.130 this ordinance shall become valid without the Mayor's approval. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: • B i'r- y� 7/3/11 • FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: S - / — 9� PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 6 --/t) - S/ PUBLISHED: 6 -/ 5 - 7/ EFFECTIVE DATE: — 4 — J/ ORDINANCE NO.: /5,., Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REGULATING DEVELOPMENT ON SENSITIVE AREAS AND BUFFERS; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS 1247 AND 1289 AND TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TITLE 18; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1331 AND 1334 AND TMC TITLE 21.04; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 1014 AND TMC TITLE 17; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. On 6.40 9/ , the City Council of the City of Tukwila passed Ordinance No. /599 , providing for the regulation of development on sensitive areas and their buffers; amending Tukwila Municipal Code Titles 17, 18 and 21; and providing for severability and an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed without charge to anyone who submits a written request to the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila for a copy of the text. APPROVED by the City Council at its meeting of j ,[hr .47 i �; / 9 9/ . Published Valley Daily News: to —/3 - 9/ e E. Cantu, City Clerk Ott .404-44-+++4-4-*4-■-•7""4_ , 11.001'1.• RCLAD r N 1114 LAKES&RIVERS MARSH MOM STREAM ABOVE GROUND STREAM IN PIPE r••N•ll'i W �1 a • 1 1 .41470....'"t. y,��4 al 63. SITE PLAN OF EXISTING COMITIONS STERLING RECREATION ORGANIZATION OF THE LEWIS a CLARK PROPERTY � n 1 / / 1 / / / / / / / / .... c " • • •.... ,, 1 a 4 \\ o f \ �_�` iT- --'-» - -- %p • N. \ \ N.. it , �• \ \ ` � ` \ � `\ :77 \ \ YYY /a 10031 33rd Ave. W., S6f[ 301 Lynwood WA 01036 -6131 101/771 -5434 101111 a.,u FINN 1 June 3, 1991 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OFFICIALS APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS OF THE MAYOR CITIZEN COMMENTS: CONSENT AGENDA BID AWARDS OLD BUSINESS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Mayor VanDusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers JOAN HERNANDEZ; CLARENCE MORIWAKI; ALLAN EKBERG; STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN RANTS. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBERS DUFFLE AND ROBERTSON. MOTION CARRIED. MIKE KENYON, City Attorney; RICK BEELER, DCD Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director. A Proclamation designating the week of June 30 -July 6 as Ethiopian Week was read by Mayor VanDusen. Scott Nangle, 14040 - 56th Ave. So., invited Council and the audience to attend the Black River Quarry Coalition meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 4th, at City Hall. The environmental impact statement from the Rabanco facility will be the topic of discussion. a. Approval of Minutes: 5/20/91 b. Approval of Vouchers General Fund $110,916.13 City Street 50,596.94 Arterial Street 34,859.35 Land Acq., Building, Dev. 8,027.12 Water Fund 42,657.66 Sewer Fund 14,300.95 Water/Sewer Construction 0.00 Foster Golf Course 8,176.05 Surface Water (412) 28,230.85 Equipment Rental 52,874.52 Firemen's Pension 2,616.80 TOTAL $353,256.37 c. Authorize Mayor to execute Fostoria Storm Drain Public Works Trust Fund loan agreement. d. A resolution accepting a donation of $500.00 from Woodmen of the World for their contribution to the Parks Department. Councilmember Lawrence requested that item 6c be removed and discussed under Old Business. Councilmember Hernandez asked that item 6a be forwarded to the next Regular meeting. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO AWARD THE 1991 OVERLAY PROJECT TO M.A. SEGALE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,633,512.20. MOTION CARRIED. Legislative Analyst Lucy Lauterbach explained the language proposed in the SAO to clarify the issue of non - conforming structures Minutes - Regular Meeting June 3, 1991 Page 2 V Old Business (con't) NEW BUSINESS Fostoria Storm Drain Public Works Trust Fund Loan Agreement Purchase of Andover Park West Right -of -Way Purchase of So. 150th Right -of -Way Request for Funding - Chamber of Commerce REPORTS sensitive areas. Council reached consensus to move ahead with the ew language as proposed. ouncilmember Lawrence explained that he requested this item be moved from the Consent Agenda because he favored a formal vote n the issue. He added that the project is over budget and, in his pinion, other procedures could have been used to try to alleviate the ooding before moving forward with this major project. OVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO UTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE FOSTORIA TORM DRAIN PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND LOAN GREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED WITH LAWRENCE OTING NO. ayor VanDusen announced he had received a request to have item a forwarded to next week's Special meeting because all the paper ork had not been received. OVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT M 9A BE MOVED TO THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 0. MOTION CARRIED. OVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, TO UTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT OR PURCHASE OF SO. 150TH RIGHT -OF -WAY. MOTION ARRIED. arah Skoglund, General Manager of the Southwest Chamber of ommerce, and Richard Seraka, General Manager of the Doubletree otel, gave a brief presentation on the resources available to the City hrough the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is requesting 12,000 for funding through the remainder of the year. OVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO UTHORIZE A BUDGET TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF 12,000 AND CREATE A CONTRACT.* ouncilmember Rants commented that in his opinion the Chamber erves a very important part in the City and there should be a cooperative effort involved. Councilmember Ekberg stated that if a sense of community in the residential base as well as the business base is built up, the City will prosper both ways. Councilmember Hernandez added she felt the contract would be very beneficial to both the City and the Chamber. Councilmember Moriwaki added that commerce can prosper as long as we are clear on where that will take place. *MOTION CARRIED. Mayor VanDusen read a brief "history lesson" of the highlights of Tukwila beginning in 1947. He announced that the Community Survey would be ready for distribution to the Council by the end of the week. Councilmember Duffle announced he would be on active duty until June 24th. Councilmember Hernandez attended the Library Board public hearing and noted the need for clarification that the library issue is being driven by the County and not by the City. Councilmember Moriwaki announced his attendance at the Human Services Roundtable retreat and briefly discussed their current projects. May 28, 1991 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS SPECIAL ISSUES Regional Planning Council- review of issues /concerns. An ordinance amending the format of the Council Agenda. Review of Final SAO Draft. Review of Council and Staff summer schedules vs workplan. REPORTS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL C14 MIME OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOE DUFFLE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN "Wally" RANTS. RICK BEELER/GARY SCHULZ, DCD; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; MIKE KENYON, City Attorney; ROSS EARNST/RON CAMERON, Public Works Dept. The Council reviewed the memorandum submitted by the Public Works Department regarding their comments and concerns of the Interlocal Agreement to Establish a Regional Planning Council. In summary, the memorandum stated that the agreement appears to be a long way from being a functional agreement with clear and consistent guidelines necessary to achieve regional cooperation. The Public Works Dept suggested combining efforts with the Tukwila City Council to develop and define the City's own Policy which can then be pursued in a regional forum. The Council recommended that staff draft a letter to COG for Council President's and Mayor's signatures for review and discussion at the June 10 Committee of The Whole Council meeting. It appears that time is not an immediate factor, since the COG will remain in existence, at least temporarily. The Council agreed to modify the agenda to add SPECIAL REPORTS following CONSENT AGENDA. This would allow items of special interest to be reported early in the meeting, and would give citizens an opportunity to be informed of pertinent issues without having to sit through an entire Council meeting. The Council agreed to follow this format on a trial basis. If this arrangement works, the Council would then consider amending the ordinance to reflect the same. The Council reviewed the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in hopes of finalizing all loose ends; unfortunately, after reviewing page by page of the document, the Council found several minor corrections that needed to be made. The Council agreed to schedule a Special Meeting for June 10, 1991, 7:00 p.m. for possible adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; however, due to military commitments, Councilmember Joe Duffle would not be able to attend. Council President Robertson suggested that Council submit their vacation schedules to the Council Analyst; then prepare for discussion of Council Workplan, facilities study and land issue at the next COW. Councilmember Hernandez announced that Longacres/Boeing's Public Hearing is scheduled for June 6, to discuss the Interlocal Agreement with Renton for the extension of 27th Avenue. May 16, 1991 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS V SPECIAL ISSUES REPORT ADJOURNMENT 10:00 p.m. TUKWILA C1TY COUNCIL COMMTCI'EE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN "Wally" RANTS. RICK BEELER/GARY SCHULZ, DCD; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; JOHN COLGROV>r/MIKE KENYON, City Attorneys. The Council continued discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The discussion addressed responses to the Public Hearing comments that were made by citizens on April 22- 24,1991. Final Revisions were made as the Council concluded this two -year plus undertaking. Council requested the City staff make final clerical revisions to the SAO (as revised by the Council) and have the document back to Council by May 28 in preparation for passage at June 3rd Regular Council Meeting. Rick Beeler assured the Council that the Administration's recommendations will be submitted under separate cover at a later date. Councihnember Moriwaki reported that Boeing representatives met with the Council's Transportation subcommittee to discuss the Longacres Park Draft Proposal. One of the main concerns was the historical value of the site and what will be done to preserve the structure. Access to the park was also discussed, and Moriwaki stated that the Transportation Committee's comments were very strong in favor of an east/west route. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY RANTS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. Dennis Robertson Council President Celia Square, Doputy City Clerk Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers U S WEST Communications, Inc. 300 Southwest Seventh, Room 145 Renton, Washington 98055 206 228-0245 FAX 206 235-5272 Jane NishIta Area Manager - Service Quality and Community Affairs May 15, 1991 The Honorable Dennis Robertson President Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear President Robertson: Page 3 18.06.385 Essential Right of Way or Utility Issue: One person requested telecommunication lines including telephone and cellular phones, cable TV, and natural gas be added under this definition. 111." EST ` COMMUNICATIONS I have been following your Council's progress on Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. In the past weeks, I have come to appreciate your Council's ownership of this piece of legislation. I have also been impressed with the detailed level of understanding by each Councilmember as well your concern for allowing public input - in the form of questions, comments, or rebuttals. I regret that I will be unable to attend your Council meeting on Thursday, May 16. I anticipate that you be discussing the comments and recommendations issued by Lucy Lauterbach in her memo dated May 6, 1991, Proposed Changes to March 15 SAO Draft. I have comments to make and respectfully submit them in writing for your Council's Thursday discussion. This references the first item in Ms. Lauterbach's memo, restated below: Comment and recommendation: 18.06.385 defines essential utility, not the utility itself. Page 4 defines utilities, and Page 2 Letter to Council President Dennis Robertson May 15, 1991 here it is appropriate to insert "telecommunication and telephone cable" into the definition. One reason not to make all utilities essential is utilities include TV and cable satellite dishes and communication towers, which could disrupt a wetland, stream or steep slope. I am the person who issued this comment at the Public Hearing on April 24. I was remiss in not noticing that the definition of "utilities" is located on Page 4. This recommendation proposes to change the language to: 18.06 Utilities "Utilities" are all lines and facilities related to the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of water, storm and sanitary sewage, oil, gas, power, information, telecommunication and telephone cable,, and includes facilities for the generation of electricity. U S WEST agrees with this recommendation. The comments continue by stating that all utilities are not essential. I was prepared to argue that telephone utilities are essential since well over 90% of all households have telephone service and 911 emergency service has become recognized as a necessity. However, I read again your definition of essential utility. On Page 3, Section 18.06.253, Essential Right of Way or Utility, a utility is classified as "essential" only when no feasible alternative exists to provide that utility's service. And only Page 3 Letter to Council President Dennis Robertson May 15, 1991 those "essential" utilities are allowed to be located in sensitive areas without prior approval by the DCD Director. This rule is acceptable to U S WEST when it is applied to new construction of utility facilities. When it is applied to existing utilities, specifically those located in what has newly been classified as a "sensitive area ", it is of great concern. For example, if an existing underground telephone cable (but also could be gas, power or cable TV) was determined to be the cause of an outage, power failure or leak, it may require excavation with heavy equipment to expose the cable and correct the problem. We believe that it would create undue delay to apply the requirement of going through the process of obtaining DCD approval to perform that work. As well, if maintenance work was needed on some existing underground facilities that happened to be located in a sensitive area, we think that this requirement puts unnecessary administrative load on the utility companies as well as on the city staff. We are requesting, in essence, that you treat the maintenance and repair of existing utility facilities as "grandfathered" and not require administrative review and approval. We propose this revision for your consideration: 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 4. Maintenance and repair of essential roads and essential rights of way. 5. Maintenance and repair of existing utility facilities. J �9 Page 4 Letter to Council President Dennis Robertson May 15, 1991 I have discussed this matter briefly with Ms. Lauterbach. Thank you for your consideration. I have enclosed enough copies for distribution to the City. Councilmembers. Very truly yours, ailAt cc: Lucy Lauterbach, Legislative Analyst John Colgrove, City Attorney Rick Beeler, Planning Director Gary Schultz, Urban . Environmentalist Committee of The Whole Minutes May 13, 1991 Page 2 R_ 8:15 - 9:00 p.m. Continued discussion of Sensitive Areas Ordinance. REPORTS ADJOURNMENT 10 :45 p.m. Dennis Robertson, Council President Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk Council President Robertson called the Committee of the Whole meeting back to order with councilmembers in attendance as listed above. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY RANTS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. C 711 The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). The next SAO meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 16, 1991, City Hall Council Chambers. Councilmember Rants reported that Suburban Cities has requested Tukwila City Council's endorsement of the Seattle Center Bond Issue, election scheduled for May 28. Councilmember Moriwaki reported that one of the Human. Services Agencies, the Child and Family Resource and Referral, has changed its name to "Child Care Link." The new name transmits a more bones message. Moriwaki will also attend various meetings this week, among them will be a luncheon on Thursday with Dr. Michael Silver who was nominated for an award from the Washington Association of School Administrators. Councilmember Hernandez reported that among some of the items discussed at Finance & Safety Committee meeting was the Graphics position the City budgeted for. Justification was provided at the meeting and the Committee is convinced that this position is very much needed. Hernandez also reported she had attended a Chamber of Commerce Iuncheon; and a ribbon - cutting ceremony to welcome a new business (the Lennox Company) into the Tukwila community. Councilmember Hernandez also announced her candidacy to run for Council a second term. May 9, 1991 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS V SPECIAL ISSUES Sensitive Areas Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SESSION 80 p.m. Sensitive Area Ordinance. TUHWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Council President Robertson called the Special Meeting of the Committee of The Whole of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN "Wally" RANTS. RICK BEELER/GARY SCHULZ, DCD; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. Council President Robertson directed a question to the Mayor asking for a final staff report on the draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Council President Robertson called the meeting back to order with Councilmembers m attendance as listed above. Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers The Mayor responded that he had been working on the draft with staff, but due to the demands being made on the City, in all areas; and staff having to pick up the slack left by the City Administrator, it was impossible to devote the maximum of administrative attention to a document encompassing such a magnitude of complexities. The Mayor stated that there are misconceptions on the part of many as to what this ordinance will and/or won't do, the intention of the Council, and what's driving this ordinance. The wording and the structure need more clarification. The Mayor concluded his remarks that he plans to submit further comments (at a later date) on the SAO, probably from a political nature, i.e. have all the public SAO comments been addressed; and, what legal ramifications the City could face. The Mayor stated if we're not careful, we could spend as much money on lawsuits as it would take to buy all the identified wetlands. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY RANTS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. The Council continued discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, but became deadlocked at a point in the draft where Areas of Potential Geologic Instability were addressed. The draft SAO lists Jones & Stokes' Guide as the rating authority to alter or relocate low valued wetlands. Council President Robertson suggested if the Administration wishes to challenge this firm's method, a written report should be submitted to the Council containing an analysis of how it will differ when compared to the existing rating system completed by Jones & Stokes. The Council requested the Administration compile this report allowing enough time for review prior to next SAO Council meeting. Committee of The Whole Special Meeting May 9, 1991 Page 2 ADJOURNMENT 9:40 p.m. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SPECIAL MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. Dennis Robertson, Council President Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk C 7 c `I McLeod Development, Co. 213 Lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822-4114 Fax: (206) 827 -9990 TO: City of Tukwila City Council RE: Proposed Sensitive Area Legislation April 25, 1991 My name is Stuart McLeod and I have property in Tukwila that is affected by the Sensitive Area Legislation. I have been following the drafting process closely this last year and my compliments to everybody who has put forth extensive effort to finalize a fair ordinance. There are two areas in the draft I would like to bring to your attention that I feel needs more'flexibility: The size of the buffer should be determined on a case by case basis with perhaps a 10' minimum and 100' maximum. For example; I have property that has a low quality wetland that is contiguous to a high quality wetland. There will be 400 feet of low quality wetland between the high quality area and my wetland edge. A 50 or 100 foot buffer is absolutely not necessary to properly protect the wetland. A 10' to 20' buffer along with the 400' of low quality wetland adequately protects and buffers the entire wetland area. The wetland edge is also very irregular and to impose a random 50 or 100 foot buffer severely restricts the property owners reasonable use of the land. My recommendation is that you allow the buffer size to be determined on a case by case basis with a minimum of 10' and maximum 100'. This allows the property owner's biologists to design buffers appropriate for a specific wetland, with approval of course by the City's DCD Director or Sensitive Area Specialist. This achieves the fairness that I believe everybody is looking for. The other area in the draft that I feel needs more flexibility is "relocating a wetland." On my site I have 5 small pockets of very low quality wetland totaling about 8/10 of an acre. By professionally designing, relocating, and reconstructing the wetland on my site it will unquestionably improve and enhance the value of the wetland. If this plan is clearly better for long term wetland protection, why am I penalized by having to increase the size of it by 50 %? If I am the one prepared and willing to invest in enhancing the wetland and prepared to dedicate that wetland to permanent protection, it's simply not fair to demand that I increase its size by 50 %. If you make the increase variable between 0 and 50 %, and again let the experts decide what design and size is appropriate for a specific site, than you create a sense of fairness and a framework for the property owner and city to work within. I am totally in favor of protecting all wetland. I am prepared to permanently dedicate land to do so. However, it is only fair that the experts decide what size buffer is necessary to protect a wetland and what design and size a relocated wetland needs to be for lasting preservation. 1 have been told time and again by biologists that too restrictive of an ordinance denys the city and property owner the opportunity to properly enhance and preserve wetlands. Thank you for considering these thoughts in your final draft. Sincerely, Stuart Mc cc: Rick Beeler Ann Siegenthaler Gary Schultz Planning Commission -2- City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: JACK PACE, LUCY,:LAUTERBACH, AND GARY SCHULZ FROM: JANE CANTU DATE: APRIL 25, 1991 SUBJECT: SAO Please include the attached paperwork with the citizen's comments. packet from last night. This was received in the mail on Wednesday morning and should be considered an "exhibit" as the others. Copies were sent out to the Mayor and Council as well as City Attorney. • H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N Ms. Jane Cantu, City Clerk Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Cantu: Enclosure cc: Spieker Partners 3 0 7 0 8 1 I..IW UH,.r, ;\ Prohossiunal Service Curlu,ratiun 500 Gallan.l Ruiklinc, 1 Se nil A vcnuc Seattle, 1Va>hingt„n 9SRI1 -2925 (2O6) 623 -1745 Facsimile ( 623-7789 April 24, 1991 Re: Proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are submitting comments regarding the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. You will find enclosed an original comment letter which should go to the file, and seven copies, one for each City Council member. Please distribute the copies to each Council member for tonight's hearing on this issue. Thank you for your assistance. RECEIVED ,Vr'N 2 4 1991 jailTY • H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N ■ Tukwila City Council Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Honorable Councilmembers: 1.A\ 1116,.. A I'rot 'sit n l Si'I' Iu' (. 4'h r.11lutl 510 Galland Ru1LIInw. 1221 `rrinul AvElitte Seattle, \ \;1.hntuton'N1(11 - (211(1) (123-1 Fa( imile ('_IIO li23 -77Ct1 April 23, 1991 Re: Proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation E`� i•.: \'� 1 APR 2 4 1991 or Cf i'v .LEI LK On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are writing to provide you with our comments on the proposed sensitive areas ordinance (draft dated March 15, 1991). Spieker Partners owns the Tukwila Pond property. Construction of the first phase of the development on the property, Southcenter Plaza, is completed, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is currently being prepared for the City on the proposed development of a small, 150 -room hotel on the west side of the property. The remainder of the property, including the Pond and associated wetlands, would not be altered. The proposed sensitive areas legislation, if applied to the hotel project, would preclude its development by requiring an arbitrary pre- determined buffer and setback that would consume a substantial portion of the remaining upland portion of the property. In a community where the entire inventory of significant wetlands can be easily identified and comprehensively addressed on an individual basis, a generic assessment and standardized buffer system, like that recommended in the May 1990 report by Jones & Stokes Associates, entitled "Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations" ( "Report" herein), does not serve the community interest. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation adopts this strategy for addressing sensitive area issues in the City of Tukwila, thereby failing to achieve the legislative goal of balancing existing private property rights with the public interest. The proposed legislation, therefore, should be modified to provide for individual impact assessments and flexible protection measures tailored to the unique characteristics of each site. Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 2 Background Tukwila Pond, deemed to be the most significant wetland in the City of Tukwila, also provides the most glaring example of the shortcomings of the City Council's draft ordinance. Before 1974, there was no Tukwila Pond. For most of the year the property essentially was dry and used for agricultural purposes. A stormwater drainage channel ran through a portion of the property and moved surface water from the higher elevations on the southwest portion to the northeast, across Andover Park West, and eventually into Gilliam Creek and the Green River by force of gravity. The drainage channel would periodically overflow during extraordinary rainfall and some localized flooding would occur. To prevent these occurrences, the City of Tukwila formed local improvement districts to reconstruct Andover Park West with appropriate stormwater facilities. The City's design for the Andover Park West improvements included an outlet to drain the Tukwila Pond property into the City's storm system because the proposed elevated roadway improvements would obstruct the existing drainage channel and eliminate the natural drainage of the site. Assuming that the site would be filled to an elevation equal to that of the surrounding properties, the City located the drainage outlet through the road at a relatively high elevation (approximately 1.5 feet higher than even the current elevation of Tukwila Pond). Because the site was not immediately graded and filled, and the outlet was designed to function only at a higher elevation, water began to accumulate and, together with the obstruction of the drainage channel, caused the creation of Tukwila Pond as we know it today. Tukwila Pond is a City -made phenomenon -- an artificial impoundment of surface water on an undeveloped site lying at an elevation below that of adjacent filled properties. In 1987, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the property to identify the wetlands on the site which would be subject to the Corps permit program if development were to occur. The Corps determined that two areas, on the northern and western sides of the Pond, could be developed without invoking the Corps' jurisdiction. Spieker Partners' decision to purchase the property in late 1987 was predicated on the Corps' determination. In 1988, after several development proposals by others proved unsuccessful, Spieker Partners announced plans to develop a retail shopping center on the northern portion of the site. Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 3 After working with the City on several alternatives for development of this portion of the property, Spieker chose to pursue an alternative that would provide a buffer between the Pond and shopping center and retain the western portion for development in the second phase. Following evaluation of the environmental checklist for the first 14 -acre phase, the City of Tukwila issued a mitigated Determination of Non - Significance ( "DNS "), concluding that the proposal as conditioned would not cause a significant impact on the Tukwila Pond or other elements of the environment. The DNS required conditions on water quality, replacement of natural vegetation, design modifications to limit human intrusion on the Pond and its habitat, and other things to ensure no significant impacts would occur. In June 1989, as construction of the retail center progressed, Spieker submitted an environmental checklist to the City and proposed the second phase of development, a small, 150 -room hotel on the four -acre western portion of the site. Consistent with the mitigation required for the first phase retail center development, the proposal included the same 25 -foot setback between the edge of the Pond and the hotel building. The Pond would be left in its natural condition. During the next five months, the City made no decision on the request for a declaration of non - significance. Instead, in November of 1989, the City Council imposed a six -month moratorium on development adjacent to sensitive areas. That moratorium subsequently was extended indefinitely until the City Council drafted the present sensitive areas legislation. After putting the moratorium into effect, the City concluded that the hotel project would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (although an EIS was not required for the significantly larger first phase development). The EIS, which will include an updated biological evaluation, is currently being prepared by the City's consultants. Preparation of the EIS has been continually delayed as the City's consultants are asked to analyze alternatives that could fit the increasingly stringent requirements of the sensitive areas legislation. Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 4 Analysis and Recommendation The history of Tukwila Pond, the environmental assessments which have previously taken place, and the City's own official actions, all illustrate the inadequacies of the current, broad - based wetland evaluation and buffer requirements of the City Council's proposed sensitive areas ordinance. In a small community like Tukwila, where the entire inventory of wetlands can be easily identified, there is no reason to generalize, and every reason to regulate on the basis of site and project specific information. The City of Tukwila is not King County; wetlands, and developments around wetlands, are not too numerous to evaluate on a case -by -case basis. The Jones & Stokes Report acknowledges that it is important to develop a regulatory system that is sensitive to the variability in the City's wetlands (p. 2). However, except for giving greater significance to smaller wetlands, the rating and buffer recommendations are those that are applied in a large, rural jurisdiction. Even in King County, a site - specific evaluation is part of the development approval process. The Planning Commission recognized the need for more flexibility in Tukwila's urban setting, and recommended an ordinance that would allow a case -by -case determination of buffer requirements. The City Council, however, has apparently rejected an approach that would permit the balancing of public and private interests, and adopted crude and arbitrary buffer requirements that may automatically deprive property owners of all reasonable use of the property. The City Council proposal apparently is based upon the Jones & Stokes Report. The Jones & Stokes Report, unfortunately, rejects the concept of a regulatory program which includes a variable buffer system. This position is somewhat inconsistent with other portions of the recommendation. The Report rejects variable buffers because "reducing or eliminating the buffer in one area cannot be compensated for by increasing its width in another area." (p. 14). On the same page, however, the Report urges the City to adopt an expanded buffer around Tukwila Pond "to compensate for buffer losses in other portions of the wetland." If the Tukwila Pond is a "relatively undisturbed system" (p. 2), there is no basis for seeking compensation for past disturbances, particularly when the "past disturbance" -- the first phase development of a project with a 25 -foot natural vegetative buffer -- was legally determined by the City to have no significant effect on the Pond. And if compensation for Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 5 potential or actual wetland impacts is inappropriate, the previous suggestion that expanded buffers should be required around Tukwila Pond is not intended to compensate for past losses, but to penalize the second phase development proposal. Under the Report's recommendation, this penalty would accrue regardless of whether the current owner caused the "past disturbance," and despite the fact that the previous development allegedly causing the "disturbance" complied with all of the City's applicable regulations. This attempt to regulate development after the fact is certainly unwise and probably unlawful. The Report goes on to state that "[b]iologically, it does not make sense" to adopt a variable buffer system, that such a system is extremely difficult to enforce, and, again, citing previous activities, that allowing further encroachment "could" lead to severe wetland impacts. These generalizations are inconsistent with virtually every other wetland regulatory scheme and should not be incorporated into the City of Tukwila's wetland policies. If the objective of the City of Tukwila in developing a sensitive areas ordinance is to minimize impacts on natural resource areas with a view towards balancing private property rights, a fact - based, flexible buffer system should be substituted for the standardized approach suggested by the draft legislation. Applications for development proposals within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas could be required to include appropriate environmental assessments. The Planning Director should have the authority, based on a set of specific guidelines established by ordinance, to impose appropriate mitigation that considers the sensitivity of the site, the significance of the affected areas, the nature of the proposal, and other factors, including the effect and public benefit of proposed mitigation. Tukwila Pond offers a good example of the benefits of this kind of approach. It is clear that additional development could occur on the west side of the Pond with a buffer consistent with that imposed on the north side without significant effects on the Pond or the existing habitat. In consideration for a reduced buffer width, the developer could be required to put permanent covenants in place to protect the remaining 22 -acres of the Pond and associated wetlands. The Report and resulting draft ordinance leave no room for this kind of flexibility and thereby foreclose the potential long -term benefits to the City and its citizens. We note in particular that the Seattle Audubon Society, which has been the most diligent participant in the efforts to maintain Tukwila City Council April 23, 1991 Page 6 the Pond and its habitat, has also advocated a flexible approach because it could provide the opportunity for greater long -term protection. A copy of the Seattle Audubon letter to the Planning Commission is attached for your information. These are not new or unique concepts. Indeed, the draft ordinance proposal by the Planning Commission sought to establish such a system. However, in preferring a system of arbitrary buffers, the City Council will preclude all reasonable use or development of a site that may be consumed in its entirety by a wetland buffer, a setback, or other City- imposed requirements. In the case of Tukwila Pond, a man -made phenomenon created by the City of Tukwila, this restriction is unfair and unwarranted. We have referred to a number of studies and documents in these comments which are in the City's files and we would ask that they be incorporated into the record of these proceedings. We hope that the City Council will consider the evidence that has been accumulated over many years regarding the Tukwila Pond site, and the findings and decisions pertaining to the development of the non - sensitive areas adjacent to the Pond. We are deeply concerned by the proposed legislation because the Report upon which it is based seemingly ignores this information and proceeds to recommend a wetland buffer system which would deprive Spieker Partners of any reasonable use of its property. We would be happy to work with the City to revise the sensitive areas legislation to provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate Tukwila's unique resources, including Tukwila Pond. Enclosure cc: Mike Kenyon, Tukwila City Attorney Spieker Partners 2 0 8 0 3 2 Thank you in advance for your consideration. cfra Audubc'n avaetp Washington Nonprofit Corporation • Seattle, WA 9■461 • 206 /6R-669E gaz.g- 3S g8ti £Z3-f3 July 30, 1990 Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington RE: Proposed Sensitive Areas Regulations Dear Commissioners: Seattle Audubon Society has reviewed the proposed regulations developed to provide more stringent protection for sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila. We look at this proposal with high regard and we admire the City for finally attempting to institute some kind of defined regulatory control. As you know Seattle Audubon Society has and continues to be concerned with project proposals within the City. We wholeheartedly support the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance, in concept, and therefor request that you consider the comments contained in this letter before finalizing these regulations. We are concerned that the proposed regulations have precluded some level of flexibility that would offer equal or greater long term protection for sensitive areas within the City. For instance there is no provision for flexible wetland buffer standards. This type of flexibility may be justified if certain buffer enhancements were deemed appropriate. Such enhancement could entail restoration of wetland and buffer functions utilizing such measures as replacement or addition of vegetation. Strict maintenance of water quality and quantity, if this activity could be provided outside of any required buffer area, may also diminish the necessity for large buffer requirements. Although the concepts of buffer enhancement and water quantity /quality protection may not be appropriate in all situations the decision to allow such flexibility would require that the design be submitted by competent professionals. Further, any offer by a proponent that will offer permanent protection for a large portion of a sensitive area should be considered. Permanent protection could provide long term Sincerely, 4. Gerry Adams President protection that trancends the regulatory scheme whether or not additional regulation changes the use in the future. Ideally a combination of these, or similar, flexible standards should be required in order for a proponent to qualify. Such concepts as vegetative enhancement and strict controls of water quality and quantity must also require that performance standards be imposed so that corrective action can be taken if there are any problems with any accepted design. These comments are intended to be general in nature and we hope they are of some value to you. There is much to consider when developing this kind of land use regulation and Seattle Audubon Society desires to share our experience in participating in a variety of jurisdictional concepts similar to those of the City of Tukwila. April 24, 1991 STERLING RECREATION ORGANIZATION Mayor Gary Van Dusen and Members of the City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: We are finally nearing the end of a long process to which many people have contributed many hours. For my own part, I want to thank the City for providing the opportunity for me and for others to participate in the development of the ordinance. Although there have been, and still are, strongly held differences of opinion among the participants in this process, there are also common goals. I believe that we all share a desire to protect significant environmental values and to build a viable, attractive city which will serve all elements of the community. This final version of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is, for the most part, a reasonable and generally workable document. There are, however, sections which still raise significant concerns. 1. Standards for the Alteration and Relocation of Watercourses (Section 18.45.080 E.1.e.(1) page 11) First, I do not believe, as the ordinance states, "the existing course for any watercourse is preferable to re- routing." Many of the watercourses mapped as sensitive areas have already been channelized. This presumption of existing natural conditions disregards the highly altered character of most of the existing watercourses in the city. Secondly, the requirement that alteration and relocation will be allowed only when enhancement or improvement occurs is unrealistic and excessive. In effect, it mandates the creation of new environmentally sensitive areas with values and habitat beyond that which presently exist. A preferable standard is one which requires any alteration to result in a situation which is equal to or better than existing conditions. 2. Uses and Standards (Section 18.45.080 D.2.b, page 9 and 18.45.080 E.1.e (3), page 11) i r'eatr"5 5:) Broidca5Unq V eo April 24, 1991 'page 2 I suggest that the following additional language be added to these sections to give both the City and property owners the opportunity to achieve balanced protection. This would apply to wetlands and watercourses which have the lowest rating. "In evaluating the mitigation plans, the DCD Director and the City Council shall consider the existing zoning, the degree to which the site has already been altered, and the nature of adjacent development." 5. Inconsistencies between the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Chapter 18.45) and the Environmental Regulations (Chapter 21.04) 3. Reasonable Use Exception (Section 18.45.115D, page 17) As proposed by the Citizen's Committee, the purpose of including a reasonable use exception in the ordinance is to provide a rational process by which the city can consider alternative uses for properties when strict application of the ordinance would destroy all effective use of property. It is intended to give the city flexibility in balancing protection of the environment and private property rights. It is essential, from a legal and reasonable point of view, that property owners who are severely impacted by this ordinance have a means of reasonable use that makes sense - -both from a planning and a practical point of view. As presently written, this section is so restrictive that it appears to eliminate any realistic application. An example is the limitation of development to the greater of 15% or 3600 square feet of the site. This arbitrary limit bears no relation to the size of the property or the nature of the sensitive area and renders the entire section being almost meaningless. I urge you to reconsider this provision, or at the very least, limit the applicability to single family residential. 4. Minimum Size of Regulated Wetlands (Section 18.45.115A, also on page 17) A threshold of 400 square feet for defining regulated wetlands is extremely small. This means regulating wetlands approximately 20' x 20', comparable in size to two standard parking spaces. Does preservation of areas of such limited size serve any substantive environmental value, and is it not preferable to allow a property owner to transfer this area into larger, more valuable wetlands? Other standards exist, for example the DOE's Model Wetland Protection Ordinance, which lists 2,500 square feet as a wetland threshold size. It appears that the regulation of environmentally sensitive areas is duplicated in both Chapter 18.45 and Chapter 21.04. This intertwining of regulations which are part of the zoning ordinance with the requirements and procedures of SEPA raise numerous April 24, 1991 page 3 Ver • • Che Pro CB:klb issues about the effective interpretation and administration of this ordinance. For example, Section 18.45.080E 1.e(3) page 11 of the SAO provides detailed standards for mitigation plans for the alteration and relocation of watercourses. Section 21.04.150E page 36 Environmental Regulations also contains detailed mitigation standards for the alteration of wetlands and watercourses. Additionally, each chapter has different administrative processes and, more importantly, different appeal procedures. There appears to be a conflict caused by the commingling of these documents. This conflict obstructs the ability to consistently implement the ordinance. This is a complex issue and I strongly urge you to send it to the City Attorney for careful review and analysis. Finally, under the new Growth Management Act, sensitive area ordinances adopted now must be re- evaluated after the required update to the comprehensive plan. I would like to suggest that the city implement a program to monitor the ordinance over the next three years and identify those aspects which should be considered for modification. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the development of this ordinance and for your consideration of my comments. `truly your 3 1 Brown erty Manager April 24, 1991 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS PUBLIC HEARING TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF TUE WHOLE MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOE DUFFLE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN "Wally" RANTS. MIKE KENYON, JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorneys; RICK BEELER, GARY SCHULZ, DCD. Council President opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and commented that the City has known for some time that something needs to be done with regards to preserving and protecting the environment, while minimizing the cost to both the individual property owners and to the citizens. however, cities are now mandated by law to come up with a plan. The draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance will be a growing, living changing document as the needs dictate. The Council President concluded his comments as he informed the audience that the document is far from perfect, it is merely the Council's best effort. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, presented a brief overview of the draft SAO by reviewing a map (based upon the King County Assessor's map) depicting all of the sensitive areas. Pace encouraged the audience to feel free to visit the Department of Community Development office, located in the 6300 Building, should they wish to study the map further. Pace continued as he informed the audience that the SAO undertaking has been a lengthy process to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions thereon in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. Mr. Pace added that the City's goal is to minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions of the lands; protect quantity and quality of water resources; minimize pollution of wetlands; prevent erosion and loss of slope and soil stability; protect the public against avoidable losses; and to prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeologic or geologic sites. Pace stated that the SAO process may be complex and difficult to most, if not all, those concerned; but emphasized assistance is available by calling Gary Schulz in the DCD office. Many citizens expressed concerns for and against the SAO. Favoring the SAO one citizen stated: "Our environment is too valuable, too precious for us to ruin because we lack the courage to act to protect it." Others thanked the City for providing the opportunity for citizen participation and were concerned about certain sections of the SAO such as : Standards for the Alteration and Relocation of Watercourses; Uses and Standards; Reasonable Use Exception; and minimum Size of Regulated Wetlands to mention a few. A property manager stated in her comments that each chapter of the SAO has different administrative processes and, more importantly, different appeal procedures. There appears to be a conflict cause by the commingling of these documents. This conflict obstructs the ability to consistently implement the ordinance. The Council was Committee of The Whole Minutes April 24, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Won't) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:45 p.m. urged to have the City Attorney carefully review and analyze this document. It was also suggested that the City implement a program to monitor the ordinance over the next three years and identify those aspects which should be considered for modification. A representative from the Northwest Legal Foundation stated that the City does not own the land next to all streams and lakes. Much of this land is privately owned. When the use is converted by the City to be a water retention facility or an open space for animals, the property owner should be paid the fair market value of his or her land. A representative from Mario Segale and the Segale Family expressed opposition to the provision for arbitrary compulsory buffer widths in the current SAO Draft as such arbitrary buffer widths are not based upon scientific data and are not reasonably related to the City's goal of protecting wetlands and watercourses and providing buffers for the stated purposes. Quoting a wetland specialist, the representative stated: "In the City of Tukwila, to require a 100 foot buffer right now is ludicrous because most of the wetlands have not seen 100 foot buffers for a nigh on a decade and you don't want to look silly." The Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce comments were as follows: To properly protect wetlands, streams, and watercourses, realistic regulations which provide, a balance between the needs of the environment and the rights of property owners in Tukwila, must be developed and implemented. The following are just a few of the Chamber recommendations: Establish buffers on a case by case basis as recommended earlier and has been recommended by the City's consultant, the citizens committee, the Planning Commission and numerous business citizens and residents; Inventory and define low, medium and high quality wetlands on a case by case basis, and use a scientific method to establish criterion for buffering; Use the Department of Ecology model of 2,500 square feet as an established standard. In summary, most of the spokespersons agreed tha t the City might want to conserve animal habitat and water retention areas for the public, but believe the City has a moral and legal responsibility to pay for the land they use. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (SAO) BE CLOSED.. MOTION CARRIED. The Council agreed to the fat SAO schedule: Friday. Mav 3, draft SAO with citizen comments considered. Monday. May 6 Special C.O.W following Regular Council Meeting. Thursday, May 9.7 -9:30 p.m., Special C.O.W. (SAO only). Thursday. Max 16.7 -9:30 p.m., Special C.O.W. (SAO only). Committee of The Whole Minutes April 24,1991 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT 9:20 p.m. Dennis Robertson, Council President / r1 Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk 0703 MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY RANTS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. a' #4. IUKWIEA C I T I Z E N S For Quality Go%ernment COUNCIL PROCEDURES - DUE PROCESS "Due process" is the term used to describe the orderly, consistent procedure by which governmental entities function. The Tukwila City Council has not been conducting the "people's business" in accordance with accepted procedural governmental concepts and practices. Hastily called "special" meetings are commonplace, with executive sessions called without notice of subject; unannounced items jump onto published agendas, :chile regularly scheduled items are moved from agenda to agenda, and back into subcommit- tee. Public hearings are conducted on an ordinance before the ordinance is officially introduced. The wording and sometimes whole paragraphs appear and disappear from ordinances without council action. We have a "moratorium" in place whose restric- tions are based on an ever - changing Sensitive Area Ordinance which hasn't even been completely formulated, much less passed. The public is given drafts #1 and #2 of an ordinance, but discov- ers on the evening of the discussion that these are drafts #3 and Why is this confusion not only continuing but growing? Tukwila City Hall has the largest staff in the city's history and is increasing daily. Can't some procedural sense be followed? Your attendance at Tukwila City Council meetings on Monday evenings could help the quality of City Government. Due Process is not evident when a citizen cannot reasonably track legisla- tion;have sufficient time to respond to it, or if government becomes too burdensome to the citizens. MORATORIUM The City Council recently extended the moratorium on devel- opment in "Sensitive Ar It will last until the Sensitive Area Ordinance is adopted, or until mid October 1990, whichever comes first. Tukwila Citizens for Quality Government does not support the moratorium. Discussion of the moratorium here could be quite lengthy; however, we offer some observations: -The ordinance provides for a "waiver" to be heard by the City Council as a condition of approval. The applicant must agree to the restrictions of the not yet passed Sensitive Areas Ordi- nance. Is it legal, proper, or fair to require prior consent to unknown Legislation? Such a requirement certainly is not "in- formed consent." Numerous residential and business property owners have asked for relief from the financial hardship caused by the moratorium. Some, who obtained waivers, agreed because they felt they had no choice, but stated it is "like signing a blank check." This strikes us as undue pressure and coercion upon the applicant. 645 Southcenter Mall • Number 193 Tukwila, Washington 981811 (1;r4A4/1!) -The criteria upon which to grant a waiver are not the standard criteria used as a guideline. One notable and unusual criteria is: "the best interests of the city weighed against the interests of the individual." Tukwila has a Board of Adjustment, charged with the respon- sibility of hearing and deciding applications for variances, etc. This board follows criteria established by city ordinance and state law. This board was created in order to provide a body independent of the Planning Commission and Council, to grant exceptions from certain codes, administrative interpretations, etc. The City Council should not decide on waivers for legisla- tion it creates any more than the Planning Commission does not hear variances from zoning laws it helps create. Why weren't the niarator : waivers assigned to the Board of Adjustment? We at Tukwila City for Quality Government are deeply con- cerned about the entire legality of a moratorium, especially the extension. Is it defensible in court? We are afraid of lawsuits costing us taxpayers enormous amounts of money. "SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE" The improved Citizen Advisory Committees's draft version of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance eliminated the More outrageous aspects of the City's October: 25, 1989 version of the ordinance that drew so much criticism, but now the Council and its Ad Hoc Committee, with the help of the City's Planning staff appear to be in the process of changing the Citizens Advisory Committee's version to read more like the City's October 25, 1989 version. It is possible that there are at least three elements of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance; Sensitive Areas, Wetlands and Esthet- ics. A schedule presented at a Tukwila City Council Meeting indicates that the council intends to pass some version of the Sensitive Area Ordinance in early September 1990. We are concerned that the Council intends to pass an ordi- nance that is significantly different from the one drafted by the Citizens Advisory Committee, and contain requirements for proper- ty owners that were not included in the Committee's draft. Examples of these requirements that have been discussed by Mem- bers of the Council include requiring that home owners paint their houses with approved colors and landscape their property in an approved design with approved trees and shrubs. Also, it is possible a permit, or other type of approval will be required to remove trees. Please contact City Hall Planning Department at 433 -1849 for the schedule of meetings beginning this month and attend. This proposal is vitally significant to each of us. PLANNING COMMISSION The Tukwila City Council recently deleted the two non- resident positions on the seven - member Planning Commission with- 2 out a single complaint from the public before the Council or Planning Commission regarding non - residential membership. Those two positions were held by people who do have business interests in Tukwila. For 33 years a few business people have been ap- pointed to the Planning Commission. They have performed with integrity, honor, and dedication. Over the years their contribu- tions, knowledge, and skills has been considerable. If non- resident, but Tukwila business - connected people are not allowed on the Planning Commission, how about everyone else on all the other boards, consultants, and employees, who have so much influ- ence on our government? One of the avowed reasons for the "moratorium" on certain properties within the City was to allow for the acquisition of five specific properties for municipally owned "open spaces" and to be paid for by the proceeds of the King County Bond Issue passed in November 1989. It is now well into May and we have heard nothing about the progress towards obtaining these proper- ties. This is our tax money earmarked for specific properties at specific prices. The "moratorium" is now directed solely toward "Sensitive Areas," and we have heard nothing about the King County Bond Funds. Everyone, including citizens of Tukwila, deserve an immediate public review of progress or lack of same. Please call the City Hall Mayor's office at 433 -1800 to demand an accounting and report for the acquisition of the Tukwi- la properties. On Behalf of Tukwila Citizens for Quality Government. OPEN SPACES ee I 0 JNIJ/ ` • g t s J •Jt •Id L �t i tt• We 40 JSO (/'. • t ab 1 � r f• + L 440 JJs `LM; .r. • 1 g / I ga ea • 0 s p . ✓ easy -- C/re o k 0 o p . oe/ 144 dDblvti& G ' . 'o Jg '. . ` /:: % ik ,c y id yy Axi1 $ 4r J O 0 A O 0 0 ea 1 $ < J '771 0 0 a W aarfti DPN u c' 0 O O O O � M Io _/ • CM? /) OO w 7J cri 0 l 7J s J I.! o CP , ▪ 1�T _. . — 0 'v 0C." • i •., 0 h a 0 0 0 IP 0 • Si A 4 c. *saw /0• CO '0., N t f- • .'.4 Y et vol a ti O • .fs. .sue 0 0 0 0 w ro N 0 00.74 4. ti 4 O $4 . 0 O 0 Jo .l 1 4 w 01 I0., .. Gam 7 14-e-ot- saei .519The) • • Woft• zi/tv 5 0 �✓ • eifei4i4Zoo /Q° 56,a ky: eh, TO: The Members of the Tukwila City Council RE: Sensitive Areas Ordinance Public Hearing, April 22 and 24, 1991 There are so many points to address in this "draft" S.A.O., it would take considerable time to discuss all of them, so I will address only one, as follows: Page 18, 18.45.140 - Assessment Relief Despite any other intentions and /or purposes for the first two sentences, that is not what is stated here. How can a municipality, by using the term "shall ", dictate to the King County Assessor's Office 'ghat and how to assess property in a "Sensitive Area "? Further, this language could be discriminatory, in that it addresses only "Undeveloped" property. What about all the owners of property which has been developed to a degree and who possibly cannot now further develope, or be restricted in additional development, and who.have: not received density credits, setback or lot size adjust -' ments? It exempts landowners from paying L.I.D. assessments on the controlled "sensitive area ". If this becomes law, who is going to pay for the cost of exempted areas? The rest of the L.I.D. payors? Is it proper to distribute that cost to the other people in the L.I.D.? Will the exempted portion be paid from general funds at taxpayer -at -large expense? If so, would that then be a "gift" of public funds to the landowner, which is prohibited by the state consti- tution? It can reasonably be foreseen that if, almost the entire valley floor, and most of the hillsides of Tukwila are to be consiser- ed within the scope of this ordinance, "sensitive areas ", that the City of Tukwila could decimate it's tax base due to various tax relief methods, exemptions from L.I;D.'s, etc. It is not unrealistic to consider that the City of Tukwila could be nearly bankrupt, or that the tax burden could be shifted to any remaining property owners not affected by this S.A.O., so as to bankrupt them, or at least pay an unduly burdensome and unfair tax amount. M. Catherine Harris 5610 So. 141st St. Tukwila, WA 98168 Lea;na wi a 'Tukwila City Council Tukwila ( "itv Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 'l'ukwila, WA 98188 re:SA() Dear Council Members: 4115 South 13 Street Tukwila, WA 98168 April 22, 1991 [ am writing to express my support of the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. As we celebrate Earth Day today, it is appropriate to reflect on how we can preserve and protect our environment. We certainly do not want to become another L.A. with no open spaces and it's river contained within concrete banks. And yet we have to recognize that humans live here and have rights, too. Earlier this month 1 watched news coverage of the storms and thought , this is why we need the SAO. We need to ensure that we don't have homes slipping down the hillsides; the alternative is to wait until we actually see houses changing addresses. We must address the issues before people build on unstable areas. We must protect our streams and wetlands before they are gone forever. 1 have heard some of the wild rumors circulating and most of them are truly laughable. Last summer I attended one of your SAO work sessions and was impressed by your concern for individual property owners. Repeatedly, I heard you stop and debate whether the requirements under discussion would cause undue hardships for individuals, whether changes could be made that would still adequately protect the. environment. So I know that the SAO is a piece of legislation that has been carefully drafted over many long months. I do not think it is unreasonable to call for engineering and geotechnic reports when it is someone's new home that would be at risk if the building site was found to be unstable. After all, it is common practice to require "perk" tests before someone puts in a septic system. 'Pests protect the homeowner as well as the community at large. En conclusion, I would like to echo the statement in Dennis Robertson's letter which characterizes the SAO as a compromise between conflicting rights and needs. Our environment is too valuable, too precious for us to ruin because we lack the courage to act to protect it. Sincerely, Pam Carter April 24, 1991 STERLING RECREATION ORGANIZATION •,. - - Mayor Gary Van Dusen and Members of the City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: We are finally nearing the end of a long process to which many people have contributed many hours. For my own part, I want to thank the City for providing the opportunity for me and for others to participate in the development of the ordinance. Although there have been, and still are, strongly held differences of opinion among the participants in this process, there are also common goals. I believe that we all share a desire to protect significant environmental values and to build a viable, attractive city which will serve all elements of the community. This final version of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is, for the most part, a reasonable and generally workable document. There are, however, sections which still raise significant concerns. 1. Standards for the Alteration and Relocation of Watercourses (Section 18.45.080 E.1.e.(1) page 11) First, I do not believe, as the ordinance states, "the existing course for any watercourse is preferable to re- routing." Many of the watercourses mapped as sensitive areas have already been channelized. This presumption of existing natural conditions disregards the highly altered character of most of the existing watercourses in the city. Secondly, the requirement that alteration and relocation will be allowed only when enhancement or improvement occurs is unrealistic and excessive. In effect, it mandates the creation of new v environmentally sensitive areas with values and habitat beyond that which presently exist. A preferable standard is one which requires any alteration to result in a situation which is equal . to or better than existing conditions. 2. Uses and Standards (Section 18.45.080 D.2.b, page 9 and 18.45.080 E.1.e (3), page 11) "'ht tres 5t orts Eroaecast ;ng Video April 24, 1991 page 2 I suggest that the following additional language be added to these sections to give both the City and property owners the opportunity to achieve balanced protection. This would apply to wetlands and watercourses which have the lowest rating. "In evaluating the mitigation plans, the DCD Director and the City Council shall consider the existing zoning, the degree to which the site has already been altered, and the nature of adjacent development." 3. Reasonable Use Exception (Section 18.45.115D, page 17) As proposed by the Citizen's Committee, the purpose of including a reasonable use exception in the ordinance is to provide a rational process by which the city can consider alternative uses for properties when strict application of the ordinance would, destroy all effective use of property. It is intended to give the city flexibility in balancing protection of the environment and private property rights. It is essential, from a legal and reasonable point of view, that property owners who are severely impacted by this ordinance have a means of reasonable use that makes sense - -both from a planning and a practical point of view. As presently written, this section is so restrictive that it appears to eliminate any realistic application. An example is the limitation of development to the greater of 15% or 3600 square feet of the site. This arbitrary limit bears no relation to the size of the property or the nature of the sensitive area and renders the entire section being almost meaningless. I urge you to reconsider this provision, or at the very least, limit the applicability to single family residential. 4. Minimum Size of Regulated Wetlands (Section 18.45.115A, also on page 17) A threshold of 400 square feet for defining regulated wetlands is extremely small. This means regulating wetlands approximately 20' x 20', comparable in size to two standard parking spaces. Does preservation of areas of such limited size serve any substantive environmental value, and is it not preferable to allow a property owner to transfer this area into larger, more valuable wetlands? Other standards exist, for example the DOE's Model Wetland Protection Ordinance, which lists 2,500 square feet as a wetland threshold size. 5. Inconsistencies between the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Chapter 18.45) and the Environmental Regulations (Chapter 21.04) It appears that the regulation of environmentally sensitive areas is duplicated in both Chapter 18.45 and Chapter 21.04. This intertwining of regulations which are part of the zoning ordinance with the requirements and procedures of SEPA raise numerous April 24, 1991 page 3 issues about the effective interpretation and administration of this ordinance. For example, Section 18.45.080E 1.e(3) page 11 of the SAO provides detailed standards for mitigation plans for the alteration and relocation of watercourses. Section 21.04.150E page 36 Environmental Regulations also contains detailed mitigation standards for the alteration of wetlands and watercourses. Additionally, each chapter has different administrative processes and, more importantly, different appeal procedures. There appears to be a conflict caused by the commingling of these documents. This conflict obstructs the ability to consistently implement the ordinance. This is a complex issue and I strongly urge you to send it to the City Attorney for careful review and analysis. Finally, under the new Growth Management Act, sensitive area ordinances adopted now must be re- evaluated after the required update to the comprehensive plan. I would like to suggest that the city implement a program to monitor the ordinance over the next three years and identify those aspects which should be considered for modification. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the development of this ordinance and for your consideration of my comments. Ver truly your , • • Che, 1 Brown Pro•erty Manager CB:klb Y P.: 139TH 7 n 1 0 • 4 V ' J • - MID ••• • i i i 1 er 1 ;,c ! 110 n' 4 1 01/ 0 / ) E' . v i t , lb 1> .0 qt, t 4. .e..i i, : i j ,, Ix e r 1i. 1a a , seS.# t • s rIP N • King County Building & Land Development Division Parks. Planning and Resourres Department 3600 • 1361h Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 90(06.1•stm Floyd R. Hunt for Floyd R. Hunt, Inc. 18122 40th Ave. Seattle , WA 98108 RE: Appeal for File Number 3061 -33: Hunt Grading Dear Mr. Hunt, The threshold determination issued on 02/07/89 for your proposal ha,, been appealed. (See the attached). A public hearing before the Zoning and Sucdvision Examiner is scheduled for April 25, 1989 at 9:15AM in Hearing Room Number 2 , at the King County Building and Land Development Bldg., 3600 136th Pi. SE, Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400. You will receive a staff report approximately 2 weeks before the pub;i.(. hearing. Please contact the SEPA Center at 296 -6662 with your auesticns. Sincerely, Alton Smith Environmental Planner Appeal.prg /C /SEPA CC: Pat Downs, Environmental Coordinator Examiner's Office File Number: 3061 -33 SEPA Filenumber: 3061 -33 John R. Newell Craig Little -Greg DeAno Ray Vomenici Febuary 24, 1989 ' SEPA Center, King County Building and Land Development Bellevue, Washington Environmental Concerns; Intentions of Applicant; Even though the permit would not allow for dumpin' noxious or toxic materials, the applicants;`paatri ctird shows a trend toward non- compliance with county.2rsst:siction as he has been bringing material to the site late at night. There are numerous red -tail hawks and other animals in the area, and this project would unquestionable destroy a portion of their habitat. The long range grading plan calls for the removal of most trees and bringing in of fill on the property in question. Since the property has a considerable flowpof , ground water, I can only assume that the fill would become r , , badly eroded. _ Craig Hittle 4631 South 138th Street Seattle, WA 98168 I am appealing the issuance of grading permit 93061 -33 for the following reasons. Infringement of Right to Enjoyment; The removal of trees on the property and subsequent filling would completely disrupt the right of enjoyment, as guaranteed by law, of adjoining and neighboring property ---'ers. We would lose all protection against the adverse .4cts of the proximity to the freeway. Worse yet, we would a long term eyesore and traffic nuisance. In short, we .:ouid have an organic dumping ground in our block. The long range goals for land use are unspecified and questionable. It is my understanding that the applicant has stated his intention to possibly use it for a single family dwelling. It is obvious to me that the property would be more desirable as a single family building site if the majority of it remain in it's natural state with some improvement thereof. To state it simple, I don't see how the county can justify the filling of over 1.5 acres to accommodate a single family building site. end it II - Nti: ' - ^ *hould he be allowed to decrease the value of a•arby residences and the quality of life in the neighborlsgod when there are sites' specifically designed for his pas se? In conclusion, I would like ire state that 4 have spoken to several of my neighbors none of whom approve of granting the permit as it is proposed. Our neighborhood has been a target of projects in the past that have detracted from our quality of life, and we want this trend to stop. This area has unjustly been tagged as an undesirable neighborhood, and I refused to let our wants and needs be ignored because of others attitude towards it. I see no reason why King County should allow this permit to be issued since it will only serve the profit and convenience of the applicant at the expense and harm of others. I would not deny a landowner use and enjoyment of their property, but Mr. Hunt's long range plan goes well beyond any reasonable use of residential land. The very . concept of requiring permits is to prevent this type of travesty. Please use that system for it's intended and stop allowing my neighborhood to be used as .a dumping ground. Thank -you, Craig Hittle 243 -4173 Home 244 -6400. Business 1015 , 7 7 s 7 SEPA Center King County Building and Land Development Bellevue, Washington Increase noise: Greg and Diane oeAno 4628 South 138th Seattle WA 98168 I wish to appeal the issuance of grading permit #3061 -33 for the following reasons. Slippage of adjacent residential structure: I am concerned about natural drainage swale on wetland which covers the majority of the property in question. The earth movement on potential erosion associated with this proposal threatens my right to support of my property and it's accompanying structure. This threat is further compounded by the seismic sensitivity of the area. In addition,.the shifting of fill material will surcharge the land and cause considerable surface water on to adjacent properties. Current treed landscape provides buffer of noise from I- 5 freeway. The clearing Mr. Hunt has done so far has significantly increased the noise level from the freeway. Noise has been further increased by Mr. Hunts activities of dumping and clearing at night and early morning on weekends. I feel this added noise will far exceed standards for noise and pollution in a residential area, and see no evidence that this problem has been addressed. Aesthetics: This clearing: and filling of this land will destroy my view of the natural landscape and replace it Vie a view of the freeway and the AAll its41 . It . w44 saee►t and eyesore, and disrupt asethst�ills et the contddt of the land. ' Animals: since I ._ Ii gm t het 0 01 11 1111100101 4452Ibirds, w -jays, reeSOOMOc Alit oa the... t .e. posed site, mille is plated • •r Health concerns: Easement: throl60 site. •••;, '• • ••••• •" ••• We are the neighbors adjacent to the propsed dumping site and Are appealing the issuance of Hunts Grading Permit. The properties in question are in the I -5 corridor between I -5 and MacAdam Road. This area contains approximately 7 acres of land which is a natural drain- age for a major portion of the hillside between MacAdam Road and Highway 99. Topographically, the terrain averages twenty to thirty feet below a mean level of MacAdam Road. J. di mot Viitt our neighborhood unfavoszsbly impacted by the Hunts Grad proposal. This area is next to a recently eveloped comm- erci i us • aM worth bssiness properties diteotly of the h aem area. it is interesting to note that �,s area bsa changed to a benetioial attraction to the community, while this proposal would create a blighted dumpsite ruining the property for useful purposes.. This area is currently in a proposed annexation to Tukwila. Recently in many Tukwila City Council Meetings this area was considered in a comprehensive plan for commercial zonning. This has passed all phases of annexation and the voting is in March. It appears that the King County Building and Land Development unit is trying to pass this proposal through before the people in the community have had a chance to change the jurisdiction by voting to accept Tukwilas annexation. Tukwila has been working with residents to determine desired zonning. It wee- noted'that•Floyd and Doreen Hunt did not participate in these efforts. They purchased the property, not to be neighbors or any part of the community. They obviously purchased the property to create a dump fill site to facilitate their excavating business. They have no concern for the detremental effect because they are not living in this area. The trees in the area butler the intense noise created by traffic on I -5 and its junction with 522 Foster interchange. This proposal would eliminate agy dampening of the noise and severely impact the existing hen. d on the slope sear Macadam lead. The imseh e$ the fill as prrposed would alter current drainage patterns a �foxte water to adjacent properties. As proposed it would also resu.the hydralic effect of till ressure and exude sediMshtS The fin ws Thei me sguirels are trees, wets; d flow to the pons and o below this area. sr the abserbtiok •t increase the speed of Westerly slopes and $os is a habitat tar aairala • Sleds also ,evident is the .area. This slew is covered. with pl ats and cattails. The creek has water cress and shrubs as aestiat s ty . gaseous sad Ray Vomenici 4822 S. 138m Seattle, Wa. 98188 • This proposal .. ty. At the coapletion, this - eyesore dump site which would reduce values of all sorrolm ng properties. It would also eliminate future potential 40:othilp mitre suitable developne.::. cc. King County Council Members: Gregg Nichols, Lois North • In our submitted nap you Cis f ' -i . ;ive ideation of the dump site relative . to bor4ir �. Y,. � '�.; . ., � These Other owners have unanimously Joined in condeming letitt. The appeals have been sent in to SEPL Center from everyone completely surrounding this location. Mr and Mrs Robinson, north of this location, have voice'' their objections to the undersigned and wish to be included. In view of the above factors we do not Seel the permit was addressed sufficiently as to our concerns. lie request the Ling Count;, 3uildina and Land Development Unit reject this permit. Respectfully Submitted, A PUBLIC: INTEMST LAW YIPII TO: Tukwila City Council Members FROM: Jeanette Burrag Northwest Legal 'oundation RE: Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance DATE: April 22, 1991 Northwest Legal Foundation MEMORANDUM A city council member's oath of office probably contains some language about promising to uphold the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions. This seems to imply refraining from passing ordinances which violate the constitution, rather than waiting for a court of law to tell you a mistake has been made. Therefore, I have the following comments on the City of Tukwila's proposed sensitive areas ordinance. While the City of Tukwila has the authority to prevent harm to neighbors by regulation of land use, when it appropriates the use of property to a public use, such as for rearing animals and birds or water retention facilities, it has "taken" the use of that land. Under these circumstances, the city should pay compensation to the property owner. It is only fair that the public pay for such land use because it is the public who benefits. Consider a similar situation where four property owners each have a lot: N W IA E S The city needs to put a road through somewhere between A and D. Lots A, C and D all have houses on them already. The city has no right to tell B he or she cannot use lot B to build a house on because the city needs it for a road, without compensation. This would be true even if the property were not going to be paved and were to be used as a road in its existing state. Similarly, the city does not own the land next to all streams and lakes. Much of this land is privately owned. When the use is converted by the city to be a water retention facility or an open space for animals, the property owner should be paid the fair market value of his or her land. 557 Roy Street, Suite 200, Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 283-0503 There is no harm done to the neighboring property owners, as in a nuisance, by development of areas next to streams and lakes. Political environmentalists even admit that animal habitat has been "lost to urbanization ". This means that, like in the road example, A, C, and D have developed their property near streams, or use it for a grassy yard, but B cannot use his land as his neighbors have, because it is the last one left. Here, too, compensation should be paid to B for the benefit he or she is providing. A, C, and D are benefiting along with everyone else, and should have to share the expense. If this is not done, citizen B will suffer thousands of dollars in loss, while A, C, and D pay nothing. The Supreme Court of the United States has said,...the Fifth Amendment's just compensation provision is "designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole," First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 2388, 482 U.S. 304, 318 -19, 96 LEd 2d 250 (1987). The proposed ordinance, if enacted, is, 1) a violation of the constitutionally protected due process rights of property owners, and 2) a taking of property without just compensation. Citizens are protected from over burdensome regulations under the State Constitution, Article I, section 3. The Washington State Supreme Court has said "...We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change...," Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 W2d 400, 348, P2d 664 (1960). In that same case, the Court quoted a Texas court which stated, "...the substantial value of property lies in its use. If the rights of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right," (Ackerman 55 W2d at 409). The court in Ackerman ruled that air space was part of an owner's property. In reaching that conclusion, the court reasoned that the government could not declare all airspace to be in the public domain and then claim immunity against the claims of property owners for damages. Similarly, Tukwila cannot legally claim that wetlands or their buffers are public domain, to avoid compensating property owners for their non -use. An ordinance which prohibits development of these lands, or significantly burdens its use, will therefore likely be held to be an uncompensated taking. When an ordinance denies use to protect preexisting uses, the state cannot avoid the conclusion that a regulatory taking has occurred, Orion, 109 W2d 621. The proposed ordinance seeks to deny use of land by protecting preexisting uses. While the Growth Management Act requires identification and protection of wetlands, local governments have discretion on how to accomplish this. Tukwila can be the model city for how to best balance the desire -to use wetlands for animal habitat with the need to protect property rights. If the city purchases the wetlands, you can be assured that the best ones are preserved. You may wish to put a measure on the ballot in November for a tax to pay for the acquisition of the most valuable wetlands. 2 Tukwila would then set an example. You would then be ahead of other cities financially if the courts eventually require compensation be paid to all wetlands owners whose land was taken by regulation without compensation. An alternative would be a new section, added to the ordinance, which provides for payment for the land used and procedures for property owners to follow when applying for compensation. The downside of this alternative is that wetlands will be purchased in order of when a permit is applied for rather than which are the most valuable for water retention and wildlife habitat. To vote for passage of the proposed ordinance without one of these corrections would seriously violate the oath of office taken by council members to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of Tukwila. I have comments on several particular sections of your ordinance: 1) The index does not correspond to the body of the draft. 2) Unguided discretion is allowed the building department when setting "buffer" requirements on a particular project (18.45.040 (c)(5)). There appears to be no evidence why a 50' buffer is needed by the public, as opposed to a 10' buffer. If the public were to pay for the property they are taking, the size of the "needed" buffers might change. What does that say for their "need ?" 3) In 18.45.080(E)(6) flood control measures are only allowed by the City. You may want individual property owners to cover the expense of flood control on their own property by allowing them to do so with a permit. This would be protection for the City from some damage actions where flooding occurs that could have been prevented, but where the City did not have funds to correct the problem. 4) Another suggestion to decrease the financial burden of this ordinance and your potential liability would be to exclude wetlands that are under 10,000 square feet. Excluding small amounts in regulations and taxes is common to bring costs more in line with the benefits received. 5) By requiring that a "sensitive area study" be submitted at the time of permit application, you appear to be attempting to delay vesting of the applicant's due process rights. A similar delaying tactic was found invalid in West Main Assoc. v. Bellevue. 6) On your latest draft, there is no distinction between current law and proposed changes where ordinances are to be amended. For those not deeply familiar with the Tukwila code, this makes analysis extremely difficult. While I agree that the city might want to conserve animal habitat and water retention areas for the public, I believe the city has a moral and legal responsibility to pay for the land they use. The hierarchy of laws, as I am sure you are aware, is the Washington State Constitution, the Washington State laws, and then local ordinances. Article I, Section 16 of the Washington State Constitution provides: "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." 3 gin tile gnat?! $ffe Cairns Court No. 266 -82L Filed: July 23, 1990 • • • • • s • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., • • Plaintiff, • • v. • • • THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. • • • • • • • • • s • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • John A. DeVault, 1!!, with whom were C. Warren Tripp, Jr., Jane A. Lester, and John Tolson, Jacksonville, Florida, for plaintiff. Fred R Disheroon, with whom was David Kaplan, Washington, D.C., for defendant. • SMITH, Chief Judge. OPINION Taking; Regulatory taking; Property interest or right subject to taking; Nuisance exception; Valuation; RUSCC 52(a); Review of evidence on remand This regulatory taking claim is before the court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed in part and vacated in part the opinion of the first trial court. After considering evidence presented at the original trial and additional evidence presented after remand, the court finds that the Army Corps of Engineers' denial of a permit to fill plaintiff's property resulted in a taking, and accordingly awards just compensation as mandated by the fifth amendment. 1 The first trial was held before then -Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. gin the Plitt?, 5tates Claims evert No. 243 -83L Filed: July 23, 1990 ........................ LOVELADIES. HARBOR,JNC., and LOVELADIES HARBOR, UNIT D, INC., Plaint:f fs, v . THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ........................ Kevin !. Coakley, with whom was Stephen for plaintiffs. Gary S. Guzy, with whom was Fred R. defendant. SMITH, Chief Judge. OPINION FACTS • • • • • • • • • • • Taking; Regulatory taking, Property interest or right subject to taking; Valuation; Fed. R. Evid. 301 D. IGnnard, Roseland, New Jersey, Disheroon, Washington, D.C., for This regulatory taking claim is before the court after a one -week trial, which followed the denial of cross - motions for summary judgment: After considering evidence presented at trial and having examined the site with the aid of counsel and expert witnesses, the court finds that the Army Corps of Engineers' denial of a permit to. fill plaintiffs property resulted in a taking, and accordingly awards just compensation as mandated by the fifth amendment. The majority of the facts underlying this case previously were set forth in Loveladies Harbor, Inc v. United States, 15 0. Ct. 381 (1988), and are recited briefly below for the reader's convenience. Tukwila City Council Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 re:SAO Dear Council Members: 4115 South 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 April 22, 1991 1 am writing to express my support of the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. As we celebrate Earth Day today, it is appropriate to reflect on how we can preserve and protect our environment. We certainly do not want to become another L.A. with no open spaces and it's river contained within concrete banks. And yet we have to recognize that humans live here and have rights, too. Earlier this month 1 watched news coxerage of the storms and thought , this is why we need the SAO. We need to ensure that we don't have homes slipping down the hillsides; the alternative is to wait until we actually see houses changing addresses. We must. address the issues before people build on unstable areas. We must protect our streams and wetlands before they are gone forever. 1 have heard some of the wild rumors circulating and most of them are truly laughable. Last summer 1 attended one of your SAO work sessions and was impressed by your concern for individual property owners. Repeatedly, .[ heard you stop and debate whether the requirements under discussion would cause undue hardships for individuals, whether changes could be made that would still adequately protect the environment. So I know that the SAO is a piece of legislation that has been carefully drafted over many long months. 1 do not think it is unreasonable to call for engineering and geotechnic reports when it is someone's new home that would be at risk if the building site was found to be unstable. After all, it is common practice to require "perk" tests before someone puts in a septic system. Tests protect the homeowner as well as the community at large. In conclusion, I would like to echo the statement in Dennis Robertson's letter which characterizes the SAO as a compromise between conflicting rights and needs. Our environment is too valuable, too precious for us to ruin because we lack the courage to act to protect it. Sincerely, Pam Carter TAXPAYER ALERT !!! Snohomish County wetlands policy forces Mukilteo School District to spend over 17 Million for preserving 11/2 acre of "wetlands." ($17,000,000)!!! This includes redesign, remodeling existing facilities to cover in the interim, land costs, etc. This does not include additional bond interest. This acre and a half of "Wetlands" will cost each household in the district over $900 (plus interest) . The price for this one and one half acres would pay the salaries of over 600 teachers for a full year. To go around the "wetland" and its "buffers" the school district had to take land off the tax rolls which, when developed,would have provided over $227,000 per year in property taxes. The current taxpayers in the Mukilteo School District will have to absorb this loss. If you don't agree with this recent "wetland" policy, call your Snohomish County Councilmember at 388 -3494 and demand a more rational policy. On decisions costing billions of dollars to taxpayers, the council should give us a chance to vote on it. No such indirect taxation should be allowed without putting it on the ballot. Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands 388 -3494 388 -3494 388 -3494 388 -3494 388 -3494 388 -3494 388 -3494 Idaho livestock groups blast veto of `private property bill' BOISE — Representatives of the Idaho Wool Growers As- sociation (IWGA) and the Idaho Cattle Association {ICA) have expressed disappoint- ment over a decision by Gov. Cecil Andrus to veto a bill passed by the Idaho Legiala tare regarding regulatory - takings of private property. House Bill 262, sponsored in the Senate by Republican • Caucus Chairman Mary Bar- • tong, 8-Payette, would have established 'regulatory takings and procedure" assuring `just compensation" by government 1 entities whose actions. 'adver- eely affect" private real proper - ty values. - • It would have required state agencies to assess the potential of their antieau to adversely af- feet or "take" private proper* - and required state: agencies te prepare..a ; natibitionat. ion' pact statement" prior to agencf actions . tbat invoked private �y. ProP ... *tinier - A ng er privets property - was defined in the bdi as an -. uncompensated damaging .. or . deprivatiim o[privati property in violation • the, state 'et federal coaetitutions.= - In his veto aieasege,.Andrus • said the - bill: Vievidea no. remedy that a property Tinier • cannot now obtain in court if - • his or her' 'property is takes . ;. • ".Pith this veto,: . Sr) clear the limn* fesga . the t of'> t! !. owner sure ssooadatp- to : the grirtvtli. 'Of `stet _ goverismeu ,' said Brad Little, IWGA preaident: - 'The aide point gflba laden vies to: put is plebe ie Procedure that would prevent the. I property owner from beaus =o to oouit in the first &Ci;" he aid: • "This. wOu1d have provided relief . in oar over- burdened court ` yyatism as well put in -Place needed protection for owners of. pate property," Little will. • • The bill received widespread aaiport In the Idaho Legisla- ture, with over 84 peircent of . the liwmakela giving their tip • pro*. '.`It is apparent the :Other* of Idaho, through their - elected 'representativ:es, *Vera' this bill," Little oodta�ooesed. • 11vgn8e of private Property - . are: probably now occuring private property owners - :w'bo are not protesting be arise. tbsy lade the time arid Open- - . cial pen- dal resources to battle the government in court, Little The state bill was similar to federal _ legislation *traduced in Congress by Sen. Steve Symms, R- ldaho, who.. co- - sponsored the Private Propel;* - Act . is the. Semite, and. Rep._ Richard Stallings, -- -1?4daho, who co-epa red the :Ieg el - t ion • in the Ho The vetoed legislation Wind& have helped Idaho avoid costly. legal • suite • by proridina : a . process to help goverimiont . bodies evaluate whether. or not proposed regulations : or 'ad= ministratiye actions may result in a �g of pmt pT rights, - said Dui► Hanuniond,. Idaho Cattle Association president. -; : - . : , -. : : ' Th legitahtion simpli erode good sense and assured proper pmts tion `if . oonstntiitsplialhT guaranteed : right/ 7..' be said: `The bill would have es- tablished a process to look beforeyou leap.'As in any busi- ness, you should know the Fos- Bilge costs and impacts of a prglect before jumping into it - head first. " - • • • The basis of the : Idaho Regulatory Takings Act came from. an E:recntive 'Order signed by President Reagan in 1988 • to ensure that govern- : mama actions were. undertaken on well- reasoned .basis an with due regard for fiscal so- countability, Haiamond.said: • - the constitutions of both the United States and the State of Idaho require that private property not to be taken .without due proems of law and just compensation : huivias first been made, the federal government is current - ly. facing - over $1 billion in out- ? etining ab"go" deima,'saia Hammoad...Of these, three • dgements made last year to- taled over =120 million, the ICA president said. According to a Congreeaional Research Service report, federal courts ruled in favor of the landowner more than half of the time when regulatory takings 'were at issue in 1990, he continued vetoing : this legislation, the governor told property owners that if they feel their rights are being violated, they should sue. It was a real slap hi the fate to folks who foot the bill for Idaho's Public progrsnne through property taxes," Ham- mond said. . "It's too bad that the Legisla- ture has adjourned and titers is rib opportunity for an override," Hammond added, referring 'to the fact that the bill paased both Houses . by veto f FFK3M:lauriePlatircjohbehalfofMarloSagalearidSegaleFamily RE: SonsithreAreaa'Ordinance (Draft Dated March 15, 1991).: Good evening, my name is Laurie Pinard and 1 aivhere on behalf of Mario Segal. and the Segal* Family, property owners and citizens of the City of Tukwila. We are not in favor of the Sensitive Areas. Ordinance as Drafted because it'lacks the necessary balance between protecting the environment and the property rights of those affected by the SAO.' Before the City adopts this SAO Draft, we feel that the following changes be made: 1. We object to the provision for arbitrary compulsory buffer widths in the current SAO Draft as such arbitrary buffer widths are not based upon scientific data and are not reasonably related to the City's goal of protecting wetlands and watercourses and providing buffers for the stated purposes. Diane Sheldon, a wetlands specialist from the firm of Jones & Stokes, under contract with the City of Tukwila has stated that: "in the City of Tukwila, to require a 100 foot buffer right now is ludicrous :because most of your wetlands have not seen 100 foot buffers for a nigh on a decade and you don't want to look silly" Ken Baedeke PhD who spoke to you at the City Council Public Hearing on Monday April 22, .1991. (and to tha:Planning Commission at their Public Hearing :on August .30, 1990) has, advised that buffers should be determined in order to protect and: enhance the acknowledged functions and valueop:of'individuaL wetlands. That is, each wetland ` should- :be: treated- individually and not evaluated based ...upoltailsciantific. and unsupported standard.. If the City., of Tukwila is serious about protecting wetlands, it must' allow experts;to,Asterline the functions and values of wetlands and watercoursas,;.;andadVilis on howl, but to buffer them. Wetlands subjaCt to iegulation the SAO should be inventoried. owner as to whether and how such of his or her property will be affected by this ordinance. s. USE s=CIPTIOWI. In Section 18.45.115 we note that two important exceptions have not been allowed: A. Conforming Uses. The City should consider a provision which confirms that existing structures and /or uses will be . considered conforming structures and uses. This appears to be the intent of the City, in that such a provision exists as an amendment in the Subdivision Ordinance. We suggest that the following language be - a d d e d as a subsibtion under Section 18.45.115: B. The City should also consider, inclusion of a provision allowing the modification . of such ` Conforming .structures - provided that such modifications do not go against the general purpose of the SAO. We suggest the following languago:- RE: Mirth 15, X 1991 Draft SAO April 24, 1991 Page 3 3. REORDERING SICTION 18.45.080. (to remove ambiguity) In our reading of the March 15, 1991 Draft the SAO we note an area of potential confusion in Section 18.45.080. It is possible to read the provisions of this Section in two contradictory ways. We believe that the intent of this provision. is to provide a description of permitted uses and to direct applicants to the Reasonable Use Exception provisions for authority to undertake uses other than those delineated. tN If one reads the first two sentences o 's:u l Ilion. undue ":.,the:: heading "General" -- one is left with the• impression 'that tl a' atly uses which are allowed in any sensitive. area are those identified in subsections A and 8 or those which mayor sore likely will;, be allowed under subsection C. If however, one reads the entire Section. 18.45 080= -- one .finds provisions addressing particular uses and developments allowed in each sensitive area category -- (wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geological instability, abandoned coal sine areas & areas of important geological or archaeological evidence):. We suagest that the subsections b ' a few words be revised to clearly identify thir. "City''is intent. • The languaaa contained in current subsection C should_appear bkpt. as subsection K. In this way it will be clear that'th* City has provided for 1• • • 2• • • 3• • • 4• • • Our suggested revisions are shaded":' 18.45.080' Uses. and: Standards RE: March 15, 1991; Draft SAO April 24, 1991 Page 4 ....... ......... . B. Permitted Uses Subject to Administrative review. The following uses may be permitted within a sensitive area or its buffer only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director C. Wetlands. 1. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland or its buffer exce•t as s• cificall allowed b Section 18.45.080 (1, 2 and 3) Any use or development a ow • s s • o a 1 an ► ar. s o s section. D. Watercourses. E. Areas of Potential Geologic instability. 1. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district . . . F. Abandoned Hine Areas. G. Areas of Important Geological or Archaeological Evidence. H. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval. S,I RVINC :: 11t;K1I• :N SEATAC TUKWILA The Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce has closely followed the progress of the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance through our Tukwila City Government Committee since 1989. During this time a multitude of draft versions have been produced, making the legislative process both complex and difficult. Once again we would like to confirm that we as corporate citizens do truly recognize the need to protect the environment and maintain the quality of life in Tukwila. To properly protect wetlands, streams, and watercourses, realistic regulations which provide a balance between the needs of the environment and the rights of property owners in Tukwila, must be developed and implemented. We, as the Chamber, acknowledge and thank the City Council and Staff for their assistance and cooperation during the past 18 plus months on this issue. Based on our findings, however we recommend that the following major areas of concern be addressed by the Council and Staff prior to the passage of the SAO document. 1. Section 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers (Page 6) 2. Section 18.45.040 C. Wetlands and Watercourses (Pages 6 & 7) Concern: The basis for the ranking values is not clear in the Jones and Stokes, Inc. recommendations. 3. Section 18.45.115 Exceptions subsection A. (Page 17) Burien: 15030 8th Avenue SW Burien WA 98166 Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce COMMENTS TO CITY OF TUKWILA COUNCIL MEMBERS SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE - DATED MARCH 15, 1991 Concern: Predetermined buffer widths appear to have been arbitrarily established without any scientific basis. Recommendation: Establish buffers on a case by case basis as the Chamber has recommended earlier and has been recommended by the City's consultant, the citizens committee, the Planning Commission and numerous business citizens and residents. Recommendation: Inventory and define low, medium and high quality . wetlands on a case by case basis, and use a scientific method to establish criterion for buffering. Concern: Isolated wetlands that are 400 square feet or smaller in size, appear to be an arbitrary description for areas to be exempted from the SAO. That is, they have been established without scientific basis. Recommendation: Use the Department of Ecology model of 2,500 square feet as an established standard. Mailing: P.O. Box 58591 Seattle, WA 98138 (206) 244 - 3160 Tukwila: 225 Tukwila Parkway Seafirst Bank @ Southcenter Tukwila, WA 98188 v Chamber Comments on 3/15/91 SAO Page 2 4. Section 18.45.115 D. Reasonable Use Exceotions, subsection 4. f. (Page 18) Concern: The Draft SAO does not provide an explanation of the basis for the : "greater of 15% or 3,600 square feet of the site" language included in this provision, nor does it provide a definition of "the site ". It appears likely, that only single family residential structures can be accommodated under the restriction of the Reasonable Use Exception provision. Recommendation: If our interpretation of Section 18.45.115 is correct, the provision should be modified to accommodate uses other than single family residential structures in areas zoned for commercial and industrial uses. In other words, reasonable use should be defined as use permitted by zoning and consistent with neighboring uses. Title 18 Zoning and Title 21 Environmental Regulations Concern: These documents contradict each other in that each uses different wording on the same subject. The user of the document would have to use both chapters side by side and parallel to each other in order to follow correct mitigation planning. For example: Title 18, Section 18.45.080 E. Watercourses, subsection 1.e.(1) (Page 11) says: "Maintenance or improvement of stream channel dimensions, including similar depth, width, and length gradient of the original location." Title 21, Section 21.04.150 Threshold determinations Mitigated DNS, subsection E.3.a. (Page 36) says: "Maintain or enhance stream channel dimensions.' Recommendation: Revise the language in Title 18 so that it is consistent with the language in Title 21. In conclusion, the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce recognizes the need for protection of sensitive areas and wetlands. We will support the development of an ordinance that meets the needs of Tukwila business citizens and residents alike. We also strongly urge you to carefully consider comments made and presented during the Public Hearing process. For the Board of Directors: Robert Southall President Committee of The Whole Meeting March 11, 1991 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT 10:45 p.m. C6 74 general election. To hold a Special Election on a referendum would cost the City an estimated $7,100. State Law requires an election be held 30 - 60 days from the time the petition is filed, unless there's a general election in 90 days or less, in which case it can be held then. Concerns were expressed with regards to whether this Referendum and Initiative Process would be in the community's best interest (at times) especially when land use and zoning issues are addressed. While some Councilmembers had reservations with passing this resolution, they all agreed to support it. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM BE FORWARDED TO THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18,1991. MOTION CARRIED. Continued review of the The Council completed review of the draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance SAO. and established the following schedule: March 25 City -wide mailing updating citizens on status and availability of draft SAO. April 11 & 17 Workshops /citizens participation. April 22. Public Hearing. REPORTS Council President Robertson distributed information for clarification (per the Mayor's direction) on the General Law Regarding Conflicts of Interest and "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine," to all councilmembers. Councilmember Ekberg commented he will be video taping the Council in Action on Monday, March 18, to take to Ikawa, Japan, our Sister City. Council President Robertson reported he had received (from the City Clerk's office) the latest, official head count for the City of Tukwila. The City's population is now at 14,631. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. Dennis Robertson, Council President elia Square, Depu City Clerk March 7, 1991 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS SPECIAL ISSUES Sensitive Areas Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT 10:50 p.m. TUICWI A CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOE DUFFLE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS. LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; RICK BEELER, DCD; GARY SCHULZ, DCD; JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney. The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Time was allotted for citizen's input. It was the consensus of the Council to add the SAO (for discussion) to the Committee of The Whole agenda of 3/11/91. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOEIO CARRIED. Robertson, Council president Celia Square, Dep ity Clerk d (0 7 3 February 25, 1991 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:30 p.m. / SPECIAL ISSUES Continued discussion of draft SAO. ADJOURNMENT 11 :00 p.m. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS. JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; DON WILLIAMS, Parks & Recreation; ALAN DOERSCHEL, Finance; RICK BEELER, DCD; GARY SCHULZ, DCD; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. Ms. Marie Gardner, 14112 57th Avenue South, distributed a letter she had addressed to the Mayor and Councilmembers. The contents of the letter addressed a recent community meeting held at Tyee High School and sponsored by the METRO 2000 Transit Subcommittee. Various proposals were discussed that may impact Tukwila; however, relatively few details were given at the meeting. Remarks made by staff present indicated that many engineering and planning documents were finished or nearing completion for submitting to voters for funding in the Spring of 1992. Ms. Gardner requested the City call for a Public Meeting in conjunction with the local Chamber of Commerce so that citizens may have an opportunity to ask questions and voice their opinion. Mayor VanDusen announced that the Community Center Citizens Action Committee will meet on 2/26/91 at 7:00 p.m. The facilities study won't be on the agenda because the Council had not been given a draft copy for review. The Mayor also requested verbal approval from the Council to proceed with the necessary steps to approve a resolution providing for a Medical Benefit package for the dependents of the City's military reserve employees. The Mayor stated that Alan Doerschel, Finance Director, will oversee this effort. Doerschel commented employees are willing to give up a day's vacation each month to provide such coverage. Doerschel had already discussed this matter with the State Auditor and foresees no problems with this plan. The Mayor requested verbal approval from the Council to proceed due to the time frame involved. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ THAT VERBAL APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO INITIATE A MEDICAL BENEFIT PACKAGE FOR THE DEPENDENTS OF THE CITY'S MIUTARY RESERVE EMPLOYEES. MOTION CARRIED. The Council Adjourned to go into Executive Session. Councilmember Moriwaki requested to be excused. The Council agreed to excuse Moriwaki from executive session. The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Council agreed to meet again Thursday. March 7.7:30 - 9:30 p. to continue discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Appropriate time will be provided for citizen's input. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. Dennis Robertson, Council President x= J� elia Square, putt' City Clerk February 7, 1991 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS SPECIAL ISSUES Sensitive Areas Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Lu COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Dennis Robertson, Council President Celia Square, Deplfifty City Clerk Tukwila City Hall Conference Room #3 Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOAN HERNANDEZ, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS, ALLAN EKBERG, JOE DUFFIE. LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; RICK BEELER, DCD; GARY SCHULZ, DCD; JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Time was allotted for citizen's input. It was the consensus of the Council to add the SAO. to the Committee of The Whole agenda on 2/11/91; and to schedule THURSDAY FEBRUARY 21.1991. - 9:30 to discuss the SAO exclusively. Appropriate time will be provided for citizen's input. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MQ�TI�1 CARRIED.: January 31, 1991 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS V SPECIAL ISSUES Sensitive Areas Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT 9:25 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Dennis Robertson, Council President Celia Square, Dep �L•�esr — � City Clerk Tukwila City Hall Conference Room #3 Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS, ALLAN EKBERG. LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; RICK BEELER DCD. The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Time was allotted for citizen's input. The Council agreed to meet again Thursday. February 7, 630 - 930 per. to continue discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Appropriate time will be provided for citizen's input. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. January, 28,1991 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES CALL TO ORDER REPORTS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCILMEMBERS DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS. OFFICIALS JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; JOHN COLGROVE, MIKE KENYON City Attorneys; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; DOUG MICHEAU, Public Works Coordinator; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. Discussion of the MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO DELETE SAO. DISCUSSION OF THE SAO FROM AGENDA AND SCHEDULE FOR THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 1991, 6:30 - 9:30 P.M., CONFERENCE ROOM #3. MOTION CARRIED. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Wendy Morgan commented that the Seafair Boat Association has established the City of Tukwila (off Interurban Avenue) as their new headquarters for the Miss Budweiser Hydroplane. Morgan encouraged the Council to schedule a tour for informational purposes. Wendy Morgan also informed the Council that Valley General Hospital has closed access to essentially 20 beds in its psychiatric unit. Morgan suggested the Council, being elected officials, may want to begin establishing arguments in opposition of the effect this could pose in the community at- large. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO FORWARD THE VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL ISSUE TO THE FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor VanDusen informed the Council he had recently attended a meeting held by the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce. The City of SeaTac, City of Tukwila and the American Legion were in attendance and discussed creating a symbol of significance that will express our concern about our military personnel who are presently serving in the Middle East. Councilmember Hernandez reported that the Council Retreat was one of the best she had ever attended (held this past weekend). She was most impressed with the productive results, and with the facilitator who was the best in building team work she has ever witnessed. Councilmember Rants recently attended the Governor's Forum on Education in the Work Place. He stated it was very well presented and very well prepared. The forum focused on the education of the working population to create a better economy and better skilled people. Councilmember Duffle reported the Community Affairs and Parks Committee discussed plans to proceed with the work on the street, sewer, water, sidewalk and associated improvements for Crystal Springs Park. This issue was forwarded to 2/11/91 Committee of The Whole meeting. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL January 24,1991 Tukwila City Hall 6:30 p.m. Conference Room #3 CQMMITTEE OF THE WHOA imam CALL TO ORDER Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. COUNCILMEMBERS DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS. OFFICIALS JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney, LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; MOIRA BRADSHAW, DCD; RICK BEELER, DCD.. V SPECIAL ISSUES The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Sensitive Areas Areas Ordinance. Time was allotted for citizen's Ordinance. input. It was the consensus of the Council to add the SAO to Monday, January 28 Committee of The Whole agenda for continued discussion. The Council agreed to meet again Thu v. January 31.6:30.930 pm. to continue discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Appropriate time will be provided for citizen's input. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE 9:40 P.M. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. ON CARRIED. .-,. o(. (, iL Dennis Robertson, Council President Celia Square, uty City Clerk CALL TO ORDER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE $PECIAL ISSUES a) Continued discussion of draft SAO (6:30 -9 p.m.) b) Citizen comments on draft SAO. (Comments should be limited to 5 minutes per person) (9 -9:30 p.m.) 4. MISCELLANEOUS 5. ADJOURNMENT, January 17, 1991 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS / SPECIAL ISSUES �/ Continued discussion of draft SAO. ADJOURNMENT 9:55 p.m. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Robertson, Council President Tukwila City Hall Conference: Room #3 Council President Robertson, called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOAN HERNANDEZ, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS. JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; MOIRA BRADSHAW, DCD; RICK BERT .ER, DCD. The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Time was allotted for citizen's comments. The Council agreed to meet again Thursday, January ?A, 6:30 - 930 p.m, to continue discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Appropriate time will be provided for citizen's input. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. "� — ION CARRIED. 1. CALL TO ORDER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. January 17, 1991 6:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. SPECIAL ISSUES a) Continued discussion of draft SAO (6:30 -9 p.m.) b) Citizen comments on draft SAO. (Comments should be limited to 5 minutes per person) (9-9:30 p.m.) 4. MISCELLANEOUS 5. ADJOURNMENT TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tukwila City Hall Conference Room #3 January 10,1991 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS OFFICIALS SPECIAL ISSUES Sensitive Areas Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 0:11) Tr_ EE OF THE WHOLE M ■ ,ter Celia Square, D piny City Cle Tukwila City Hall Conference Room #3 Council President Robertson called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. DENNIS ROBERTSON, Council President; JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS, JOE DUFFLE. JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; MOIRA BRADSHAW, DCD. The Council resumed discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Time was allotted for citizen's input. It was the consensus of the Council to add the SAO to Monday, January 14 Committee of The Whole agenda for continued discussion. The Council agreed to meet again Thursday. January 17.6:30 - 9:00 pm. to continue discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Appropriate time will be provided for citizen's input. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY RANTS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHO MEETING BE ADJOURNED. TION CARRIED. Dennis Robertson, ounc • rest' ent PUGET POWER Mayor Gary VanDusen Council President Dennis Robertson City of Tukwila •6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila WA 98188 18.06.23 January 10, 1991 Subject: Definition of Utility for Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Mayor VanDusen and Council President Robertson: Tukwila has proposed the following definition for its Sensitive Areas Ordinance: Essential right -of -way or utility. Essential right -of -way or utility means a utility facility, utility system or . right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. This definition is not a suitable definition of "utility" for three reasons: 1. It excludes the bulk of utility facilities. Most utility facilities are not located such that there are feasible alternative locations. 2. The language is not a definition but rather a substantive test for distinguishing between utilities, that is, between those for which no other location is possible and all other utilities. Good statutory drafting practice dictates that such a test should be in the substantive sections of the ordinance rather than in the definitions. 3. The definition is not consistent with use of the term "utility" in other parts of Tukwila ordinances. Tukwila's Shoreline Ordinance uses the terms "utility easements" and "utilities ", 18.44.130(2) and 18.44.140(1), respectively. Tukwila's Zoning Code uses the phrase "public utility stations and substations." See, e.g., 18.12.050(6). General Definition The term "utility" or "public utility" without further definition may be adequate to Tukwila's purposes. Public utility is a broad and flexible The Energy Starts Here Puget Sound Power & Light Company 620 South Grady Way P.O. Box 329 Renton, WA 98057 -0329 (206) 255 -2464 PUGET POWER Gary VanDusen January 10, 1991 Page 2 of 2 .concept that adapts to changing perception of services that should be considered to be public utilities. The nature of the concept makes it difficult to devise a definition that fits every case. However, the term itself has long been used and is fairly well understood. If the city wants a definition that limits the concept to certain kinds of services and facilities, it might use (or adapt) the following: "Utilities" are all lines and facilities related to the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of water, storm and sanitary sewage, oil, gas, power or refuse, and includes facilities for the generation of electricity. This definition is a revision of the definition of "utility" in the King County Shoreline Ordinance. King County Code 25.08.580 (page dated 12 -81). It differs from the King County definition by the term "provision" and the last clause (referring to generation). I suggest that generation be included because of the trend to cogeneration facilities and small gas turbines. If generation is not included in the definition, these facilities might fall into limbo. Specific definition A definition that applies specifically to Puget Power is as follows: An electrical company as defined in RCW 80.04.010 that is subject to regulation by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. This definition does not reach water, sewer, natural gas, or telephone companies. Neither does it reach municipal electric utilities (such as Seattle City Light), cooperatives, or PUDs. cc: Moira Bradshaw City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 The Energy Starts Here Sincerely, nis segrav Manage =usiness Office Renton /Tukwila • PUGET AFPOWEN Mayor Gary VanDusen Council President Dennis Robertson 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Sensitive Areas Ordinance 18.45.080 Uses and Standards January 10, 1991 Dear Mayor VanDusen and Council President Robertson: We submit to you the following provisions for electrical utilities for inclusion in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in the Uses and Standards section 18.45.080: A. Installation or construction in improved city road right -of -way or in rights -of -way being developed as part of a subdivision or short subdivision with preliminary approval, and replacement, operation or alteration of all electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of 55kv or less. B. Normal and routine maintenance or repair of existing utility structures, developments or right -of -way, including damage by fire, accident, or elements. C. Relocation /conversion of electric. facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of 55kv or less in city road rights -of -way when required by a governmental agency and authorized by the city. It is imperative the above be included in the ordinance so that an electrical utility such as Puget Power can operate effectively within the city ordinances. Sincerely Yours, ennis ••tab Manager siness Office Renton /Tukwila The Energy Starts Here® Puget Sound Power & Light Company 620 South Grady Way P.O. Box 329 Renton, WA 98057 -0329 (206) 255 -2464 tatto Off4 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL January 7, 1991 7:00 p.m. 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. REPORTS a. Mayor b. City Council c. Staff d. City Attorney e. Intergovernmental 9. MISCELLANEOUS 10. ADJOURNMENT a ViiWiiA Cii i COUNCIL 1 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING Ord. #1591 • . Res. #1167 . CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: At this time, you are invited' to comment on items that are not included on this agenda. 5. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes: December 3 and 9, 1990 b. Approval of Vouchers c. Accept as complete construction of 52nd Ave. S. storm drain and Ryan Way sidewalk; authorize release of retainage in the amount of $3,416.52 to R.L. AliaCo. (Pg. 3) a. Discussion of Sensitive Areas Ordinance. (1 hr.) a Election of new Council President b. Resolution approving an Interlocal Agreement with Water District #25 and' authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement. (Pg. 7) c. Resolution approving an Interlocal Agreement with the cities\df Kent, Renton, and Auburn for the purpose of obtaining ground ladder testing equipment and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement (Pg. 15) c NOW TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS The -Mayor is elected by the people to a four year term and presides all Regular Council Meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of, each month at 7:00 P.M.* Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council Meetings. \ \COMMITTEE of the WHOLE MEETINGS Council Members are elected for a four -ybar term. The Council President II elected by the Council Members to preside at all Committee of\ the Whole Meetings for a one -year term. Committee of the Whole Meetings are held the nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 P.M.* Issues discussed are forwa ded to the Regular Council Meeting for off! lal action. At each Council Meeting itizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on ite s th t are not included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. SPECIAL MEETINGS may be ca ed at any time with proper public notice. Procedures folio e• are the same as those used in Regular Council Meetings. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS may b 'called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financill, or pqr onnel matters. i *No Council Meetings •rs scheduled o the Sth Monday of the Month unless prior public notification is •ivsn. PUBLIC HEARINGS f Public Hearings are required by law bsfC s the Council can take action on matter,' affecting the public Interest, such as land -use laws, annexations, re -zone requests, public safety issues, etc. T.M.C.� ` 2.04.150 states the guided\ es for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and i3 allowed 15 minutes f their presentation. 2. The opp is then allowed 15 minutes to make their presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for five minutes each. No one may speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action maybe taken at this time or postoned to another date. OFFICIAL December 6, 1990 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT SPECIAL ISSUES Discussion of Draft SAO. ADJOURNMENT 9:10 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Joan Hernandez, Council President Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Hernandez called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOAN HERNANDEZ, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS, JOE DUFFLE. MOIRA BRADSHAW, DCD; JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. The Council continued their discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance focusing on storm water detention areas. Moira Bradshaw presented information on this subject (per previous Council request) with reference to how storm water detention areas should be allowed in Tukwila's natural water resources. Bradshaw based her findings on the comparable legislation of King County and Bellevue. The discussion continued until 9:00 p.m. An opportunity for citizens'comments was provided between 9:00 - 9:30 p.m. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule Thursday, December 13, 6:00 p.m.to continue the discussion of the SAO MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. 5. MISCELLANEOUS December 6,1990 Tukwila City Hall 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL . SPECIAL ISSUES a) Continued discussion of draft SAO (6-9 p.m.) b) Citizen comments on draft SAO. (Comments should be limited to 5 minutes per person) (9 -9:30 p.m.) ■TE: ITN: 12/04/90 16:08 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. Washington � EnergyC�mpany • AND SUBSIDIARIES ' P.O. BOX 1869 • SEATTLE, WA 98111 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION . / //q a ._ DMPANY:. C 14' c/ `C ? . kX NUMBER: _ 3 OTAL PAGES SENT ._ INCLUDING COVED ' r:,Fi • FROM: THERMAL EFFICIENCY 0 THERMAL ENERGY fl THERMAL EXPLORATION [WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS • • 0 WASHINGTON ENERGY 001 AX NUMSEr (206) 224 = TRIFICA T 1ON NUMBER:* 1;2060 2 2 y - 2 t r3 BY g /3'/1OtW J'rlrJ :OMMEN15: 'PLC/936 c o N) . s I P H' J /3 fri evVb .7..0 W'/' . fie tJ P ,f' e • (r -il/ PI ✓ e r3' " /yam/" °A, I)/ pal' / W r �C. ��•G 'o t� � Fes. 1%104 ,) l 1 t 3 4 5 6 7 8 s 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 12/04/90 16:08 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. 002 0 Rv.- New sa- K KING- COL) N"t4 - As ADOPT CO 9 61 See �.�� 2. The applicant shall submit an affidavit which: a. Declares that the applicant has no knowledge that sensitive areas on the development proposal site have been illegally altered, and that the applicant previously hap not been found in violation of sensitive areas r.gulatiOns for any property in King County, pursuant to Title 23 or that any violations have been cured to the satisfaction of Ring County; b. Demonstrates that any development proposal submitted Conforms to the purposes, standards end protection mechanisms of this chapter: c. if required, prepare a apeaial, sensitive areas study in accordance with Section 5: D. Xing County may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any development proposal in order to comply with the requirements and carry out the goal *, purposes, objectives and requirement, of this chapter. E. Approval of • development proposal puraiant to the Provisions of this chapter does not discharge the obligation o the applicant to comply with the provisions of this chapter. F. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all forest practices over which the county has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 76.09 RCW, Title 222 WAC, and any Memorandum of Understanding between the Rethington department of Natural Resources and King County, and to all property which has been cleared and/or graded without an approved Class IV General forest practice application and which is subsequently proposed for development. 1EW_ &.OTIbH. ..8 CT19N A, there is hereby added to K.C.C. 21.54 a new section to read as follows: General Exemptions The following axe exemptions to the provisions of this ordinance and the administrative rules. A. tmexgenc ice that threaten the public health, safety and welfare: n. Structures in existence on the data this chapter becomes effective and that do not meet the setback or buffer requirements of this chapter for wetlands, streams, or steep 12/04/90 16:09 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO, C c 003 1 slope hazard arses May be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced 2 provided that the new construction or related eetivity does not 3 further intrude into a stream, wetland, steep slops,or 4 associated buffers and is subject to the restrictions of the f flood hazard areas t or reconstruction. provided further, 6 however, that hew construction or related activity aennectad 7 with an existing Single temilY residence shall not be e considered further intruding into an 'associated butter ao lohq 9 as the footprint of the structure lying within the sensitive 10 area is not increased by more than 1000 square feet end no 11 portion of the structure is located oloser to the stream, 12 wetland Or steep slope than the existing structure. 13 C. For the f011owing agricultural activities in existence 14 On the date this ohepter becomes effective: 15 1. Grazing of livestock; provided, it le consistent 34 with sections 90, and 94, administrative rules, and any animal 17 density limitations established by ordinance; 15 2. Mowing of hay, grass or grain crops: 19 3. Tilling, diecing, planting, seeding, harvesting and 20 related aCtivities for pasture, food crepe, grass aced or sod; 21 provided that such activities shell not involve the conversion 22 of any Close 7 er It wetland or buffer or Class X or Zr stream 23 or butter not currently under agricultural use and shall not 24 take place on steep slopes; 25 4. Normal and routine maintenance of existing 26 irrigation and drainage ditches; provided, however, that this 27 exception shall not apply to any ditches uced by 25 S. Normal and routine maintenance of farm ponds, fish 29 ponds, manure lagoons, and livestock watering ponds; provided 30 that such ectivitiie *hall not involve conversion of any 31 wetland not currently being used for such activity. 52 O. For the following electric, natural gas, cable' 13 'communications', and telephone utilityerelatee activities when 34 undertaken pursuant to cvuntywepprov.d bast management 35 practices; 36 4'. Noa►el€ and ; icautinns *a ntenance o pi r r.ir e 37 utility struotU cis ear :ri�ght�of "V��t skocottl.we • AU a+, I99Q -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11? 11 12 I S 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 S4 35 36 37 12/04/90 16:09 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. 9614 '; 2• ii‘ 14‘atiiiiefieleCtriai....fatiiitiei, 'Itnes, equipment , ,./y 1. ).. , , , 0. . .9 ,, • 0 or appurtenances, not including oubstations, with an associated t., :d) .4Yi' k\‘. yalltegeof415,000. vo .its �r l :leee onyArh,requiredby ,-. .... .. eW ..,. :,,.,, v • 0.;, 91roPMATO., Alt/roves the new lecetion of'the• \ 11 , -----.. tacilitiesViAndi li . . ;. 36 Relocation of natural gas, ceible communications gas and telephone facilities, lines, pipes, uains, equipment or appUrtenances only when required by a local governmental agency' which approves the new location of the fecilities; OiMOnitiuction •in improved county road, rightwof-way, and replacement, operation or alteration, of all electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances. not including substations, with an associated voltage of 55,000 volts or less: 5. installation or construction in improved county road right■Of and replaCeMent operation, repair or alteration of all natural gam, cable communication; and telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenenCes. E. Public agency development proposals only to the • extent of any construction contract awarded before the effective date of the ordinance, provided that any regulation in effect et the time of such award shall apply to such proposal. SEcTioN. SECTION 5. There is hereby added to X.C.C. 21,54 a new section to read as fellows; Sensitive Areas Special studi,a. I. Required. An applicant for a development proposal that includes, oz is adjacent to, or could have probable significant adverse impacts to sensitive areas shall submit such special studies as are required by Xing County to adequately evaluate the proposal and all probable impects. p. Waivers. King County may waive the requirement for special study if there is substantial showing that: 1. There will be no alteration of the sensitive areas or required buffer; and X. The development proposal will not impact the sensitive area in • manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this ordinence; and cossitt.xf . 49, 00 004 • 12/04/90 16:10 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. 005 f���?1'd ORQ11QPI //5.385 /4 s A9oe re a /012090 (Sgig SEc,.g. e»CrE Co 1 25.09.040. Application of Standards. The standards of 2 Sections 25.09.060 and 25.09.080 shall apply to all public and private proposals for new structures, proposed additions to 3 structures, short subdivisions and subdivisions, and grading 4 and drainage activity located on either public or private property within critical areas and their buffers. Public 6 projects proposed by any public agency which are approved, 7 advertised and /or awarded under the authority of the Board of 8 Public Works shall comply with the requirements of this 9 Chapter. Projects shall be exempted from the requirements of Sections 25.09.060 and 25.09.080 when the following situations 10 and /or conditions apply: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A. When the Director determines there is an emergency that threatens the public health, safety and welfare. B. Remodeling of structures in existence on the effective date of this chapter. When these structures are damaged by an act of nature, they may be reconstructed or replaced within one (1.) year of the act of nature provided that the new construction or related activity does not further intrude into a critical area or required buffer and is subject to the flood hazard areas reconstruction restrictions. 21 22 23 C. New accessory structures and additions to structures 24 whose development coverage does not exceed an additional 750 sq. ft. of impervious surface after the effective 25 1 26 27 28 date of the Chapter. D. When the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director through site surveys, topography maps, CS 19.2 1 1 0 11 12 13 1 4 16 N.' 1 7 \ 19 24 25 26 27 28 12/04/90 16:11 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. (, (, technical environmental analysis, and other means as determined necessary by the Director that the site is not a critical area as defined in Section 25.09.020. For the following electric, natural gas, cable communications, and telephone utility-related activities, when undertaken pursuant to best management practices to avoid impacts to critical areas: .7totiistan'or t;::-..13:1;y4ru.ctures.:-oriE 2 of electric facilities, lines, equipment //((° r appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of 55,000 volts or less only when required local governmental agency with concurrent 15 approval by the Director which approves the new location of the facilities. •+;to.' N 3 Relocation of natural gas, cable communications, 18 gas, and telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances i4fiiiii require b a 20 governmental agency whith approves the new location of 21 the facilities. 22 23 4. Installation or construction in improved county road rights-of-way, and replacement, operation or alteration, of all electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of 55,000 volts or less. 006 G$ 11E2 27 2B 12/04/90 16 :11 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. 1 5. Installation or construction in improved county road 2 rights -of -way, and replacement, operation, repair or alteration of all natural gas, cable communications and 3 telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or 4 appurtenances. 5 6 25.09.060. General Requirements, Development Standards, 7 and Application submittal Requirements. All proposals 8 specified in Section 25.09.040, and located in critical areas 9 listed in Section 25.09.020 shall meet the following general requirements, development standards, and application submittal 10 requirements: 11 12 A. General requirements: 13 14 1. Site. Complete stabilization of all portions of a 15 site which are disturbed or impacted by the proposed 16 development, including all development coverage and 17 construction activity areas, shall be required. Complete stabilization of all portions of a site 18 refers to the process and actions necessary to 19 ensure that existing and proposed site improvements 20 are stabilized, and that all on -site areas and . 21 adjacent properties which are disturbed or impacted 22 are stabilized. The proposed development shall be 23 limited and controlled to avoid adverse impacts and 24 potential harm and ensure safe, stable and 25 compatible development appropriate to site conditions. other reasonable and appropriate 26 solutions to solve site stability problems may be required by the Director. 007 CS 194 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TO: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL FROM: MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1990 SUBJECT: STORMWATER DETENTION AREAS PHONE # (206) 433-1800 Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor At your November 29, 1990 meeting to discuss sensitive areas legislation, you requested additional information on the above subject and specifically how they should be allowed in Tukwila's natural water resources. The following is a review of comparable legislation and staff's conclusions. COMPARABLE LEGISLATION King County permits the following alteration of wetlands and buffers for surface water management: 1. New discharge to wetlands from detention facilities subject to no increase in rate of flows and no decrease in water quality. 2. Class 1 and 2 wetlands may be used as regional retention /detention facilities when authorized through the exception process and subject to design conditions. ( Two of the Cities wetlands would appear to be class 1 and the majority to be class 2.) 3. Class 3 wetlands, whose major function is the storage of water, may be used as regional retention /detention facilities subject to pre - settlement ponds and standards of the surface water design manual are met. (Nine of Tukwila's 21 inventoried wetlands would probably be class 3 in the County's rating system.) 4. Wetlands may only be used for regional stormwater facilities. King County permits the following alteration of watercourses for surface water management: 1. Surface water discharge to streams from detention facilities, pre- settlement ponds, or other surface water management structures may be allowed provided that the discharge complies with the surface water design manual. Bellevue allows: OUANTITY CONTROL . 2. Class 2 streams may be used for regional retention /detention facilities when authorized by the exemption process, the use will not alter the rating or the factors used in rating the stream, and there are no significant adverse impacts. 3. Class 3 streams (ephemeral streams) may be altered for use as retention /detention facilities provided there are no lasting adverse impacts and the standards of the surface design manual are met. Essential public regional utility facilities are a conditional use in wetlands and watercourses and subject to standards. According to the manager of the Tukwila Storm and Surface Water Utility Program, the City's goal and policies are to construct regional detention facilities, such as a 21.4 acre facility within Gilliam Creek, watercourse #22 -1. Developers can discharge directly to downstream system if the system has the capacity to take undetained flows to the Green River. The complex analysis to determine downstream system capacity is time consuming and costly; therefore, on -site detention is usually provided at private development sites. Currently, all surface and storm flows enter the Green River, the City's most significant fisheries habitat, partially treated primarily with oil /water separators. In addition, if a project abuts the Green River, the applicant is required to bench the existing riverbank to create an increase in river capacity. CONCLUSION 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 2. Permitted uses subject to administrative review A. New surface water discharges to wetlands and watercourses from detention facilities, pre - settlement ponds, or other surface water management structures may be allowed provided that the discharge does not increase the rate of flow nor decrease the water quality of the wetland or watercourse. B. Regional stormwater detention areas if use results in no decrease in rating of resource and enhances existing values and functions. Design shall be subject to the standards of this section, guidelines of the Puget Sound wetlands and Stormwater Research Program, and best management practices of the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Chapters: SEiTIVE AREA ORDIN.JCE City Council revisions - Pages 1-11/4 December 6, 1990 Title 18 ZONING 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions Amend 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established -Map 18.10 R -A District - Agricultural 18.12 R -1 District -- Single - family Residence 18.14 R-2 District - Two - family Residential 18.16 R-3 District -Three and Four Family Dwellings 18.18 R-4 District- -Low Apartments 18.20 RMH District -- Multiple - residence High Density 18.26 P -O District -- Professional and Office District 18.28 C -1 District -- Community Retail Business 18.30 C -2 District -- Regional Retail Business 18.34 C -P District -- Planned Business Center 18.38 C -M District - Industrial Park 18.40 M -1 District -Light Industry 18.42 M -2 District - -Heavy Industry 18.43 M -2L District -Heavy Industry /Special Landscaping 18.44 Shoreline Zone Add 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Amend 18.46 PRD-- Planned Residential Development 18.48 PMUD -- Planned Mixed -use Development 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Regulations 18.52 Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements 18.56 Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 18.64 General Conditional Uses 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments 18.84 Requests for Changes in Zoning 18.88 Application Fees 18.90 Appeals 18.92 Public Notice of Hearing 18.96 Administration and Enforcement CHAPTER 18.45 18.06 Definitions Sections: City Council Draft 18.45.010 Purpose 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation and Applicability 18.45.030 Interpretation 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers 1. General 2. Application 3. Wetland and Watercourse 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands and Watercourses 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 5. Abandoned Mine Areas 6. Areas of Important Geological or Archaeological Evidence 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 1. General 2. Density Credits 3. Sensitive areas common tract restrictions 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 18.45.130 Recording 1. Procedure 2. Signage 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required ZONING CODE Chapter 18.06 Amended. (Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.06. Applicant "Applicant" means any person or business entity which applies for a development proposal, permit or approval subject to review under the Sensitive Areas Chapter. 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities as defined in the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report by GeoEngineers dated May 1990, on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and including the following: 1. Class 1 areas, where landslide potential is low, which slope less than 15 percent. 2. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. 3. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 4. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. - 2 - December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 (Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 5. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. 18.06. Compensatory Mitigation "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project- induced wetland and buffer losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Restoration — Actions performed to reestablish wetland and its buffer functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. Creation — Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland and its buffer at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. Enhancement — Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands or its buffer so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 18.06.185 Constructed Wetlands or Watercourses. "Constructed wetland" or "constructed watercourses" means those wetlands or watercourses which an applicant can demonstrate were intentionally created from non- wetland or non - watercourse sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities; and does not mean those wetlands and watercourses created through compensatory mitigation. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility,utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.385 Impervious Surface. " Impervious Surface" means those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre- k . , existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio '� areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural w � infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. 18.06 Geologist. A "Geologist" means a person who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university, or a person who has equivalent educational training and has o-7 experience as a practicing geologist. vi 18.06 Geotechnical Engineer. ,:' " Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing, geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional Civil Engineer with the State of Washington who has at least four years of t professional employment as a geotechnical engineer with experience in landslide evaluation. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. "Lot Coverage" means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. 18.06.650 Performance Standards. Specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures, which may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands; watercourses; areas of potential geologic instability, other than Class 1 areas; abandoned coal mine areas; and important geological or archaeological sites. City Council Draft 3 December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 (Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.935 Watercourse. 'Watercourse" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. 'Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds, lakes and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered wetlands for the purpose of this Chapter. However, those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands as permitted by the City shall be considered wetlands. City Council Draft - 4 - December 6, .1990 CHAPTER 18.45 ZONING CODE Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 entitled "Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone" is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION. Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions thereon in order to protect environmentally sensitive a •eas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. Standards are hereby establishea to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeologic or geologic sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any legal lot of record, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within the City. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to any development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation under this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on technical studies; or City Council Draft B. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and including the following and their buffers: • Abandoned coal mines • Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class 2,3,4 and seismic instability areas. • Wetlands • Watercourses C. ontains archaeological remnants of value to the archaeological research community, which includes but is not limited to colleges, universities or societies of professional archaeologists, and or which is designated as important to save as a record of the area's past by the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. ; or 5 December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 c 2. For sensitive areas which are annexed, or created by changes in the ecology of existing systems, the inventory shall be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original studies used to delineate sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila. 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.030 INTERPRETATION City Council Draft Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone The provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements in their interpretation and application and shall be liberally construed to serve the purposes of this chapter. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 1. General: A. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas, (ii) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during -construction development, (iii) Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value, (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080, however, is permitted. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. B. Wetland and Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii) Stabilize banks, and (iv) Prevent erosion and increased surface water runoff, and (v) Prevent avoidable loss of or damage to property, and (vi) Intercept fine sediments, and (vii) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (viii) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. - 6 - December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 C. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface and storm water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii) Prevent avoidable loss of or damage to property; and (iiiv)Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (iv) Enhance the appearance of hillside development. 2. Application Applicants for a use or development on a legal lot of record within one hundred feet of a sensitive area shall be required to conduct a sensitive area study to provide a buffer analysis for the sensitive area. This study may be waived by the DCD Director when sensitive area or site conditions indicate that the buffer area needed or required will be less than the 100 feet. 3. Wetlando years: 4. Watercourse City Council Draft buffer-width: Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 7 December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 City Council Draft buffer--width: 3. Wetlands and Watercourses A. For wetlands: (i) Type 1— 100 -foot wide buffer (ii) Type 2 — 50 -foot wide buffer (iii) Type 3 — 25 -foot wide buffer Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone B. For watercourses, the buffer shall be the greater of the following: (i) Type 1 Watercourse — 70 feet (ii) Type 2 Watercourse — 35 feet (iii) Type 3 Watercourse — 15 feet (iv) 25 feet from the top of slope, when the watercourse is within 25 feet of the toe of a 15% or greater slope. C. All commercial and industrial developments shall be set back 15 feet and all residential development shall be set back 10 feet. This setback shall be measured from the foundation to the buffer's edge. D. Reduction of Standard or Creation of Variable Width Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Zones: The DCD Director may reduce the standard wetland /watercourse buffers on a case -by -case basis where it can be demonstrated that: (i) The adjacent land is extensively vegetated and has less than 15 percent slopes and that no direct or indirect, short -term or long -term adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses, as determined by the DCD Director, will result from a regulated activity. The DCD Director may require long- term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or watercourses are discovered; and 8 December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 E. F. A. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES City Council Draft Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (ii) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation which substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to provide additional protection for wetlands and watercourses functions and values. An enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a 50 percent reduction in the buffer width, and the reduced buffer shall not be less than 25 feet for wetlands and 15 feet for watercourses. Buffers for all types of wetlands and watercourses may be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland or watercourse study by a qualified wetlands biologist or expert which documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland or watercourse which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the DCD Director. If the vegetation must be removed, or because of the .alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands and watercourses with comparable specimens, approved by the DCD Director, which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 4.5 AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of Sections 18.45.060 and 18.45.080(6). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall then include the buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report of the site as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. 1. General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves a use, development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, - 9 - December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone the following procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive any of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant a step in the procedures. A. Pre - application Conference: At this conference the applicant and appropriate City department representative will discuss the requirements for development on a legal lot of record containing a sensitive area or its buffer, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and the applicable standards for the proposed development. B. Sensitive Areas Study and Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. It is intended that sensitive areas studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore - should shall be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. C. Any new subdivision or multiple family residential proposal which includes a sensitive area or its buffer on site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. D. Denial of Use or Development: A use or development will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. E. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - construction conferences prior to any work on the site. F. Construction Monitoring: The specialist(s) of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities where no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. B. Non - destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space. D. Maintenance and repair of essential roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. 2. Permitted Uses Subject to Administrative Review: The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities where alteration or additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. A - B. Construction of new essential roads, rights -of -way and utilities. City Council Draft C. New surface water discharges to wetlands and watercourses or their buffers from detention facilities, pre - settlement ponds, or other surface water management structures may be allowed provided that the discharge must meet the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201, and not increase the rate of flow to the wetland or watercourse beyond level of existing rate. - 10 - December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone D. Regional stormwater detention areas may be allowed if use results in no decrease in rating of resource and enhances existing values and functions. Design shall be subject to the standards of this section, guidelines of the Puget Sound wetlands and Stormwater Research Program, and best management practices of the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. GE. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping. 3. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval: Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.115. A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of this chapter and be consistent with the underlying zoning. 4. Wetlands A. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080 (1, 2 and 3). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. B. Compensatory Mitigation: For those wetlands which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer Study Guide completed by Jones & Stokes, Inc, May 1990, on file with the DCD, alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan e th a' water- quality City Council Draft conclusively demonstrates that the change would be an improvement of the wetland or watercourse quantitative and qualitative functions and their buffers. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a specialist approved by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland or watercourse quality would be improved by the alteration or relocation. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetlands or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director. (1) Type. In order to achieve the City's goal of no -net -loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration, enhancement or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and : will compensate at a ratio of 1.5:1. TYPE OF REPLACEMENT EXISTING WE LANo TIO Forcstcd 3:1 Scrub shrub 2 :1 Emergent 1.5 :1 The compensatory mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a qualified expert, and shall follow the performance standards of TMC 21.04.150. (2) Location. (A) On -site compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can demonstrate that: (i) the hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those who benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be awawlift damaged by the on -site loss; and (ii) on -site compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors, or - 11 - December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 City Council Draft C. Essential Utilities D. Essential Roads fir Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (iii) compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or (iv) existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or (v) that established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of compensatory measures at another site. (B) Off -site compensation shall occur within the same watershed as the wetland loss occurred. (C) In selecting compensation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: (i) upland sites which were formerly wetlands; (ii) idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeks, or emergent vegetation; (iii) other disturbed upland. (23) Timing. Where feasible, compensatory mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will permanently disturb wetlands and immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of compensatory projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and c si_ve excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. -12 - December 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 E. Public Use and Access: City Council Draft Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing or seating areas, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. F. Dredging, digging or filling: (1) Dredging, digging or filling within a wetland and its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (A) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1), (2) and (3); or (B) Maintenance of an existing wetland; or (C) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (D) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (E) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (F) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. (3) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. -13 - December 6, 1990 CHAPTER Censitive Areas Overlay Zone 5. Watercourses A. Diversion or Rerouting: (1) The existing course for any watercourse is y preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can show that the rerouting maintains er and enhances the value of the watercourse in water quality treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the diversity of wildlife and plant communities. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. City Council Draft -14 - December 6, 1990 Review of proposed sensitive areas regulations complete During the 1990 regular session of the State legislature, an act relating to growth was passed, known as the Growth Management Act (sometimes referred to as 2929). The Act mandates development of sensitive areas regulations that preclude land uses or development incompatible with sensitive areas by September 1, 1991. In July of this year, the Tukwila City Council proposed a local ordinance which would define sensitive areas as wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instabil- ity, coal mine hazard areas, and areas of important geologic or archaeologic sites. On October 25,1990, the Tukwila Planning Commission finalized its review of the pro- posed legislation, as well as modifications prepared by an ad hoc citizen's group. The City Council will now review the recommendations of the Planning Commis- sion, deliberate and prepare a fmal ordinance for a public hearing. The Council's work schedule is not finalized at this time, but notification of property owners will occur to allow for their input at the public hearing. The Tukwila City Council anticipates passing, in February 1991, a legislative package which would address a broad range of issues associated with development involving sensitive areas. Community organization plans holiday activities The Duwamish Improvement Club is holding a Holiday Bazaar on Saturday, December 1st, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at Petersen Hall in Tukwila. Items for sale will include home -baked goods (cakes, pies, cookies, breads, etc.); hand- crafted items; Christmas omaments, swags, wreaths, and decorations; toys; white elephants; household items; tools; books; and other items. There will be drawings for door prizes and a raffle prize (ticket holders need not be present at drawing) and lunch (hot dog, baked beans and choice of salad - $1.50, pas- tries at various prices & free coffee). Also, on December 13th, from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., Santa Claus will be at Pe- tersen Hall to greet youngsters - and oldsters. Petersen Hall is located at 12232 - 43rd Ave. S., Tukwila. The Duwamish Improvement Club is a community club of people living in the Duwamish, Allentown and Foster Points areas, which were annexed to our city as part of Fire District #1 in 1989. Their mission is to improve their community. If you wish to make donations or want further information regarding these up- coming activities, please call 762 -7971. Facility burns at City's Bicentennial Park Fire damaged the log cabin atTukwila's Bicentennial Park on October 8th of this year. The cause of the fire is being inves- tigated as arson. Bicentennial Park, located at Strander Boulevard and the Christensen Trail, is a popular facility for brown -bag lunchers, and the site of the Park Department's summer music program "Peanut Butter & Jam ". The log cabin was constructed by a group of community volunteers; the cabin and park were dedicated in the summer of 1976, in honor of the nation's bicentennial celebration. The City is making plans to rebuild the cabin. Burned cabin and charred shrubs communicate level of fire damage. 14 1urr►e. // , jw ei- 3 Is there a trip to Japan in your future? 1991 marks the ten -year anniversary of the first exchange visit by Tukwila citi- zens to the City's sister city of Ikawa, Japan. In March of 1981, 50 members of our community — including 25 students from Foster and Tyee high schools and Showalter and Chinook middle schools — departed Tukwila to tour the islands of Honshu and Shikkoku. The Tukwila Sister Cities Committee has announced a return trip to Japan in the Spring of 1991, and is recruiting interested adults and students to partici- pate in the trip of a lifetime! The trip is scheduled for Spring Break (depart Seattle March 28, and return to Seattle on April 5, 1991), and has a number of historic and culturally significant points as part of the itinerary. The tour will include a four -day stay in Ikawa in the homes of Japanese families, and is planned to coincide with the planned music tour of the Foster High School band and choir groups. All Tukwila students are eligible to partici- pate in the tour. The Sister Cities Committee is inviting all Tukwila citizens, both residential and corporate, to participate in the exchange visit. There are still seats available for the tour. If travel plans don't fit into your schedule, assistance is needed in raising funds. The City of Tukwila Sister Cities Committee is currently working on a scholarship program with local busi- nesses to help offset the cost of student travel. Your help is needed to make this exchange possible. If you are interested in learning more about the trip, what you can to help, or how you can join the tour, please contact the Mayor's office in City Hall at 433- 1832. Public Works Department sees completion of projects 1990 was a busy year for Tukwila's Public Works Department. Construc- tion is complete on several projects that include: • The intersection at South 180th Street and Sperry Drive has a new signal and parking for Christensen Trail users. This project was funded by the City and local property owners First Interstate Bank and Frederick & Nelson. It provides needed parking for the trail located adjacent to the Frederick & Nelson's distribution center, as well as signal control to enter or cross South 180th Street. • The North Hill Reservoir is substan- tially complete; it will provide the peak amounts of water needed for early morning and evening, now de- livered from the Seattle pipeline. The reservoir also provides increased water supply for fire protection. • A storm drain in 52nd Avenue South west of Interurban has been com- pleted. The old drain pipe had rusted Tukwila gathers hazardous materials The annual Tukwila Household Hazard- ous Waste Collection Day was held October 20th at Tukwila Fire Station 54. Personnel from the Tukwila Fire De- partment and Chemical Processors, Inc., staffed the collection. As in past years, the event was a success. One hundred and forty seven citizens brought in a variety of waste materials including: • motor oil • paint • insecticides /pesticides • acid • cleaning chemicals • batteries • miscellaneous products To dispose of hazardous waste during the year, call the King County Hazards Line, 296 -4692, for upcoming locations of the Household Hazardous Wastemo- bile. away causing washouts under the pavement in the street. • Southcenter and Southcenter South have funded the new signal on Stran- der between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. This new sig- nal provides for vehicle and pedes- trian traffic crossing Strander. • Completion of 1990 street overlay work includes Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway and north of South 180th, Boeing Access Road, several dirt roads in the newly an- nexed area, the Community Center and Fire Station 51 parking lots, and Andover Park East after resurfacing Southcenter Boulevard between 68th South and Interurban. The Southcen- ter Boulevard work included adding pavement on the shoulder to provide for pedestrian traffic; this shoulder paving is being called a "ped path". Ped paths are also being designed for 1991 construction several area streets where pedestrians have no sidewalks. These ped paths will increase safety for pedestrians, and last for several years until future street improvements with sidewalks can be constructed. Several state grants for street improve - ments in 1991 havebeenreceived. Those projects include work on Interurban Avenue, East Marginal Way, Southcen- ter Boulevard including revisions to the I -405 ramps, and the South 180th Street/ West Valley Road intersection. Additional applications have been sub- mitted for funds to improve Southcenter Parkway, 42nd Avenue S., Andover Park West including bus pullouts, and a joint application with other local agencies to improve Pacific Highway between the Boeing Access Road and SR 516. King County offers opportunity to learn about recycling Tukwila has been developing and revising its recycling program over the past several months. It incorporates citizen priorities, budget necessities, and state and county legal requirements for a comprehensive recycling and solid waste program. Tukwila's program focuses on residential services initially, and will provide single - family and multi - family residents a choice of curbside service or drop -site. The program will also modify the existing spring and fall cleanup to encourage recycling. Look for these services to begin throughout 1991. In the meantime, King County is offering an opportunity to Tukwila residents who recycle and wish others did, who don't compost but would like to leam how, and who buy a lot of packaging and wish they could buy less. It's perfect for those who'd like to help their community by sharing knowledge with others. If this is you, think about becoming a King County Master Recycler Composter (MRC). MRC's leam about waste reduction and recycling in an intensive training program offered by King County. The training is free and includes classroom, field work and hands -on activities. Call the Solid Waste Division Information Line at 296 -4466 for an application. You can also hear more about the volunteer program by calling DialExtension at 296 -DIAL. Ask to listen to tape #1298. The next Master Recycler Composter training begins January in Kent. Applications must be submitted by December 14th; class size is limited to 25. This program is offered by the King County Solid Waste Division in cooperation with the Kent Public Library. Training is provided by the Washington State Energy Office — Energy Extension Service. November 29, 1990 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS SPEC' L ISSUES Discussion of Draft SAO. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Joan Hernandez, Council President Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Hernandez called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOAN HERNANDEZ, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS, JOE DUFFIE. MOIRA BRADSHAW, DCD; JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. • The Council continued their discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance focusing on procedures, uses, wetland standards and watercourses. The discussion continued until 9:00 p.m. An opportunity for citizens'comments was provided between 9:00 - 9:30 p.m. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule Thursday, December 6, 6:00 p.m.to continue the discussion of the SAO MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3 . ROLL CALL November 29,1990 Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. SPECIAL ISSUES a) Continued discussion of draft SAO (7 -9 p.m.) b) Citizen comments on draft SAO. (Comments should be limited to 5 minutes per person) (9 -9:30 p.m.) 5. MISCELLANEOUS 6. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1 . CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS a. Discussion and consideration of Human Services recommendations for 1991.(PG.3) . • SPECIAL ISS S An ordinance repealing Ordinance Nos. 1170 and 470 codified as TMC 5.08 and adopting a new cabaret ordinance to be codified as TMC 5.08. (PG .11) . A resolution declaring an emergency for river bank erosion repairs and authorizing emergency expenditures. (PG. 19) Continuation of discussion on draft SAO (please bring your revised packet). November 26, 1990 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 p.m. • Council Chambers 5. BEMIS a. Mayor b. City council c. Staff d. City Attorney e. Intergovernmental .. MISCELLANEOUS 7. ADJOURNMENT TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOLM TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS The Mayor is elected by the people to a four year term and presides at all Regular Council Meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 P.M.* Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council Meetings. COMMITTEE of the WHOLE MEETINGS Counci Members are elected for a four -year term. The Council Preident is elected by the Council Members to preside at all Committee of the Whole Meetings for a one -year term. Committee of the Whole Meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7 :00 P.M. *\ Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council Meeting'for official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Councll `Meeting citizens are give-'the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not included on the agenda during CITIZEN9PtC MAENTS. SPECIAL MEETINGS may\be called at /any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are same as those used in Regular Council Meetings. \ / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS may be IIed to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, . personnel matters. *No Council Meetings are scpedu ed on the Sth Monday of the Month unless prior public notif /catio is given. PUBLIC HEARINGS f Public Hearings are required by law b the Council can take action on matters a.(fecting the pubii�c interest, such as land -use laws, annexations, re -zone requests, public safety issues, etc. T.M.C. 204.150 states the guidiines for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and \'s allowed 15 minutes for their presentation. 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make their presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal,. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for five minutes each. No one may speak a second \time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. X 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves' without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this . time or postoned to another date. CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /S 8� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1544 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCES 1550 AND 1566, TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SEPA PROCESSES, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 1544 passed November 20, 1989, as clarified and amended by Ordinance No. 1550 passed December 18, 1989, and as amended by Ordinance No. 1566 passed May 7, 1990, the City Council imposed a moratorium on development on certain property within the City, and WHEREAS, the purpose of such moratorium was to prevent development on such specified property, unless exempt or unless a waiver was granted by the City Council, until the adoption of an ordinance to protect and . regulate development of environmentally sensitive areas within the City, and WHEREAS, the moratorium is schedule to expire by the terms of Ordinance 1544 as amended by Ordinance 1566 on October 8, 1990, and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and necessary to prevent environmental degradation for the moratorium to be extended to allow for orderly deliberation and passage of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and WHEREAS, due to the length and extent of deliberation and public comment, the planning commission has not completed its deliberations, and it is not possible to pass a Sensitive Areas Ordinance by the expiration date of the moratorium, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the environment will not be adversely affected by allowing the SEPA review processes to be commenced on proposed developments, and WHEREAS, the City fully intends to adopt a sensitive areas ordinance by February 15, 1991. The possibility remains that this date may not be met. It is preferred, then, to leave the moratorium in effect until the ordinance is passed and placed into effect. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Extension of Moratorium. Pursuant to Section 2.B of Ordinance 1544, the moratorium imposed by Ordinance 1544 and clarified and amended by Ordinance 1550 and by Ordinance 1566, is hereby extended until the effective date of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Section 2.B is therefore amended to read as follows: B. The moratorium established herewith shall be temporary in nature, shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance, and shall run until the effective date of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Section 2. Exemption for SEPA Review. SEPA; review; of.' roposed:develo mentd may be commenced but not finalized during thee v eriod the moratoti inilso,effect action 2.D of Ordinance 1544pas reviously amenfed Section 2 of o tliiance 1550 is here y further amended to read in full as follows: D. All applications for development specifically including, but not limited to, new permit applications, rezones, or plats (regular or short) on any property . in Tukwila, Washington, described in paragraph A above, submitted during this moratorium shall be refused and not processed until this moratorium has terminated, except that application for SEPA review may be accepted and he . re ie rocess commenced u ap licant ... - ` .Sl � w:.ti.. , K.u:�ar, �:x ,.�cH r ewae x�»? �-'�m. :P . ,, '' ' ' k k ��p a e it that e f tio" a ina� At er q ff , : .:..' Y.., . �- , "CO �,� .,,.. „ d_ te of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance midi' the: ' o dh ' i ce _ part of�thesubstantive SEPA policy pursuan t. o" v0c�ti ' a ' = deterriunahon will bd ,made, y Section 3. Reaffirmation of Moratorium. In all other respects the provisions of Ordinance Nos. 1544, 1550 and 1566 are reaffirmed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the attached summary, which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of .1990. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By /( e,41. -( FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: C� Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. / 5 6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 1544 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE . . 1550, TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE MO RIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, by . Ordnance 1544 passed November 20, 1989 as clarified and amended by ordinance 1550 passed December 18, 1989, the City Council imposed a moratorium on development on certain property within the city, and WHEREAS, the purpose of such moratorium was to prevent development on such specified property, unless exempt or unless a waiver was granted by the city Council, until the adoption of an ordinance to protect and regulate development of environmentally sensitive areas within the city, and WHEREAS, the moratorium is scheduled to expire by the terms of Ordinance 1544 on May 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and necessary to prevent environmental degradation for the moratorium to be extended to allow for orderly deliberation and passage of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and WHEREAS, due to the length and extent of deliberation and public comment it is not possible to pass a Sensitive Areas Ordinance by the expiration date of the moratorium, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the environment may not be significantly adversely affected by allowing development on existing single family residential lots. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Extension of Moratorium. Pursuant to Sectior 2.B of ordinance 1544, the moratorium imposed by Ordinance 1544 and dariflec` ind amended by Ordinance 1550 is hereby extended for a period of six months from ;, ,e date of passage of this ordinance or until the effective date of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, whichever period is shorter. Section 2.B is therefore amended to read as follows: B. The moratorium established herewith shall be temporary in nature, shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance, and shall run until midnight October 8, 1990, or until the effective date of a Sensitive Areas ordinance. whichever period is shorter, unless sooner ended or extended by action of the City Council. Section 2. Criteria for Waiver. The second paragraph of Section 3.E of Ordinance 1550 is amended to require that anyone requesting a waiver fumish the planning staff for presentation to the city council a specific development proposal, and to provide that no waiver request will be considered without such a proposal. Section 3.E is therefore amended to read as follows: E. In addition to Paragraph C above, all development for which there were endingNovember 20, 1989. and which do not impact specifi ap plications p, th ��sensitn s =bider as those terms are defined in the OCt r 25 . Sensitive Area Ordinance. may continue to be processed during the Period of the moratorium provided the applicant and the property owner, if djtterent from the applicant, execute for recording an agreement that all such continued processes be subject to the provisions of any Sensitive Areas ordinance passed before the termination of this moratorium and acknowledging that such is continued at their request and at their risk and expense. The agreement must also state that it is understood that regardless of the continuation of such pending processes, application or requests for any other processes required for the project but not specifically applied for by 5:00 p.m. November 20, 1989, will not be accepted or processed during the moratorium period, unless it is clear on the face of such applications that the process applied for will not impact such sensitive areas or buffers " except " tliat'underno circumstances will a new application for a building permit be accepted. For those who feel the moratorium on their property is creating an undue hardship for financial, personal, or other reasons, they may petition in writing to the City Counsel. A date for the council to hear that petition will be set by the council President. In considering the petition, the Council will bear in mind the intent of the moratorium; the best interests of the City weighed against the interests of the individual; the circumstances and the hardship caused by the moratorium; and the damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. Section 3. Exemption of Single- Family Lots. Section 2.0 of Ordinance 1544 is amended to further provide that the Director of Department of Community Development may `e_ " "'einal flpm operation of the moratorium. Section 2.0 is • therefore e�ded�to�ea as "foll c. The moratorium shall not prohibit development for which the necessary final building or subdivision or short plat permits or approvals have been obtained prior to the effeczve date of this ordinance, or for •iArhich completed applications for a building permit or for a subdivision or she c plat have been filed ,,with the appropriate officials 4 ' f �e of the City, • rior to, ,such ca hte. In addition �m,{� sN.n# °� F k• ra .n. u ��>s . /.. a � . • :vrr7.;.4: . y#4 «.rYx r...... 7YYII re �Ir le�: i1 d • °�1. MAUI •I' Il • �1� � . 1 �t • o i o "%flt Y, __ , 1I �'1�Il•l •..) fin • -,. • .w reviewi such proposals • ° • �e bepartin rit: � =of :Community Deveioprine will . oonsidef °.;.wt1 ttr th development, is . Iikely..to.._ have...any. impact on the. sensitive_.area.during any phase of the roject,. including ..use.. and.. occ upation, .and .will..require_a, waiver 1 rfrom the City Council if there is any question, about .the..propoeal,s,impact.,.�,`T„ .1 Section 4. Reaffirmation of Moratorium. In all other respects the provisions of Ordinance Nos. 1544 and 1550 are reaffirmed. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be In full force and effect five days after publication of the attached summary, which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TB,CrTY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this ? day of I - = r ATTEST /AUTHENT1CATED: ,( APPRO OFFI C BY D AS TO FORM: F THE I'1Y TTORNEY: • FILE %WITH THE CITY CLERK:. 7— 9 0 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL;,,S. 7_ 9,0 PUBLISHED: alt V- 9 C • EFFECTIVE DATE: e7./ cf . 9 ORDINANCE NO.: /67 ayor CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /SSO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, CLARIFYING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1544 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council, on November 20, 1989, passed Ordinance No. 1544 declaring a moratorium on development on properties described as sensitive areas, and WHEREAS, questions have been raised as to the Council's intent indefining "Development" and in describing the area affected by the moratorium, and WHEREAS, the moratorium appears to work unnecessary hardship on certain property owners or developers who had applications or processes pending on the effective date of the moratorium which applications or processes were not specifically excepted from the operation of the moratorium, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify and amend Ordinance No. 1544 to cure these uncertainties and hardships, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1544 was passed as an emergency ordinance effective immediately and to prevent the hardships referred to, It is necessary that this ordinance be effective imm NOW, THEREFORE,' THE CITY COUNCIL . OF THE . CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: lli! !',•.1 •1 �. �l 11'!.1. •1 9 .-11- /!.`.1L -.1.1. It was and is specifically intended by the .:Pmv:: that the • ninon of " 9 • • contained in Section 1.B of Ordinance No. 1544 be construed as broadly as possible to include l processes those mentioned in Ordinance a land No. use, 544, SE P applications Boa d off Architectural al applications. Ordinae o. 1 A appl and 111! 1'. - 1! 1.l, .L•i11.-.11 •1 ;11.•,•. In furtherance of this clarification, Sections 2 .A ar`id` of`Oirdi'iance °No:' 1 544 are amended to read in full as follows: A. No development shall be itted to occur on any parcel of property in Tukwila, Washington, coat ring any area designated as a sensitive area or as open space dung the moratorium which is established by this ordinance. No permits allowing such development shell be issued during such moratorium. D. All applications for development specifically including, but not limited to, new permit applications, rezones, or plats (regular or short) on any property in Tukwila, Washington, described in paragraph A above, submitted during thi: moratorium shall be refused and not processed until this moratorium has terminated. Section 3. Specific Conditional Exceptions. There shall be added to Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1544 new paragraphs E, F and G as follows: E. In addition to Paragraph C above, all development for which there were specific applications pending on November 20, 1989, and which do not impact the "sensitive area" or its "buffer" as those terms are defined in the October 25, 1989 Sensitive Area Ordinance, may continue to be processed during theperiod of the moratorium provided the applicant and the property owner, if different from the applicant, execute for recording an agreement that all such continued processes be subject to the provisions of any Sensitive Areas Ordinance passed before the termination of this moratorium and acknowledging that such is continued at their request and at their risk and expense. The agreement must also state that it is understood that regardless of the continuation of such pending processes, application or requests for any other processes required for the project but not specifically applied for by 5:00 p.m. November 20, 1989, will not be accepted or processed during the moratorium period, unless • it is dear on the face of such applications that the process applied for will not impact such "sensitive areas" or "buffers" except that under no circumstances will a new application for a building permit be accepted. For those who feel the moratorium on their property is creating an undue hardship for financial, personal, or other reasons, they may in writing the City, Council. A date for the Council to hear that will be set by the Council President. In considering the petition, the Council will bear in mind the intent of the moratorium; the best interests of the City weighed against the interests of the individual; the circumstances and hardship caused by the moratorium; and tha damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. F. An additional exception to the moratorium shall be ro , p `: ii -.1. .Tx. 7 Y '.a 3yr:zr�.. 4 u .. .. ,., �,r, w. WO 1 - q Wr� �Nt Oi' IeeNr , sited ;R prOpartiN fn' V` .,,� .r.. f.Rr.+,.!..�.t .. ..:•a ..a'+�c�..,1t ,u G�iLrl.'r:t `4:i3'r. % � ►� far f�y � 1ofrle : G. An exception process is hereby established for any property owner for whom the moratorium prohibits acting on an issue that constitutes a hazard or threat to the safety of people or property. 2. The Director of Community ant shall consider the exception appeal, and may require s e technical or other reports for verification of the hazard. 3. The Director of Community Development shall respond to the request for exception within three business days of receiving both the exception response by additional of the emergency, � e , immediate timely response will be given. a. In no case will an exception be given for wholesale clearing and/or grading � as removal this hazardoua�vegeetador such trees. allow Section 4. Effective Date, This ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage as an emergency ordinance to order to amend Ordinance No. 1544, which establishes a moratorium on development on certain prooperty within the City. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH A CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this /B �`+ ;day of , 1989. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: APPRO OFFICE,OF THE CITY ATTOAN By ED AS TO FORM: FILLED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 1.2 /9 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; /a - / 8 - PUBUSHED: /.r - al P 9 EFFECTIVE D A T E : / - / - 9 e ORDINANCE NO.: ,' -o CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /56/ 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUIKWIIA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the current zoning and land use regulations of the City of Tukwila relating to certain areas within the City are inadequate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and the environmental quality of such areas, and WHEREAS, the City Council has referred the issue of further land use regulations for such areas (referred to as "sensitive areas ") to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearing, and WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible Officer for the City has made a determination that such further regulations would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a DNS with regard thereto, which determination is currently the subject of certain appeals, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a first public hearing on such issues on November 9, 1989, and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1989, voters approved a King County bond issue to authorize the acquisition of certain property located within the boundaries of the City of Tukwila for open space, and the Planning Commission and the City Council need adequate time for careful consideration of and input to the "sensitive areas ordinance, and time to allow acquisition of the bond open space areas, and WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible Official for the City has determined that such a moratorium is exempt from SEPA procedures pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(20), and after notice duly given, a public hearing on the issue of a moratorium was held before the City Council on November 13, 1989, at which time all those wishing to speak were heard, and WHEREAS, action must be taken immediately to avoid an imminent threat of public health, safety, and welfare and to prevent an imminent threat of serious environmental degradation pending final action by the City Council and King County. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions. A. "Moratorium" shall mean a time period of six months from the effective date of this ordinance during which no development shall be permitted. B. "Development" shall include any clearing, grading, filling, building, or any similar or related land use activity whether or not any permit or prior approval is required, and shall include any activity or procedure ° for which apph ariuu u,ust be made to any department or board of the City of Tukwila. C. "Sensitive Area" means any watercourses, slopes steeper than 15%, landslide hazard areas, and abandoned coal mine areas, all as defined in the Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance dated October 25 ,1989, on file at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. D. "Open Space" means those areas in Tukwila designated in the King County bond issue approved by election on November 7, 1989, a description of which is on file with the City Clerk which description is hereby incorporated herein. ( Section 2. Genera lequirements. A. No developme . shall be permitted to occur in any area designated as a sensitive area or as open space during the moratorium which is established by this ordinance. No permits allowing such development shall be issued during such moratorium. B. The moratorium established herewith shall be temporary in nature, shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance, and shall run until midnight on May 13, 1990, unless sooner ended or extended by action of the City Council. C. The moratorium shall not prohibit development for which the necessary final building or subdivision or short plat permits or approvals have been obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance or for which completed applications for a building permit or for a subdivision or short plat have been filed with the appropriate officials of the City prior to such date. D. All applications for development specifically including, but not limited to, new permit applications, rezones, or plats (regul& or short) in semi i!ive area or open space area submitted during this moratorium, shall be refused and .: Jt processed until this moratorium has terminated. Section 3. Severability. If any portion of this ordinance is found or rendered invalid or ineffective, all remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. Penalty. The general penalties provided for in the Tukwila Municipal Code shall apply to any violations of this ordinance, and any person, firm, corporation, or association failing to comply with any of the provisions hereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance ' shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage as an emergency ordinance in order to consider and adopt new land use regulations for sensitive and open space areas. PASSED BY THE CITY WASHINGTON, THIS A o or DAY OF ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: /1 •t o - F 9 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; / I - . o - r9 PUBLISHED: N - EFFECTIVE DATE: / I - l • Y ORDINANCE NO.: /4 UNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUItWILA, 1989. Minutes - Regular Meeting November 19, 1990 Page 2 Consent Agenda (con't) BID AWARDS Signal at Southcenter Blvd. /68th Ave. So. Amend Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS Request for Waiver to Ord.1550 (moratorium) - City of Tukwila Public Works Department for Design and Construction of Interurban Street and Drainage Repairs c. Resolution ordering cancellation of outstanding municipal warrants. d. Acceptance of 156th St. road improvements (West Valley Highway to Nelsen Place). MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD /168TH AVE. SO. SIGNAL TO TOTEM ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,745. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO REMOVE ITEM 9b, AN ORDINANCE SETTING TAX LEVIES FOR 1991, UNTIL THE FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor VanDusen opened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. Rick Beeler explained that on May 21, 1990, Council granted a waiver to proceed with the submittal of a SEPA checklist subject to the redesign of the project. The Public Works Department is now requesting to proceed with applying for and securing the necessary permits for the improvements to the Interurban Avenue from 42nd Avenue to 52nd Avenue and South 133rd from Interurban to South 134th. The project needs to proceed in a timely manner in order not to jeopardize the TM funding grant. Ross Earnst, Public Works Director, noted that the sensitive area to be modified by construction is the area to the west of Interurban flowing into the Green River. Design criteria for minimizing the impact in this area includes an arched pipe culvert, rather than a pipe with weirs in it, which will allow fish passage back through the 66 inch pipe that exists there. Public Works also proposes putting a retaining wall along the embankment rather than a side slope which would require going further into the stream. Councilmember Lawrence questioned the damage done by flooding in the area. Mr. Earnst responded that flooding has not caused damage to buildings or structures m the area as they are all built above the 100 year flood plain; however, flooding does require the roadway to be closed. Councilmember Lawrence asked if there would be a cost to the City. Mr. Earnst responded that the drainage would be a total City project and costing $1.9 million. The road project will consist The TM grant of $2.28 million plus the City's contribution. There is also a developer's contribution of approximately $250,000 for the 133rd Street project. The public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFLE TO APPROVE THE WAIVER TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING THE SHORELINE PERMIT, FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT, AND OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT STORM DRAINS AND STREET WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS, INTERURBAN AVENUE AND SOUTH 133RD STREET, SUBJECT TO THE NORMAL CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS.* Councilmember Robertson commented that the project alternatives were significantly more expensive and involved possibly relocating existing stream and doing more to it than this project involves. Councilmember Lawrence noted that his biggest complain was the cost to the City of $3.2 million for the total project when the only real need appears to be that the City will receive some grant money. The flooding has never been demonstrated to be a serious problem other than the standing water on the roadway. Mr. Earnst responded that there are two projects: one to build the pipe, the other to build the stream. The reason to do them together is to not have to come back after the street is built and then try to put a pipe in. November 15, 1990 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS SPECIAL ISSUES Discussion of Draft SAO. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE voy Tukwila City. Hall Council Chambers Council President Hernandez called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOAN HERNANDEZ, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS, JOE DUFFLE. MOIRA BRADSHAW, DCD; JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. The Council continued their discussion on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance focusing on definitions and buffers. The discussion continued until 9:00 p.m. An opportunity for citizens'comments was provided between 9:00 - 9:30 p.m. It was the consensus of the Council to set aside one hour following the November 19, 1990 Regular Council meeting to continue the discussion of the SAO MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. J Hernandez, Council Preside November 13,1990 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS SPECIAL ISSUES Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Recess 9:00 - 9:15 p.m. Special Issues (Con't) Discussion on Land Altering & Standard Process Ordinances. ADJOURNMENT 10:35 p.m. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Minna Council President Hernandez called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOAN HERNANDEZ, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON, CLARENCE MORIWAKI, ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, WALLY RANTS, JOE DUFFIE. JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney, ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; DOUG MICHEAU, Public Works Coordinator, RICK BEELER, DCD Director, MOIRA BRADSHAW, Associate Planner; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. Catherine Harris, 5610 South 141st Place, commented that the legislative body of the City of Tukwila does not provide the powers of initiative and referendum to the people of Tukwila. The Tukwila Citizens for Quality Government presented a petition of 15 signatures requesting that the Council amend Ordinance #1009 to add a new section providing those powers to the people of Tukwila. The Council agreed to forward this item to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee, then back to the Council for further discussion. Moira Bradshaw summarized the Planning Commission Sensitive Areas Ordinance recommendation. A discussion followed. It was the consensus of the Council to hold %mid Committee of The Whole meetings on November 15 and November 29, 7 - 9:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers to discuss the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The remaining 30 minutes of the meeting will be extended to citizens for input. Additionally, one -hour will be allotted on each Monday night's agenda for Council to discuss the SAO. Council President Hernandez called the meeting back to order with Councilmembers in attendance as listed above. Ross Earnst and Doug Micheau presented to the Council the Land Altering Ordinance, which sets forth rules and regulations to control all land altering activities within the City; and, the Standard Processes Ordinance, which may be applied through reference in any land -use related code or ordinance adopted in the City. A lengthy discussion followed. The Council agreed to forward this item back to the Utility Committee. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED Jo Hernandez, Council President 0 .:c‘ - ' Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk Lcg Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE November 13, 1990 (Tuesday) 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4 \<, 3. CO - At - this time, you that are not ude on this iffienda. 4. a. Draft Sensi Council. (P1 b. Discussion on a . b. c d. e . 5.. REPORTS c ( ) Mayor City Council Staff City Attorney CL, Intergovernmental 6. MISCELLANEOUS 7. ADJO rtwv TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA for revi SAO S . ON �- -/ 0 151' T.-P Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers ent on items in a workshop sess1gd y the cket.) Pg . 3 d Standard Process Ordinance. Pg . 7 3 . L 4 (JINA,,, rff W1A(vr ky 9 c L-A)- Q(- miA--\/‘ -�, Wt A— a .Vi-ti3Vzo 717r • ,• IIOIM TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your nale and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basis- rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS The Mayor is elected by the people to a four year term and presides at all Regular Council Meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 P.M.* Official Council action in the form of motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinance's can only be taken at Regular Council Meetings. \ COMMITTEE of the WHOLE MEETINGS Council Members are elected for a four -year term. The Council President', is elected by the Council Members to preside at all Committee 'of the Whole Meetings for a one -year term. Committee of the Whole Meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 P.M.* Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council Meeting for Official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Council Meeting citizens are given the to address the Council on items that are not included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. SPECIAL MEETINGS may bi, called at any ylme with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the ;•ame as those used in Regular Council Meetings. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS may be ca to /inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, orypersonnel matters. *No Council Meetings are schedui d on the Sth Monday of the Month unless prior public notification,is given. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public interest, such as land -use laws annexations, re -zone reque ts, public safety issues, etc. T.M:C. 2.04..154` states the gui•ellnes for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed IS minutes for their /presentation. 2 . The opponent is" then allowed 1 S minutes tq make their presentation. / 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for five minutes each. No one may speak a secofi time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postoned to another date. TO: City Council FROM: Lucy Lauterbach DATE: 13 November 1990 SUBJECT: Planning Commission, Council and Citizen Sensitive Areas Recommendations The major elements which were listed in the executive summary of the Planning Commission draft of the SAO Planning Commission are compared with both the citizen and Council drafts of the same document. The draft here was made starting from the executive summary of the Planning Commission. Where the Council or Citizen drafts were different, I just copied the issue number (i.e. #1 or *) and tried to bold the Council version and gut the Citizen version in italics. Where only one version of a summary item is s ow is the Planning Commission's version, and the Council and Citizen drafts were essentially similar. I hope it helps.,,.' A summary of the major elements of each of their proposals follows: NEW SENSITIVE AREAS ZONE SENSITIVE AREAS are defined as: 1. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, other than Class 1 areas; 2. Wetlands;* 3. Watercourses; 4. Abandoned coal mine areas; 5. Important geologic and archaeologic sites; 6. Sensitive area buffers * Constructed wetlands are wetlands deliberately created from non wetland sites other than for mitigation purposes. (Concern was expressed about the ability of anyone to demonstrate that a wetland had been constructed.) Council draft - -no changes from P.C. Citizen draft - -no changes from P.C. BUFFERS 1. Required for wetlands, watercourses and areas of potential geologic instability when recommended by the applicant's sensitive area consultant. (City may increase geologic buffers, and may increase or decrease wetland & watercourse buffers.) 1. Council: Required on all wetlands and watercourses. Required in areas of potential geologic instability when recommended by the geotechnical engineer, though the City may increase the buffers. 1. Citizen: Required for wetlands. watercourses and areas of potential geologic instability. City, applicant, geotech engineer agree on project. 2. To determine who must include a buffer within their development, any lot of record within 100 feet of a sensitive area must hire a sensitive area consultant and review the necessity and depth for a buffer at the time of development. 2. Council: Only areas within or partially within sensitive areas must do a study. 2. Citizen: Only areas within or partially within sensitive areas must do a study. PROCEDURES 1. A five step application and construction process is outlined for development of sensitive areas or their buffers. 1. Council: A six step application and construction process is outlined. (Putting conditions on development is sixth step.) 1. Citizen: A four step application and construction process is outlined. PRD and conditionina not included. 2. New subdivisions or multiple family developments within sensitive area or areas on site must use the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. 2. Council: No change 2. Citizen: Did not include PRD process. USES a saw' 1. Permitted outright: * maintenance of uses and facilities, including roads and utilities, *Council: Maintenance of existing uses and facilities without filling, alterations or heavy machinery. No roads and utilities included. *Citizen: Maintenance of uses and facilities, including essential roads and utilities. passive recreation, * non - destructive education and research, * in areas of geologic instability, abandoned coal mine areas and important geologic and archaeologic sites - all uses permitted in the underlying zone subject to conditions. *Council: Other uses may be allowed. *Citizen: Other uses may be allowed. 2. Permitted subject to administrative review: * construction of essential roads and utilities, *Council: Essential roads & utilities when no reasonable alternative exists. *Citizen: New roads, bridges,elevated roads & access roads where no alternative exists. * stormwater detention areas subject to standards, * flood control or water quality enhancement by City, * enhancement or restoration of wetlands or watercourses, * diversion of watercourses subject to standards, P.C. Recommendation Summary Page 3B * piping of watercourses subject to standards. Note: Neither the Council nor Citizen versions included the specifics of the last four starred items, but they could conceivably have been permitted in the "essential utilities" allowed. 3. Other uses subject to a reasonable use exception. 3. Council: Not included. 3. Citizen: Not included. WETLAND STANDARDS 1. A goal of no net loss is established. WATERCOURSES 1. Not included in Council version. 1. Not included in Citizen version. 2. Removal of Type 3 wetlands and other approved mitigation may be allowed subject to compensatory mitigation; however specific timing and replacement standards must be met. 3. Standards are specified for construction of utilities, roads, and public use and access; and dredging, digging and filling within wetlands. 1. Alteration and relocation of Type 3 watercourses is allowed subject to meeting standards. 2. Standards are specified for diversion of and construction of utilities, roads, and public use and access within watercourses. AREA OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY, ABANDONED MINE AREAS AND AREAS OF IMPORTANT GEOLOGIC AND ARCHAEOLOGIC SITES Procedures and conditions for development are specifically listed. [Note: Procedures and conditions also specifically listed in Council and Citizen versions. All three documents differ somewhat.] COMMON TRACTS 1. Highlights opportunity for applicant to create a common tract of sensitive lands in subdivisions, planned residential and planned mixed use developments and binding site plans. 2. Establishes conditions for creation of common tracts. DENSITY CREDITS 1. Allows an applicant to calculate development potential of a lot, as if there were no sensitive area or buffer; then transfer a percentage of that development potential from the sensitive portion of the lot to the unsensitive portion by increasing the building size and /or decreasing setbacks and landscaping on the remaining unsensitive portion of the lot. 2. Any modifications of standards to accommodate transferred development on a portion of the lot must be approved through 3. Council: Approximately the same, although the Planning Commission model is on a sliding scale, and the Council model was based on categories, e.g.25% or less; 26% - 50 %; etc. 3. Citizen: Same as Council. P.C. Recommendation Summary Page 4B the BAR process. 3. The percentage of development potential transferred from a sensitive portion to non - sensitive portion is based on a sliding straight line scale if the amount of sensitive area or buffer is between 25 and 75 percent of the total lot area. Up to 25 % sensitive area, is allowed a 100 % transfer and 75 % or more sensitive area is allowed a 25 % transfer. EXCEPTIONS 1. Any existing development that will not meet the requirements of the sensitive areas overlay zone when adopted, shall not be considered non - conforming with regard to the use and buffer regulations of the sensitive areas chapter. 2. Allows modification of existing structures that do not meet sensitive areas regulations as long as it does not protrude any further depth -wise into the sensitive area or buffer. 3. Allows modifications of existing structures in geologically instable and abandoned coal mine areas when it can be demonstrated that there is no increase in risk or damage to property or surrounding properties. 4. A reasonable use exception procedure is established. Allows property owners or applicants who feel they have been denied a use, that is normally developed within the zone in which the property is located, to apply for an exception. Requests shall be decided by the Planning Commission after a public hearing, subject to the request meeting 4 exception criteria. 4. Council: Allows development of a single family home if all other uses are denied. 4. Citizen: Same as Planning Commission. The Planning Commission made a motion requesting the City Council to establish an appropriate fee for application for a reasonable use exception. VARIANCES AND APPEALS References existing process within Zoning Code and creates additional criteria for decision - making. RECORDING 1 WK." 1. Requires owners of developments on lots with sensitive areas to record the approved plan with the County Recorder. The plan shall state that the site is governed by the sensitive area regulations. 2. The DCD Director is given the authority to require signs to identify and separate sensitive from non - sensitive portions of a development site. 2. Council: Only public property will be posted. 2. Citizen: Only public property will be posted. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE: 5 November 1990 SUBJECT: Sensitive Areas Legislation PHONE N (206) 933.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Maya,. Enclosed is a copy of the Planning Commission's recommendation on the sensitive areas legislation. Due to your involvement, I thought you would be interested in the ongoing refinement and direction of the recommendations. The City Council will . .;. now review the recommendation and study the issues and prepare an ordinance for final review. They plan on holding a public hearing on the ordinance which reflects their review and policies. This final hearing before the Council will be advertised to all property owners. The final copy of the watercourse rating sheets is also available, please give me a call at 431 -3651 if you would like a personal copy. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw SUBJECT: SAO Recommendations DATE: 25 October 1990 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 2. WETLANDS (page 5) or or PHONE N (206) 433.1800 A. Any recommended buffer may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. A. (Use existing paragraph of 4 A. (page 6) of this section with substitutions) Each use or development proposal for a site which is within or partially within a wetland or its buffer shall be subject of a sensitive areas report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.060 (1)(B). The study shall analyze and make recommendations on the width of a buffer necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Proposals shall include the nojlaiimem buffer distances recommended in the study. A. Buffer widths and conditions shall be recommended by the applicant's sensitive area consultant in the study required pursuant to 18.45.060. The buffer shall be the minimum necessary to meet the purpose of this section and chapter. They may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. Gary L. Va,Dusen, Mayor B. The buffer width recommended by the applicant's consultant may be increased by the DCD Director when the wetland is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the recommended width of the buffer shall be required or allowed by the DCD Director only after completion of an additional wetland study which documents the basis for such an increase or decrease in width. 3. WATERCOURSES (page 5) A. same as above B. same as above 4. AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY (page 6) A. same as above B. same as above 18.45.115 EXCEPTIONS (page 18) 4. Reasonable Use Exception: If application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property within its zoning category, the property owner or the proponent of a development proposal may apply for a reasonable use exception. The application for a reasonable use exception shall be in a format specified by and filed with the DCD and shall be decided by the Planning Commission following a public hearing which is noticed pursuant to TMC 18.92. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (2061 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Mayor Van Dusen FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE: 1 November 1990 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Sensitive Areas Recommendation Transmitted herewith are the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding regulation of development in sensitive areas. A summary of the major elements of their proposal follows: NEW SENSITIVE AREAS ZONE SENSITIVE AREAS are defined as: 1. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, other than Class 1 areas; 2. Wetlands;* 3. Watercourses; 4. Abandoned coal mine areas; 5. Important geologic and archaeologic sites; 6. Sensitive area buffers * Constructed wetlands are wetlands deliberately created from non wetland sites other than for mitigation purposes. (Concern was expressed about the ability of anyone to demonstrate that a wetland had been constructed.) BUFFERS 1. Required for wetlands, watercourses and areas of potential geologic instability when recommended by the applicant's sensitive area consultant. 2. To determine who must include a buffer within their development, any lot of record within 100 feet of a sensitive area must hire a sensitive area consultant and review the necessity and depth for a buffer at the time of development. PROCEDURES 1. A five step application and construction process is outlined for development of sensitive areas or their buffers. 2. New subdivisions or multiple family developments within sensitive area or areas on site must use the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. USES 1. Permitted outright: * maintenance of uses and facilities, including roads and utilities, * passive recreation, * non - destructive education and research, P.C. Recommendation Summary Page 2 * in areas of geologic instability, abandoned coal mine areas and important geologic and archaeologic sites - all uses permitted in the underlying zone subject to conditions. 2. Permitted subject to administrative review: * construction of essential roads and utilities, * stormwater detention areas subject to standards, * flood control or water quality enhancement by City, * enhancement or restoration of wetlands or watercourses, * diversion of watercourses subject to standards, * piping of watercourses subject to standards. 3. Other uses subject to a reasonable use exception. WETLAND STANDARDS 1. A goal of no net loss is established. 2. Removal of Type 3 wetlands and other approved mitigation may be allowed subject to compensatory mitigation; however specific timing and replacement standards must be met. 3. Standards are specified for construction of utilities, roads, and public use and access; and dredging, digging and filling within wetlands. WATERCOUMSES 1. Alteration and relocation of Type 3 watercourses is allowed subject to meeting standards. 2. Standards are specified for diversion of and construction of utilities, roads, and public use and access within watercourses. AREA OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY, ABANDONED MINE AREAS AND AREAS OF IMPORTANT GEOLOGIC AND ARCHAEOLOGIC SITES Procedures and conditions for development are specifically listed. COMMON TRACTS 1. Highlights opportunity for applicant to create a common tract of sensitive lands in subdivisions, planned residential and planned mixed use developments and binding site plans. 2. Establishes conditions for creation of common tracts. DENSITY CREDITS 1. Allows an applicant to calculate development potential of a lot, as if there were no sensitive area or buffer; then transfer a percentage of that development potential from the sensitive portion of the lot to the unsensitive portion by increasing the building size and /or decreasing setbacks and landscaping on the remaining unsensitive portion of the lot. P.C. Recommendation Summary Page 3 2. Any modifications of standards to accommodate transferred development on a portion of the lot must be approved through the BAR process. 3. The percentage of development potential transfered from a sensitive portion to non - sensitive portion is based on a sliding straight line scale if the amount of sensitive area or buffer is between 25 and 75 percent of the total lot area. Up to 25 % sensitive area, is allowed a 100 % transfer and 75 % or more sensitive area is allowed a 25 % transfer. EXCEPTIONS 1. Any existing development that will not meet the requirements of the sensitive areas overlay zone when adopted, shall not be considered non - conforming with regard to the use and buffer regulations of the sensitive areas chapter. 2. Allows modification of existing structures that do not meet sensitive areas regulations as long as it does not protrude any further depth -wise into the sensitive area or buffer. 3. Allows modifications of existing structures in geologically instable and abandoned coal mine areas when it can be demonstrated that there is no increase in risk or damage to property or surrounding properties. 4. A reasonable use exception procedure is established. Allows property owners or applicants who feel they have been denied a use, that is normally developed within the zone in which the property is located, to apply for an exception. Requests shall be decided by the Planning Commission after a public hearing, subject to the request meeting 4 exception criteria. The Planning Commission made a motion requesting the City Council to establish an appropriate fee for application for a reasonable use exception. VARIANCES AND APPEALS References existing process within Zoning Code and creates additional criteria for decision - making. RECORDING 1. Requires owners of developments on lots with sensitive areas to record the approved plan with the County Recorder. The plan shall state that the site is governed by the sensitive area regulations. 2. The DCD Director is given the authority to require signs to identify and separate sensitive from non - sensitive portions of a development site. ASSURANCE DEVICE Allows DCD Director to require performance, monitoring and maintenance to be assured with some form of security. P.C. Recommendation Summary Page 4 PURPOSE Updates language to reflect sensitive areas definitions. PERMITTED USES In R -1 zones, the type of structure allowed is expanded from one unit dwellings to accommodate what is necessary to accommodate density transfer from the sensitive areas portion of the site. SITE ACREAGE MINIMUM Minimum site area is deleted. LOCATION Locational criteria for PRD applications are deleted. RELATIONSHIP OF PRD CHAPTER TO OTHER CHAPTERS 1. Allows building height, lot size, and yard setbacks to be waived in all residential zones. 2. Establishes a maximum number of parking stalls allowed in multiple family developments, a 50 % compact car allowance versus 30 % and allows tandem parking subject to circulation review. 3. Creates a maximum impervious surface coverage standard of 33% for new single unit developments and 50% for multiple unit developments in PRDs. 4. Allows sensitive areas that can contribute to passive recreation to count towards recreation space requirements. 5. Requires downslope and side yard buffers with specific standards. 6. Requires Planning Commission and City Council to use BAR guidelines as a decision criteria for PRD review and approval. DENSITY STANDARDS 1. Updated language to reflect sensitive areas language and deletion of a criteria for density bonus. OPEN SPACE AMEND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1. Include language regarding of sensitive areas preservation. 2. Include networking with trail and open space system of City as a criteria for open space dedication. APPLICATION PROCEDURE Revise application section to be more applicable to current operating procedures. REVIEW CRITERIA Establish criteria for review and decision on PRDs P.C. Recommendation Summary Page 5 .. AMEND SUBDIVISION CODE PROCEDURES FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION 1. Revise language to reflect sensitive areas chapter. 2. Create an administrative PRD process for short plats in sensitive areas. DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Revise language to reflect sensitive areas chapter. 2. Establish a goal of an integrated street system and eliminate restrictions on intersections with arterials. 3. Allow a reduction in local access right of way width to 40 feet if necessary to avoid sensitive areas. 4. Allow grades to exceed 15 % subject to criteria. 5. Require common drive easements rather than flag lots to reduce pavement and yard patterns reflective of surrounding property. 6. Require a street tree per lot in new subdivisions. AMEND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS 1. Specify submission of sensitive areas studies for threshold determinations. Studies shall include a site analysis, impact analysis and proposed mitigation measures. Independent reviews of studies, paid for by the applicant, shall be required for Class 4 areas and Class 2, 3, Seismic and Coal mine hazard areas if they exhibit Class 4 characteristics. 2. Specify the scope and content of a mitigation plan. 3. Amend definition of environmentally sensitive areas to include sensitive areas as designated by new Sensitive Areas Zone. PLANNING COMMISSION SENSITIVE AREAS FINDINGS 1. The environmental features identified as sensitive areas which require regulation by Tukwila are: coal mine hazard areas, areas of potential geologic instability, watercourses, wetlands and important geologic and archaeologic resources. 2. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance will implement goals and policies of the 1978 Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. 3. The 1990 Washington State Legislature approved ESHB 2929 (1990 Wash. Laws 17) which mandates that certain counties and cities within those counties address the protection of critical areas. Critical areas as defined in ESHB 2929 correlate generally with the Tukwila definitions and categories of sensitive areas. This Sensitive Areas Ordinance is designed to meet the challenges and satisfy the requirements of this act with regard to all critical areas except aquifer recharge areas and flood plains which will require a different regulatory approach or are regulated in an existing title of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 4. Regulation of the use of sensitive areas benefits property owners by preventing and avoiding activities which would have adverse impacts on property. 5. Development in wetlands, watercourses and erosion hazard areas results in: 1) increased soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream water bodies, including navigable channels; 2) increased shoreline erosion; 3) degraded water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; 4) elimination or degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; 5) loss of fishery resources from water quality degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the stream flow regimen; 6) loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow - release detention resulting in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the stream flow regimen of watersheds. 6. Development in areas of geologic instability present a danger to the development on the site as well as neighboring sites and natural resources, and require special design, construction and site development measures to minimize risks from these hazards. 7. Tukwila is in an earthquake prone region subject to ground shaking, subsidence, landslide and liquefaction and special building design and construction measures are necessary to minimize risk from this hazard. 8. In their natural state, wetlands and watercourses provide many valuable social and ecological services, which are critical and cannot adequately be replicated or replaced, including: a. controlling flooding and stormwater runoff by storing or regulating natural flows; b. protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for naturally occurring sedimentation; c providing areas for groundwater recharge; d. providing habitat areas for many species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on these water resources for their survival; e. providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; f. providing recreation opportunities; and g. serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education. 9. Tukwila in enacting this ordinance has relied on extensive scientific documentation and testimony concerning these sensitive areas and the appropriate methods and mechanisms for their protection. This documentation is available in the Department of Community Development in file 89 -2-CA: Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 10. This ordinance was made available to the public on October 25, 1989; was the subject of a public hearing in November 1989 before the Planning Commission; was redrafted in March, 1990 by a broad- based Citizen's Advisory Committee appointed by the Mayor and Council President; and was the subject of another public hearing in August, 1990 before the Planning Commission. CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Chapters: SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE Title 18 ZONING 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions Amend 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established -Map 18.10 R -A District - Agricultural 18.12 R -1 District -- Single- family Residence 18.14 R -2 District- Two-family Residential 18.16 R-3 District - -Three and Four Family Dwellings 18.18 R-4 District -Low Apartments 18.20 RMH District - Multiple- residence High Density 18.26 P -O District - Professional and Office District 18.28 C -1 District -- Community Retail Business 18.30 C -2 District-Regional Retail Business 18.34 C -P District - Planned Business Center 18.38 C -M District-Industrial Park 18.40 M -1 District -Light Industry 18.42 M -2 District-Heavy Industry 18.43 M -2L District -Heavy Industry /Special Landscaping 18.44 Shoreline Zone Add 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Amend 18.46 PRD-- Planned Residential Development 18.48 PMUD - Planned Mixed -use Development 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Regulations 18.52 Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements 18.56 Off- street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 18.64 General Conditional Uses 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments 18.84 Requests for Changes in Zoning 18.88 Application Fees 18.90 Appeals 18.92 Public Notice of Hearing 18.96 Administration and Enforcement Planning Commission Recommendation - 2 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.06 Definitions Sections: 18.45.010 Purpose 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation and Applicability 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers 1. Purpose 2. Wetland and Watercourse A. Wetlands B. Watercourses C. Reduction D. Increase E. Maintenance 3. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands and Watercourses 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 5. Abandoned Mine Areas 6. Areas of Important Geological or Archaeological Evidence 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 1. General 2. Density Credits 3. Sensitive areas common tract restrictions 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 18.45.130 Recording 1. Procedure 2. Signage 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required ZONING CODE Chapter 18.06 Amended. 18.06. Applicant "Applicant" means any person or business entity which applies for a development proposal, permit or approval subject to review under the Sensitive Areas Chapter. 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities as defined in the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report by GeoEngineers dated May 1990, on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and including the following: 1. Class 1 areas, where landslide potential is low, which slope less than 15 percent. 2. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. 3. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. Planning Commission Recommendation - 3 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 4. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 5. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. 18.06. Compensatory Mitigation "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project- induced wetland losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Restoration - Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. Creation - Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. Enhancement - Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 18.06.185 Constructed Wetlands. "Constructed wetland" means those wetlands which an applicant can demonstrate were intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility,utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.385 Impervious Surface. " Impervious Surface" means those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre- existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. "Lot Coverage" means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. 18.06.650 Performance Standards. Specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures, which may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instability other than Class 1 areas, abandoned coal mine areas, and important geological or archaeological sites. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.935 Watercourse. 'Watercourse" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length Planning Corm scion Recommendation - 4 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay. Zone along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green/ Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. 'Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds, lakes and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered wetlands for the purpose of this Chapter. However, those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands as permitted by the City shall be considered wetlands. Planning Commission Recommendation - 5 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone A new chapter 18.45 entitled "Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone" is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION. ZONING CODE Chapter 18.45 Established The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions thereon in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. Standards are hereby established to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeologic or geologic sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any legal lot of record, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within the City. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to any development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation under this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on technical studies; or B. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and including the following and their buffers: • Abandoned coal mines • Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class 2,3,4 and seismic instability areas. • Wetlands • Watercourses ; or C. Is a legal lot of record which contains archaeological remnants of value to the archaeological research community, which includes but is not limited to colleges, universities or societies of professional archaeologists, and which is designated as important to save as a record of the area's past by the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2. For sensitive areas which are annexed, or created by changes in the ecology of existing Planning Commission Recommendation - 6 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone systems, the inventory shall be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original studies used to delineate sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila. 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.030 INTERPRETATION The provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements in their interpretation and application and shall be liberally construed to serve the purposes of this chapter. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 1. General: A. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas, (ii) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, (iii) Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value, (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080, however, is permitted. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. B. Wetland and Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii) Stabilize banks, and (iv) Intercept fine sediments, and (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. C. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface and storm water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and Planning Commission Recommendation - 7 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (iii) Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (iv) Enhance the appearance of hillside development. 2. Application Applicants for a use or development on a legal lot of record within one hundred feet of a sensitive area shall be required to conduct a sensitive area study to provide a buffer analysis for the sensitive area. This study may be waived by the DCD Director when sensitive area or site conditions indicate that the buffer area will be less than the 100 feet. 3. Wetlands A. Any use or development proposal for a site which is within or partially within a wetland or its buffer shall be subject to a sensitive area study pursuant to the requirements of Section 18.45.060(1)(B). The study shall analyze and make recommendations on the width of a buffer necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Buffers may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. Proposals shall include the buffer distance(s) recommended in the study. B. The buffer width recommended by the applicant's consultant may be increased by the DCD Director when the wetland is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the recommended width of the buffer shall be required or allowed by the DCD Director only after completion of an additional wetland study which documents the basis for such an increase or decrease in width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. C. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site. A plan showing replacement vegetation shall be subject to approval by the DCD Director. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner must replace existing vegetation in the buffer with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 4. Watercourse A. Any use or development proposal for a site which is within or partially within a watercourse or its buffer shall be subject to a sensitive area study pursuant to the requirements of Section 18.45.060(1)(B). The study shall analyze and make recommendations on the width of a buffer necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Buffers may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. Proposals shall include the buffer distance(s) recommended in tha study. B. The buffer width recommended by the applicant's consultant may be increased by the DCD Director when the wetland is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Planning Commission Recommendation - 8 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Any increase or decrease in the recommended width of the buffer shall be required or allowed by the DCD Director only after completion of an additional wetland study which documents the basis for such an increase or decrease in width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. C. Any disturbance of the buffers for natural watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site. A plan showing proposed replacement vegetation shall be subject to approval by the DCD Director. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner must replace existing vegetation along watercourses with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 5. AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY A. Any use or development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a sensitive area study pursuant to the requirements of Section 18.45.060(1)(B). The study shall analyze and make recommendations on the width of a buffer necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Buffers may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. Proposals shall include the buffer distance(s) recommended in the study. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report of the site as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES 1. General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves a use, development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive any of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant a step in the procedures. A. Pre - application Conference: At this conference the applicant and appropriate City department representative will discuss the requirements for development on a legal lot of record containing a sensitive area or its buffer, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and the applicable standards for the proposed development. B. Sensitive Areas Study: The applicant shall submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. It is intended that sensitive areas studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. Planning Commission Recommendation - 9 November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone C. Any new subdivision or multiple family residential proposal which includes a sensitive area or its buffer on site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. D. Denial of Use or Development: A use or development will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. E. Pre- development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - construction conferences prior to any work on the site. F. Construction Monitoring: The specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities. B. Non - destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space. D. Maintenance and repair of essential roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. 2. Permitted Uses Subject to Administrative Review: The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director. A. Construction of new essential roads, rights -of -way and utilities. B. Stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre - treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland may not be diverted to do so. C. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping. 3. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval: Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.115. A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of this chapter and be consistent with the underlying zoning. 4. Wetlands A. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080 (1, 2 and 3). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. B. Compensatory Mitigation: For those wetlands which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study completed by Jones & Stokes, Inc, May 1990, on file with the DCD, alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan ensures that water quality and vegetation following the alteration or relocation will meet or be an enhancement of that which existed prior to such alteration or relocation. (1) Type. In order to achieve the City's goal of no- net -loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration, enhancement or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will use the following ratios: Planning Commission Recommendation -10 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone TYPE OF REPLACEMENT EXISTING WETLAND RATIO Forested 3:1 Scrub -shrub 2:1 Emergent 1. :1 Isolated wetlands which are less than two acres in size, have only one wetland class and a predominance of exotic species may compensate at 1.25:1. The compensatory mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a qualified expert, and shall follow the performance standards of TMC 21.04.150. (2) Timing. Where feasible, mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands and immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of compensatory projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. C. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. D. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. E. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing or seating areas, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and Planning Commission Recommendation -11- November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. F. Dredging, digging or filling: (1) Dredging, digging or filling within a wetland and its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (A) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1), (2) and (3); or (B) Maintenance of an existing wetland; or (C) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (D) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (E) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (F) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. 5. Watercourses A. Diversion or Rerouting: (1) The existing course for any watercourse is highly preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can show that the rerouting maintains or enhances the value of the watercourse in water quality treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the diversity of wildlife and plant communities. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. Planning Commission Recommendation -12 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (3) Any mitigation must have the construction completed before the existing watercourse can be modified. (4) Any mitigation plan must have a written plan for monitoring and maintenance of the new construction. All funding necessary for the monitoring and maintenance of the new construction shall be guaranteed pursuant to Section 18.45.135. (5) For those watercourses which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study , alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan ensures that water quality and vegetation following the alteration or relocation will meet or be an enhancement of that which existed prior to such alteration or relocation. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist in fisheries, wetland biology or hydrology and subject to approval by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general watercourse quality would be maintained or improved by the alteration or relocation. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging filling alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetlands or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director. (6) If the watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species, it shall not be rerouted. (7) Any watercourse which does not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds, within 1000 feet downstream, a salmonids bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. B. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize, or where possible avoid, disturbance of the watercourse and its buffer; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the watercourse and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, watercourses and their buffers must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. C. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the watercourse and its buffer. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and Planning Commission Recommendation -13 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. D. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing and seating areas, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect watercourses and their buffers by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (4) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (5) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas and must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. E. Piping: (1) Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if the applicant can show that mechanisms will be put into place as part of the construction process that will address: (i) excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event, and (ii) flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures; and (2) No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured; and (3) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, flow must be comparable. (4) Piping in a watercourse sensitive area shall require approval of the DCD Director. F. Dredging, digging or filling (1) Dredging, digging or filling within a watercourse or its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (A) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1), (2) and (3); or (B) Maintenance of an existing watercourse; or (C) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (D) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or Planning Commission Recommendation -14 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (E) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (F) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. 6. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability A. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirements of a geotechnical study. B. Exemptions: Any slope which has been created through legal grading activities may be regraded under an approved permit. Any such slope which remains in excess of 40% in the absence of, or following, regrading shall be subject to this chapter. C. Alterations: (1) Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: (A) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties; or (B) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated and slope stability is not decreased. (2) Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, the landscaping plan for the site shall include tree re- planting with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater, of vine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. D. Pre - application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(a), the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: • the requirements of other applicable ordinances; • the requirements of this chapter; • the soils report to be provided by the applicant; • when independent review of the geotechnical report is necessary, • the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; • the design of the proposed structure; • a proposed construction schedule; and • any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City. They shall also be documents of record relative to the application and distributed to the attendees and others identified at the meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation -15 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone E. Geotechnical Report: 1. The applicant shall submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the Director of the Department of Community Development for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. 2. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. 3. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis should be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 and Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. 4. Seismic hazard areas shall indude an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. 5. Applicants shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. 6. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. 7. An independent review of geotechnical reports will be required per TMC 21.04.140. F. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in his /her judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report Planning Commission Recommendation -16 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and that the risk of damage to the proposed development site, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. 2. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. 3. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. 4. The applicant, or the owner of the site if the applicant is not the owner, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. 5. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: (A) The legal description of the Property; (B) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; (C) A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (D) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. G. Assurance Devices: Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in an area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the DCD Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. H. Construction Monitoring: The applicant shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The applicant shall preferably retain the Planning Commission Recommendation -17 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor, during construction, compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the City at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical- related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the DCD Director. I. Conditioning and Denial of Use or Developments: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; which could include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities such as installing erosion control and drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development. 7. Abandoned Mine Areas A. Development of a legal lot of record containing an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when a geotechnical report shows that significant risks associated with the abandoned mine workings can be eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval shall be obtained from the DCD Director before any building or land altering permit processes begin. B. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical report. C. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems, which could included but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems or erosion controls well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. 8. Areas of important geological or archaeological evidence. A. Development on a legal lot of record determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or archaeological evidence, shall be prohibited until that evidence has been studied or researched for any valuable information about our history. Removal or salvage of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW 27.53. B. Once the geologic or archaeological evidence or articles have been studied or researched, or the importance of the site is dedared to be marginal or not of use to the scientific community, development shall be allowed on the site. Development Planning Commission Recommendation -18 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.45.115 EXCEPTIONS shall not begin on such a site until the DCD Director gives approval. 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS 1. In development proposals for planned residential and mixed use developments, short subdivisions, and subdivisions, or binding site plans, applicants may elect to establish a sensitive areas common tract. If such a common tract is established, the City of Tukwila may require the lot owners to enter into an agreement with the City to care for and protect the common tract. This agreement will be recorded and binding on all subsequent lot owners. Alternatively, ownership may be transferred to a responsible entity acceptable to the City. 2. Each owner of a building lot within the development proposal shall own an undivided interest in the common tract and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot. 3. Common tract restrictions for wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers shall appear on the face of all PRDs, PMUDs, subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans, and shall be recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots. 18.45.100 DENSITY CREDITS 1. Density Credits are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning. The calculation of density credit is determined by the ratio of non - sensitive areas to sensitive areas including buffers on any particular site. The development factor ratio is intended to provide a basis by which the development credit for the wetland, watercourse and associated buffers portion of the site is transferred to the buildable (non - sensitive area) portion of the site. 0 25 50 75 100% SENSITIVE AREAS & BUFFER DENSITY CREDIT 2. In commercial and industrial development proposals, setbacks, height and other site development regulations except parking requirements may be modified as necessary to accommodate the allowable density credit. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the site plan review process. The calculation of potential dwelling units in residential development proposals and building size in commercial and industrial development proposals shall be based on a 100% development factor for the wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers on the development proposal site. 1. General: All residential, commercial, and industrial development located in wetlands, natural watercourses and /or their buffers or areas of potential geologic instability and any buffer in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, shall not be rendered non - conforming as to the use and buffer Planning Commission Recommendation -19 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone requirements of this chapter, and with respect to these regulations is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70. 2. Modification of Existing Structures: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced provided that the new construction does not further intrude into a sensitive area or the required buffer; provided that such activity shall not be construed as a further intrusion so long as the new construction is not any loser to a wetland, watercourse, or steep slope than the previously existing structure. 3. Modification of Existing Structures in Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard Areas: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled provided that the new construction does not increase the potential of soil movement or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development or neighboring properties. 4. Reasonable Use Exceptions: If application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property within its zoning category, the property owner or the proponent of a development proposal may apply for a reasonable use exception. The application for a reasonable use exception shall be in a format specified by and filed with the DCD and shall be decided by the Planning Commission following a public hearing noticed pursuant to 18.92. 18.45.120 VARIANCES. 18.45.125 APPEALS The Commission, in granting approval of the reasonable use exception, must determine that: (1) No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area is possible; and (2) As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site; and (3) Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; and (4) Any approved alteration of a sensitive area under this section may be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and may require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. 1. The Board of Adjustment shall review requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless excepted by Section 18.45.115. 2. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. 1. Any applicant who objects to or disagrees with an interpretation of the sensitive areas maps as defined by Section 18.45.020, or to DCD decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, shall use the appeal process in TMC 18.90 (Board of Adjustment.) Any such appeal shall be made in writing within ten days of the interpretation, condition or decision being appealed, and shall set forth the basis for the appeal. 2. In considering appeals of decisions or conditions, the following shall be considered: A. The intent of ordinance; B. The best interests of the City of Tukwila weighed against the interest of the individual; Planning Commission Recommendation - 20 - November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone C. Any circumstances and /or hardships caused by the ordinance; D. Damage that could result from strict adherence to the ordinance. 18.45.130 RECORDING REQUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record the City- approved site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. The DCD Director may require the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any development or use to be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Size will be determined at the time of permitting, and wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.135 ASSURANCE DEVICE 1. In appropriate circumstances, the DCD Director may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to the City, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements of this Chapter. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the director of DCD may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. 3. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for maintenance or correcting latent defects or deficiencies. Planning Commission Recommendation - 21- November 2, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development Chapter 18.46 PRD -- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sections: Amend 18.46.010 Purpose. 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Amend 18.46.030 Permitted uses. Delete Delete Amend 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. Amend 18.46.070 Density standards. Amend 18.46.080 Open space. 18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas. 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. Amend 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. Add 18.46.112 Review Criteria 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City attorney. Amend 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. 18.46.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: (1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation, waterways, watercourses, wetlands, and views; (2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types; (3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements; (4) Create and /or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general public. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the following districts: (1) R -1 Single - family residential; (2) R -2 Two - family residential; (3) R -3 Three and four family residential; (4) R-4 Low apartments; (5) RMH Multiple- residence high density. (Ord. 1289 §1, 1983: Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are allowed in planned residential development: (1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding residential character and built environment. Single unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units; however, attached units will be considered if necessary to accommodate underlying density and any density credits for sensitive areas and their buffers. Planning Commission Recommendation - 22 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (2) In R-2, R -3, R-4, and RMH districts, residential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in which such residence is located, such as single- family residences, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; provided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels, and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded; (3) Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature; (4) In planned residential developments of ten acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self - service laundries. (Ord. 1289 §2, 1983: Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). a _ Pp 19 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. (1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this code are waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density. Building Height Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining natural resources, significant vegetation, and enhances views within the site without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in building height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface. Setbacks, Yard requirements of TMC. 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. (2) Off - Street Parking. Off - street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of buildings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple family zoned sites with sensitive areas, 2 parking stalls per unit will be the maximum number of parking stalls allowed, with a 50% compact stalls allowance. In addition, parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be allowed, if the design does not affect circulation. (3) Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. (Ord. 1289 §4,1983; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). (4) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed on sensitive areas sites will be 33% for each single family dwelling and 50% for each multi - family development. (5) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums if usable recreation opportunities within these areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems, wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic areas. Planning Commission Recommendation - 23 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (6) Landscape and Site Treatment. Down slope and side yard buffers - Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show a minimum of 15 feet wide downslope and side yard buffers with trees averaging 10 feet on center to be effective within a reasonable growth period. (7) Board of Architectural Review review guidelines. The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. 18.46.070 Density standards. (1) The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. (2) In Wit' rcfcrcn a to R -1 single- family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a minimum lot size -net less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); and (B) Advantage or enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, streams, watercourses, or other natural characteristics; and (C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; and (D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. (3) In With r to multiple - family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a dwelling unit density not more than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) A variety of housing types are offered; (B) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); (C) Advantage or enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, streams, watercourses or other natural characteristics; (D) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; (E) Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. 18.46.080 Open space. Each planned residential development shall provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site area for common open space which shall: (1) Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas; or (2) Incorporate and protect the environmentally sensitive areas on the site; or Planning Commission Recommendation - 24 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 18.46 (3) Network with the tr (4) Be under one owners (5) Be held in common home owners or simi maintenance of the c (6) Be dedicated for pub (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 19 18.46.090 Relationship to adjac (1) The design and layo integration and corn PRD shall be so desi properties. feasible; (2) Setbacks from the pr those of the existing undeveloped , the ty 18.46.100 Preapplication proce A preapplication conferen for a PRD is required prio conference shall be set by applicant. All affected cit purpose of the preapplica this section as well as oth under consideration. (Or 18.46.110 Application proced The following procedure Planning Commission Reco nt areas. Planned Residential Develo • ment it system of the city and provide a connection and extension, if p, owned and maintained by the ownership; or ership by all of the owners of the development by means of a ar association. Such association shall be responsible for mmon open space; or c use, if acceptable to the city or other appropriate public agency. 2). t of a planned residential development shall take into account the atibility of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the ned as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent perry lines of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with, evelopment of adjacent properties or, if adjacent properties are e of development which may be permitted. ure. e between representatives of the city and the potential applicant to the acceptance of an application for PRD approval. This the planning department at the written request of the potential departments shall be notified and invited to participate. The on conference is to acquaint the applicant with the provisions of r ordinances and regulations which would affect the property 1247 §1(part),1982). e for PRD approval. s required for approval of the planned residential development: Y. . mendation - 25 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (2)(1) Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the-planning Department of Community Development and -whieh shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and by the following: (i) Justification for the density bonus, if requested by the applicant, (ii) Program for development including staging or timing of development, (iii) Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of the project, (iv) Basic content of any restrictive covenants, (v) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a home owners association, or similar association, condominium development or other means acceptable to the city; (vi) An application for rezone may be submitted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be in addition to those of the PRD application; (vii) An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application. (3)(2) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by city departments. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time. (4)(3) Planning Commission Recommendation. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter and forward the report to the city council. (4) City Council Public Hearing. After receipt of the planning commission report, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed PRD as recommended by the planning commission. The city council shall give approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval to the proposed PRD. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). The PRD shall be an exception to the regulations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance. 18.46.112 Review criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall find that the proposed development plans meet all of the following criteria in their decision making. (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met, if appropriate; and (2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; and (3) Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; and (4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter; and Planning Commission Recommendation - 26 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; and (6) Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans; and (7) Compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050). 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by city council and city attorney. The restrictive covenants intended to be used by the applicant in a planned residential development (PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other structures thereon, must be approved by the city council and the city attorney before the issuance of any building permit. (Ord. 1289 §6, 1983). 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development: (1) Time Limitation. A complete application for the initial building permit shall be filed by the applicant within twelve months of the date on which the city council approved the PRD. An extension of time for submitting an application may be requested in writing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the by the Director of DCD. If application for the initial building permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan shall be considered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code. (2) Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the DCD and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the building code. (3) Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be included in the building permit application presented in finalized, detailed form. • - - . . - • - - These plans shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public dedication documents must be approved by the city council before the issuance of any building permits. (4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties, or other security device as shall be approved by the City Attorney, shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the PRD shall provide the same propor- tion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in the final plan. (5) Department of Community Development Action. The Department of Community Development shall determine whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in compliance with and carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Following approval of the DCD, the city clerk shall file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the city and the originals shall be recorded with the King County department of records and elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. If minor adjustments or changes are proposed following the approval of the PRD, by the city council as provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall be approved by the DCD prior to the issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or open space provided. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning department, substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to make one or more major changes, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). Planning Commission Recommendation - 27 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planning Commission Recommendation Planned Residential Development 18.46.140 Time limits for construction. Construction of improvements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date of the filing of the final PRD plan by the city clerk as provided in Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning construction may be requested in writing by the applicant, and such extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the planning commission upon showing of good cause. If construction does not occur within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD plans by the city clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from the official zoning map and the zoning shall revert to the underlying designation. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). CHAPTER 17.08 Chapters: Amend Amend Amend Sections: 17.08.010 17.08.020 Amend 17.08.030 Amend 17.08.040 17.08.050 Amend 17.08.060 17.08.070 17.08.080 17.08.090 17.08.100 Title 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS 17.04 General Provisions 17.08 Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions 17.12 Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions 17.16 Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plan 17.20 Design Standards for the Subdivision of Land 17.24 Minimum Standards for Residential Subdivision Design 17.28 Minimum Standards for Commercial /Industrial Subdivision Design 17.32 Exceptions, Penalties, Severability, Liability Chapter 17.08 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR SHORT SUBDIVISIONS Purpose. Scope. Principles of acceptability. Application requirements. Fees. Review procedures. Required improvements. Filing of short plat. Expiration period. Limitations on further subdivision. 17.08.010 Purpose. The procedures regulating short subdivisions are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots while promoting the public health and general welfare and complying with provisions of RCW 58.17. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. The following principles shall determine the acceptability of short subdivisions: (1) Create legal building sites with respect to zoning and health regulations; (2) Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel; Subdivision 17.08.020 Scope. Any land being divided into four or fewer parcels, lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than twenty acres in size, and which has not been divided in a short subdivision within a period of five years, shall meet the requirements of this section. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). (3) If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into consideration the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction, as well as the requirements of this code; (4) Make adequate provision for: drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes, as deemed necessary. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). (5) Comply with Chapter 17.20, Design standards for the subdivision of land, and Chapters 17.24 and Chapter 17.28 Minimum standards for Residential and Commercial Subdivision Design, respectively. Planning Commission Recommendation - 29 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision 17.08.040 Application requirements. (a) Application for a short subdivision shall be made with the Department office of Community Development on forms prescribed by that office. Said application shall be accompanied by ten copies of the short subdivision plat. (b) If the subject site is within the sensitive area overlay zone, administrative review and approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall be required for the proposed short plat. The standards and criteria for PRD design and review are those listed in TMC 18.46. The procedure shall be those listed in 17.08.060. (c) The short subdivision plat shall conform to the following requirements: (1) Shall be a neat and accurate drawing by a land surveyor on reproducible material at a decimal scale. The plat map shall measure between eight and one -half inches by eleven inches and eight and one -half inches by fourteen inches. (2) Shall show how the proposed subdivision will be served by streets and utilities. (3) Each application shall be accompanied by a preliminary title report dated within thirty calendar days of the submission date. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.050 Fees. A nonrefundable application fee of fifty dollars shall accompany each and every application for short subdivision to cover costs of administration and inspection. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.060 Review procedures. (a) Referral to Other Departments. Upon receipt of an application for a short subdivision, the planning division of the Department of Community Development shall transmit one copy of the application to each member of the short subdivision committee, and one copy to any department or agency deemed necessary. The application shall be transmitted at least five working days prior to the short subdivision committee meeting. (b) Notice to adjacent property owners. If a PRD is being processed as part of the short plat application per 17.08.040 (b), notice shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, fifteen days prior to the Short Subdivision Committee meeting, notifying them of the pending proposal and requesting comments. (c) Short Subdivision Committee. The short subdivision committee shall consist of the director of the office of community development, who shall be chairman; the public works director; and the fire chief; or their designated representatives. (d) Short Subdivision Committee Meeting. A meeting of the short subdivision committee, attended by the applicant at his option, shall be held no later than twenty calendar days from receipt of a complete application. Said meeting shall be open to the public. (1) Quorum. All members of the short subdivision committee or their representative must be present in order for action to be taken. (2) Action. The short subdivision committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for a short subdivision. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall be made at the meeting and the applicant notified in writing of such decision within three working days. An additional meeting may be called if a decision is not reached at the first meeting. The second meeting should be no later than seven days after the first meeting. An applicant may request to have an application on which the short subdivision committee has taken action reopened by the committee if it is found by the director of the office of community development and the applicant that new information has come to light that might affect the action taken by the short subdivision committee. (3) Appeal. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall.be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the planning commission within ten calendar days of the date of decision of the short subdivision committee. Said appeal shall be in writing to the planning commission and filed with the office of community development. The planning commission shall act on said appeal within forty calendar days unless an extension thereto is agreed to, in writing, by the applicant. The decision of the planning commission shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten calendar days, any aggrieved party files with the city clerk a written appeal addressed to the city council. The city council shall act on said appeal within twenty days of the date of appeal. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Planning Commission Recommendation - 30 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision 17.08.070 Required improvements. (a) Prior to recommending approval for any short subdivision, the short subdivision committee shall determine that the following improvements are available for each parcel created by the division of land: (1) Adequate water supply; (2) Adequate method of sewage disposal; (3) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; (4) Fire hydrants; (5) Adequate access to all parcels. Streets, alleys, and sidewalk improvements may be required by the short subdivision committee; (6) Provision for appropriate deed, dedication, and/ or easements. (b) Any and all improvements required pursuant to subsection (a) shall be as per the respective requirements of Chapters 17.20, 17.24 or 17.28 as appropriate for either the residential or commercial industry design standards. (c) Other improvements not specifically mentioned herein but found necessary due to conditions found on the site may be required. (d) Finished plans of all public improvements as installed shall be required before the city will accept the improvements. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.080 Filing of short plat. (a) All required improvements must be constructed by the applicant and accepted by the city, or a bond posted by the applicant for construction of same, prior to the short plat being filed. Said bond shall be in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of complete construction of such improvements as determined by the director of public works. (b) A short plat must be certified for filing by the chairman of the short subdivision committee before it is filed. (c) Short plats shall be filed by the applicant with the department of records and elections and a copy of the recorded instrument shall be returned to the office of community development prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with this filing. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.090 Expiration period. If the short plat is not filed within six months of the date of approval, the short plat shall be null and void. Upon written request by the subdivider, the short subdivision committee may grant one extension of not more than six months. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.100 Limitations on further subdivision. Any land subdivided under the requirements of this chapter shall not be further divided for a period of five years without following the procedures for subdivision. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Planning Commission Recommendation - 31 October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision Chapter 17.20 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sections: 17.20.010 Purpose. Amend 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. Amend 17.20.040 Grading. Amend 17.20.050 Streets. 17.20.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve watercourses and drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and preserve trees and -probe vegetation. These are beneficial to the city in lessening the costs of development to the city as a whole, to the subdivider in creating an attractive and quality environment, and in attainment of the goals and objectives of the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. (a) Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to the Flood Zone Control Ordinance as defined in TMC 16.52, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay zone, TMC 18.45, and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. (b) Trees. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on site as part of the preliminary plat application. de •' A tree retention/removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application. Such tree retention /removal plan shall assure the preservation of significant trees. 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. (a) Buffer Between Uses. Where residential subdivisions are to be adjacent to multiple - family, commercial or industrial land use districts, and where natural separation does not exist, buffer strips shall be provided. Planning Commission Recommendation - 32 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision (b) Conformity with Existing Plans. The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the city. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right -of -way or for easements to the city for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to and complement city ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.040 Grading. Prior to any grading within a proposed or approved subdivision, a grading permit shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.050 Streets. (a) Extension. Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the plat. Where appropriate, streets shall be extended to the boundaries of the plat to insure access to neighboring properties. The City's goal is to have an integrated system of local streets rather than a system of cul -de- sacs. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective. However, in sensitive areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the standards and procedures of the sensitive areas overlay zone. (b) Names. All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval by the Department of office community development. (c) Intersections. Any intersection of public streets, whatever the classification, shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset in so far as practical. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Planning Commission Recommendation - 33 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Sections: Amend Amend MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN 17.24.010 17.24.020 17.24.030 17.24.040 Conformance required. Street layout. Private access roads. Public rights -of -way. Chapter 17.24 Subdivision 17.24.010 Conformance required. Any plat, subdivision or dedication for residential use shall be designed in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.020 Street layout. Street layout old shall provide for the most advantageous development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where sensitive areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights -of -way in the sensitive areas overlay zone shall be followed. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.030 Private access roads. Private access roads may be authorized if: (a) allowing private access roads in the area being subdivided will not adversely affect future circulation in neighboring parcels of property; and (b) adequate and reasonable provisions are made for the future maintenance and repair of the proposed private access roads; and (c) the proposed private access roads can accommodate potential full (future) development on the lots created; and (d) the proposed private access roads do not serve more than four lots nor are more than two hundred feet in length. When private access roads are authorized, the easement width shall be a minimum of thirty feet and shall conform to the applicable standards for design alignment set forth in Chapter 17.24.040, subsection (b). (Ord. 1014 (part) , 1977). 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. (a) Right -of -way Width. Street widths may vary according to function, traffic generated and topography. The following minimum street widths for streets, as defined in the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan, shall apply unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the preliminary plat or by the short subdivision committee in the case of short plats. TYPE OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY PAVEMENT Major Arterial 80 feet 60 feet Secondary Arterial 75 feet 48 feet Collector 60 feet 36 feet Local Street 50 feet * 30 feet Cul- De-Sac Roadway 40 feet 26 feet Turnaround 80 feet diameter 60 feet diameter Alley 20 feet 15 feet * Right -of -way may be reduced to 40 feet with five foot easements on each side if the subject roadway will be traversing or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. Planning Commission Recommendation 34 October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision (b) Design. The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the department of public works: (1) Street Intersection Offsets. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure less than two hundred fifty feet from centerline to centerline. (2) Cul -de -sacs. Cul -de -sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred feet unless authorized in accordance with Section 17.32.010. (3) Street Grades. Street grades shall standards-not exceed 15 percent. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18 percent, for not more than 200 feet when: (i) exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; and (ii) the greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive slopes;and (iii) the Fire Marshal grants approval. (4) Tangents. Minimum tangents shall conform to department of public works standards. (5) Horizontal Curves. Minimum curve radii shall conform to department of public works standards. (6) Vertical Curves. Changes in grade shall conform to department of public works standards. (c) Right -of -way Improvement. All right -of -way improvements shall conform to department of public works standards. (d) Utilities. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground and, if located within a sensitive area, shall be designed to meet the standards of the sensitive areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the department of public works; such installation shall be completed and approved prior to application of any surface materials. (1) Sanitary Sewers. Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the appropriate health agencies, sanitary sewers shall be provided at no cost to the city and designed in accordance with city standards. (2) Storm Drainage. An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water; the amount of runoff shall be determined by the rational method. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes. The diameter to be provided shall be determined by Manning's Equation, but in no case shall the inner diameter be less than twelve inches. (3) Water System. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with city standards. (e) Public Use and Service Areas. Due consideration shall be given by the subdivider to the allocation of adequately sized areas for public service or usage. (1) Easements. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the public works department. (f) Blocks. (1) Length. Blocks should not be less than three hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in length. Where circumstances warrant, the planning commission may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet nor more than fifteen feet in width dedicated in the city to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. (2) Width. Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the planning commission may approve a single tier. Planning Commission Recommendation - 35 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision (g) Lots. (1) Arrangement. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each lot must have access to a public street that is approved at the time of plat review; however rather than designing flag lots, access shall be accomplished with common drive easements. Location of yards shall reflect the prevailing pattern within the neighborhood. For example, if adjacent developed lots front on the street the subdivision's lots fronting the street should also establish front yards : for those lots. (2) Minimum Size. The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet or exceed the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. (3) Corner Lots. Corner lots may be required to be platted with additional width to allow for the additional side yard requirements. (4) Through Lots. Residential through lots are not encouraged and shall only be approved if there is a topographic or traffic safety concern preventing double tiered lots. Approved through lots shall be permitted access to only one street, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and shall provide a fifteen foot rear yard buffer of native vegetation. (5) Property Corners at Intersections. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights -of -way shall have a minimum radius of twenty -five feet. (h) Trees. Each lot within a new subdivision shall be landscaped with at least one tree in the . front yard to create a uniform streetscape. Installation shall be required per 17.12.040(3) ( -hi) Other Improvements. (1) Monuments. (A) Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the department of public works. (B) All other lot corners shall be marked with suitable metal or wood markers. (2) Street Signs. The subdivider shall be responsible for the initial cost of any street name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, necessary in the subdivision as required by the department of public works. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Planning Commission Recommendation - 36 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 Sections: 21.04.010 21.04.020 21.04.030 Amend 21.04.040 21.04.050 21.04.060 21.04.070 21.04.080 Amend Amend Amend Amend 21.04.090 21.04.100 21.04.110 21.04.120 21.04.130 21.04.140 21.04.150 21.04.160 21.04.170 21.04.180 21.04.190 21.04.200 21.04.210 21.04.220 21.04.230 21.04.240 21.04.250 21.04.260 Title 21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Chapter 21.04 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT State Environmental Policy Act Adopted—Authority. General provisions—Adoption by reference. Definitions -- Adoption by reference. Definitions -- Additional. Designation of responsible official. Lead agency -- Determination -- Responsibilities. Lead agency—Transfer of status to state agency. Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations -- Adoption by reference. Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations—Time estimates. Categorical exemptions -- Adoption by reference. Categorical exemptions—Flexible thresholds. Categorical exemptions -- Determination. Threshold determination—Review at conceptual stage. Threshold determinations -- Environmental checklist. Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. Documents required - -SEPA decisions. EIS -- Adoption by reference. EIS -- Preparation. EIS -- Additional elements. EIS -- Commenting- - Adoption by reference. Public notice—Procedure. Consulted agency responsibilities -- Official designated. Using existing environmental documents -- Adoption by reference. SEPA -- Decisions -- Adoption by reference. SEPA -- Decisions -- Substantive authority. SEPA -- Compliance -- Adoption by reference. 21.04.270 SEPA -- Policies. 21.04.280 Appeals. 21.04.290 Notice -- Statute of limitations. 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. 21.04.310 Fees. 21.04.320 Forms—Adoption by reference. 21.04.330 Copies on file. 21.04.340 Severability. 21.04.010 Adopted -- Authority. (a) The city adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197 -11 -904. This chapter contains the city's SEPA procedures and policies. (b) The SEPA rules contained in WAC Chapter 197 -11 must be used in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 1331 §1, 1984). 21.04.040 Definitions -- Additional. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197 -11 -700 through 799, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise: Planning Commission Recommendation - 37 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act (1) "Department" means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order. (2) "Early notice" means the city's response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of the determination of significance likely for the applicant's proposal. (3) "Environmentally sensitive area" — see 21.04.300. (4) "Notice of action" means the notice of the time for commencing an appeal of a SEPA determination that the city or the applicant may give following final city action upon an application for a permit or approval when said permit or approval does not have a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing an appeal. (Ord. 1344 §1, 1985; Ord. 1331 §3, 1984). (5) "Official notice" means the notice that the city shall give of the date and place for commencing an appeal of final city action upon an application for a permit or approval where said permit or approval has a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing appeal. (6) "SEPA Rules" means WAC Chapter 197 -11 adopted by the Department of Ecology. 21.04.130 Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. (a) If the city's only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. (b) In addition to the environmental documents an applicant may be required to submit the following information: (1) Conceptual site plans and building plans; (2) Other information as the responsible official may determine. (Ord. 1344 §5, 1985; Ord. 1331 §9, 1984). (3) Environmentally sensitive areas studies as described in TMC 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. 21.04.140 Threshold determinations -- Environmental checklist. (a) A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197 -11 -960 with the following additions: (1) If the site is an environmentally sensitive area, a sensitive area study that meets the requirements of the SEPA official may be required. The SEPA official may waive any study requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a particular use or application. Environmentally sensitive area studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City shall be paid for by the applicant, to review the geotechnical reports on Class 2 and 3 Landslide, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard areas if the geotechnical report indicates Class 4 characteristics; and will be required in all Class 4 Landslide Hazard areas. (2) Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts; (3) Description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preferred course of action. (b) A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. (c) The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination. (d) For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide information as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal. Planning Commission Recommendation - 38 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act (e) The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: (1) The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or (2) The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. (Ord. 1344 §7, 1985; Ord. 1331 §13, 1984). 21.04.150 Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. (a) The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant. (b) An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely. The request must: (1) Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and (2) Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal. (c) The responsible official's written response to the request for early notice shall: (1) State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and (2) State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and /or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. (d) When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. (1) If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required. (2) If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. (3) The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. (4) Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. (e) Mitigation plans for alterations to wetlands and watercourses. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: (1) Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (2) Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (3) Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: (A) Maintain or enhance stream channel dimensions. (B) Restore or plant native vegetation unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (C) Create an equivalent or improved channel bed. (D) Create equivalent or improved biofiltration. (E) Replace habitat value unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (F) Replace or lengthen horizontal alignment (meander length). Planning Commission Recommendation - 39 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act (4) Detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (5) Monitoring and /or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (6) Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. (f) The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fifteen days after the date of issuance. (g) Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of any license issued. (h) If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigation DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. (i) The city's written response under subsection (c) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 1344 §8, 1985; Ord. 1331 §14, 1984). 21.04.270 SEPA -- Policies. (a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. (b) The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: (1) Zoning Code -TMC Chapter 18; (2) Shoreline Master Plan- Ordinance 898; (3) Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan- Ordinance 1246; (4) Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan- Ordinance 1315; (5) Subdivision Ordinance -TMC Chapter 17.04; (6) Comprehensive Sewer Plan- Resolution 904; (7) Comprehensive Water Plan - Resolution 873; (8) Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition - Ordinance 1287; (9) Transportation Improvement Plan- Resolution 917; (10) Annexation Policy Plan- Resolution 626; (11) Sidewalk Ordinance- Ordinance 1233; (12) Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction - Ordinance 1250. (Ord. 1344 §14, 1985; Ord. 1331 §24, 1984). 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. (a) Environmentally sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and/or as defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 and pursuant to 18.45.020 or hereinafter amended, designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded areas, and the Green/Duwamish River and its shoreline zone as defined by the Tukwila Master Program. For each environmentally sensitive area, the categorical exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for these areas are: WAC 197 -11- 800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6)(a), (14(c), (24)(a) through (g), and (25)(d), (f), (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. Planning Commission Recommendation - 40 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 Planning Commission Recommendation State Environmental Policy Act (b) The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (c) Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. (Ord. 1344 §13, 1985; Ord. 1331 §30,1984). CITY OF TUli I-1 6200) .N)('TIICE. \TEE? I6)('LEV.I RU, T(.'KI1 ILA. II1:15IIINGTON 08188 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION /BAR OCTOBER 25, 1990 PHONE. k 1206) 433.1800 Gun' L. I i,n!)u 'n, ,lluvur The meeting was called to order at 6:20 P.M. by Jim Haggerton, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Kirsop, Malina, Gomez, and Flesher. Mr. Knudson was excused. Representing the staff were Moira Bradshaw, Darren Wilson, Sylvia Appleton, and City Attorney, John Colgrove. With regard to the minutes of September 27, 1990, Mr. Flesher noted he thought the Larry's Market project was passed by a vote of 3 -2 with Messrs. Flesher and Knudson opposed. Subject to that change, Mr. Hamilton moved to approve the minutes of the September 27, 1990 and October 4, 1990 meetings. Mr. Flesher seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Moira noted that the City Attorney had read through the document and made notes on the draft yellow copy (here in -after referred to as draft) regarding recommended changes. They also reviewed policy issues which the Planning Commission may want to discuss. She referred to a memo from herself to the Planning Commission, dated October 18, 1990. In reviewing item number one of the memo, Moira stated that a "Findings" section had been developed which would be included in the ordinance, but would not be codified. It would provide the legal basis if there was any misunderstanding as to the intent of the legislation. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE "FINDINGS" SECTION, TO BE ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to item number two of the memorandum, the draft makes references to parcel, tract, property, etc., and applicant, developer, owner, etc. For clarification and consistency, John Colgrove suggested that, where possible, one word be used to describe a legal lot of record and an applicant. The Planning Commissioners agreed to use "Legal Lot of Record" in place of "parcel" and to use "applicant" or "owner" in place of "developer ", where applicable throughout the ordinance. They also agreed to add a definition of "applicant" in the definition section utilizing King County's recent SAO definition section. Item n referred revised MR. HAMI A 100'F RIRSOP MR. MALI Moira s require Therefo mention With re MR. ONE, SE OWN SEC EXCEPTI MR. MAL In addi MR. "C" OF MOTION In that MR. FRONT 0 UNANIMO With re MR. DEFINIT APPLI UNANIMO With re MR. RECOMME STUDY MOTION Planning Commission /BAR Page 2 October ►5, 1990 er three of the memo deals with buffer distances. Moira to another memo dated October 25, 1990, which offers anguage for Section 18.45.040 "SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS ". TON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SECOND "A" AND SECTION "B ", THAT BUFFER WOULD TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT OF A STUDY. MR. ECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1, WITH OPPOSED. ated that for item four of the memo, a permit is not for all developments which may impact sensitive areas. e, use or development has been substituted for permit where d in the ordinance. and to item number five of the memo: LTON MOVED TO REMOVE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ITEM NUMBER ION 18.45.080, USES AND STANDARDS, PAGE 7 AND MARE IT ITS ION; NUMBERING IT 3. AND ENTITLING IT "A REASONABLE USE N ". THUS, RE- NUMBERING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ACCORDINGLY. NA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ion, under the same section: TON MOVED TO MOVE ITEM "D" OF SECTION 1. AND MARE IT ITEM ECTION 2. BELOW IT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; ASSED UNANIMOUSLY. same section: LTON MOVED TO ADD THE WORDS "MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF" IN ITEM 1.E. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED SLY. and to item number six of the memo: LTON MOVED TO ADD "COMPENSATORY MITIGATION" TO THE ON SECTION, AND ADD IT THROUGHOUT THE ORDINANCE WHERE MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED and to item number seven of the memo: SHER MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM SEVEN OF THE MEMO WHICH S THE USE OF "SENSITIVE AREA STUDY" WHEN REFERRING TO A UGHOUT THE ORDINANCE. MR. HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION; ASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to item number eight of the memo, the Planning Commiss on agreed by consensus to ignore number eight and leave the draft a is. MR. LION MOVED TO MARE "DENSITY CREDITS" ITS OWN SECTION AND CHANGE TITLE OF THE GRAPH FROM "DEVELOPMENT FACTOR" TO "DENSITY CREDITS . MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMO SLY. Planning Commission /BAR Page 3 October 25, 1990 MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL SET AN APPROPRIATE FEE FOR AN APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR A REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to item number eleven of the memo: MR. HAMILTON MOVED THAT A SENTENCE BE ADDED TO SECTION 18.45.130 WHICH WOULD READ SOMETHING LIRE "THE DCD DIRECTOR MAY REQUIRE THE BUFFER LINE BE POSTED WITH THE FOLLOWING SIGNS AND WILL DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE SIGNS ". MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to item number twelve of the memo: MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER TWELVE AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to item number thirteen of the memo: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM THIRTEEN AS WRITTEN AND TO INCLUDE IT UNDER SECTION 18.45, PAGE 4, OF THE ORDINANCE ENTITLED "INTERPRETATION ". MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENTIRE DRAFT SUBJECT TO THOSE CHANGES MADE THIS EVENING, AS WELL AS, THOSE PENCILED IN, GRAMMATICAL CHANGES. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED 4 -1, WITH MR. MALINA OPPOSED. The Planning Commission's SAO meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Kirsop was excused from the BAR meeting. The Board of Architectural Review meeting began at 8:40 P.M. 90 - 8 - DR: Dondero Motel Darren Wilson reviewed the staff report. He reminded the Board that this was a continuation from the September 27, 1990 public hearing. Since that meeting, additional material has been submitted by the applicant. They submitted an irrigation plan, which the Board had previously requested. Public Works still needed to review the irrigation plan. The applicant has also submitted a letter from the landscape architect, indicating the replacement of the vegetation and larger street trees on South 146th and along the west side of the development. Darren handed the Board a revised packet for the signage. The signage will consist of a free - standing sign and a wall sign. At this time, the applicant has not provided a name for the motel, therefore, the signs do not indicate the name. The wall sign will be located on the west side of the motel. The applicant meets the City Sign Code requirements for both signs. The colors of the signs will consist of an opaque blue, bordered with white. In conclusion, the staff would recommend the approval of the signage package as Planning Commission /BAR October 25, 1990 submitted. Mr. Flesher asked if any landscape plan. Darren stated that no other mentioned above. Page 4 other changes had been made to the changes had been made other than those Michael Mohn, Consultant with "Pannell, Kerr, Forster ": He stated that hotel /motel business's success or failure is dependent on a number of factors, only one of them being location. The primary consideration is the market strength. The Sea - Tac /Tukwila area has strong market strength. We've got a market which has the ability to sustain properties which have no frontage at all and no significant signage on Pacific Ave. The potential for success is very good. He noted that these comments were not an opinion as to the feasibility of the project, this is an opinion with regards to market strength. Mr. Malina asked if the recommendations and conditions from the last meeting were still binding. Darren noted that they were, as a decision by the BAR had not yet been made. He also noted that the dumpster area is adequate to accommodate a recycling program. Mr. Haggerton asked if the BAR would have any say as to what name will be used for the motel, and what will be written on the signs. Moira noted that the Sign Code does not cover content, only size and location. Mr. Haggerton closed the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Haggerton stated that since he missed the public hearing on this project, he would be voting on it only if a tie - breaker is needed. Moira clarified that there was no name for the motel as yet because the motel is being built to sell to a larger franchise. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS; WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE FINAL SIGN DESIGNS WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE B.A.R. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 90 -1 -R - NORTH HILLS: Darren Wilson reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a rezone from P0, Professional Office, to Cl, Neighborhood Retail. C Planning Commission /BAR Page 5 October 25, 1990 Mr. Wilson stated that there had been a previous rezone in 1984 from RMH (High Density Residential) to Professional Office. Both the Planning Commission and City Council approved this rezone. There have been three different developers which have proposed office developments on the site. On July 5, 1990 the BAR approved a building design, to be built on the property. A waiver from the SAO moratorium was received for the rezone process. (Darren handed out the Comprehensive Plan Map - attachment of the staff report). Southcenter Blvd. from the S -Line Bridge to Interurban, has been redesignated from collector arterial to principal arterial. The rezone from PO to Cl is consistent with the businesses in the area. The rezone complies with the Comprehensive Land Use map designation for commercial. The request is supported by Policies One, Two, and Eight of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. In conclusion, the staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conclusions of the staff report and recommend approval to the City Council for a rezone. Steven Freeman, 750 6th Street, Kirkland: He stated that the character and marketability of the site determine that the only thing that would work there would be a single level building. Although the building was approved for office use, it is acceptable for retail and would only require internal modifications. Mr. Hamilton asked if the parking requirements were the same for PO and Cl. Moira stated that the parking requirements were the same for PO and Cl. Mr. Hamilton asked how that would be policed. Moira stated that a tenant improvement or business license would not be approved if it did not meet the parking requirements. Mr. Haggerton asked the types of tenants they were looking to lease to. Mr. Freeman gave examples such as video rental, dry cleaner pick up, things that would be compatible with a multi - family use. Mr. Malina asked about the screening of mechanical equipment on the roof top. Mr. Freeman noted that it was determined at the BAR meeting for the building, that a pitched gable would be used for a roof design, and the equipment would sit below this. One of the conditions of the Planning Commission /BAR Page 6 October 25, 1990 BAR was that there would be no additional mechanical units. Mr. Malina asked if a retail tenant were to lease the space, which in turn would cause a change in the parking design, would that design change have to come before the BAR. Moira responded that it would be up to staff, depending on the extent of the design change. Mr. Malina asked how the fire entrance and turn - around would be affected if the parking situation were to change. Moira stated that the Fire Department would have to approve any change if it were substantial. Mr. Malina asked if the BAR could make a recommendation of a fenced in area that would require them to put in a feasible area for a recycling program rather than one large dumpster. Moira said that the BAR could pose a condition that all refuse disposal areas be screened appropriately. If and when the City adopts a recycling program, that condition could come into play. Ed Linardic, 1836 Westlake Ave. N., Suite 204, Seattle: There is one basic ramp which brings people up to the building, and one sidewalk. We are not changing the way people get into the building. The building design which was approved in July will not change at all. Mr. Haggerton closed the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. Mr. Malina asked if Public Works has had any input as to traffic implications from changing from a PO to a Cl zoning. Darren noted that the applicant had provided a traffic analysis and Public Works didn't see a significant change. MR. MALINA MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. During the Director's Report, the Planning Commission agreed to meet at 6:00 P.M. on December 13, 1990 for a workshop regarding Multi - Family Standards. Mr. Haggerton adjourned the BAR meeting and re- opened the Planning Commission's workshop on the SAO. Planning Commission /BAR October 25, 1990 Mr. Haggerton adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Sylvia Appleton Page 7 For the record, Jack Flesher wanted his concern with Section 18.06.185, page 2 of the draft noted. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO LEAVE THE WORDS, "A PREVALENCE OF" IN THE ORDINANCE, WHERE IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DELETED, FROM SECTION. 18.06.938, PAGE 2. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED. UNANIMOUSLY. I. CITY OF TUK1 -VILA 6,.'UO S01.'THCENTER ROI'LE TUKU'1L1, WASHINGTON 98188 II. IV. V . PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION 6:00 - 7:50 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Call to order Attendance PHONE 412061-133.1800 Gan' L. VunDusrn, Mayor III. Approval of minutes of September 27, 1990 and October 4, 1990. Thursday, October 25, 1990 IV. Continuation of SAO deliberations and finalize recommendation to City Council. V. Adjournment. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW /PLANNING COMMISSION 8:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. CALL TO ORDER. II. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: At this time, you are invited to comment on items that are not included on the agenda. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC MEETING III. OLD BUSINESS: Dondero 34 -unit Motel CASE NUMBER: 90 -8 -DR /Dondero Motel LOCATION: 3747 South 146th Street REQUEST: To construct a 34 -unit motel VI. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS: North Hills CASE NUMBER: 90 -1 -R /North Hills LOCATION: 5900 Southcenter Blvd. IRlQUEST: Re -zone from P -0 (Professional Office) to C -1 (Neighborhood Retail). DIRECTOR' S REPORT — PJav '.S2Ss1 Nopie zee- riS u'7 ,biYU.t}Er2. CITY OF 71 W lt'ILrl • t /i/i PAHI,.. To: Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 18 October 1990 ..p Subject: Sensitive Areas Legislation Recommendation The attached yellow document is your recommendation to date. Staff added handwritten editorial or punctuation notes in the margins for discussion at your meeting on the 25th of October. These notes were generated from discussions with the City Attorney and are intended to resolve any final questions. Most of the them are clean -up of word usage. Several broader issue were discussed with the City Attorney regarding the proposed legislation. The following is a list of those issues. 1. If the legislation is ever involved in a judicial review, it is important that the purpose and intent of the ordinance are clear. It is recommended that the Planning Commission include in their recommendation a findings section for inclusion in the adopting ordinance. Attached are draft findings for your review. 2. Throughout the ordinance references are made to parcel, tract, property, etc. and applicant, developer, owner, etc. The definitions and distinctions between each of these are important and should be scrutinized within the document. See proposed changes in document. The Zoning Code currently has a definition of Parcel, "a tract, or plat of land of any size which may or may not be subdivided or improved." The City Attorney feels the definition should be amended. Language will be recommended at your meeting on Thursday. 3. Who shall decide the buffer distance, when will it be decided, and who may increase or decrease the width is not clear in the ordinance. The City Attorney feels the applicant should know who the decision makers are on these decisions. Alternatives will be available for discussion at your meeting on Thursday. Page 3 8. A Binding Site Plan is the creation of lease parcels and not new ownership parcels; therefore, common tracts will not occur in this process and could be deleted. See proposed changes in document. 9. Density Credits is a different concept from Common Tracts and could have its own section number. In addition the use of "Development Factor" is an undefined word which causes confusion when calculating density credits. See proposed change in document. 10. The fee, procedure, and who would make the initial determination of denial of all reasonable use in the Reasonable Use Exception section should be clarified. Alternatives will be available for discussion at your meeting. 11. 18.45.130 Recording Required (2) would require the City to immediately post signs on all public property with sensitive areas. The wording would also be inappropriate for public property because it says " Protection of this natural area is in your care." Staff suggests deletion of this item. 12. At the October 11th meeting of the Planning Commission, the SEPA mitigation process was reviewed. The Planning Commission requested staff to recommend language that reflected the timing and compensation ratios. The following reflects suggested ratios made by the State DOE and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and language drafted by staff. 18.45.080 (3) Wetlands B. In order to achieve the goal of a no- net -loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration, enhancement or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will use the following ratios Forested 3:1 Scrub -shrub 2:1 Emergent 1.5:1 Isolated wetlands which are less than two acres in size, have only one wetland class and a predominance of exotic species may compensate at 1.25 : 1. A compensation plan shall be developed as part of the sensitive area study by a qualified expert and shall follow the performance standards of TEC 21.04.150. Page 4 To address timing of restoration or compensation, for wetlands and watercourses the following wording could be inserted: C. Where feasible, compensatory projects shall be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands (watercourses) and immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands (watercourses). Construction of compensation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. 13. Due to the discretionary language of the chapter, it has been suggested that there be a section entitled Interpretation which would read as follows: "The provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements in their interpretation and application and shall be liberally construed to serve the purposes of this chapter." FINDINGS 1. The environmental features identified as sensitive areas which require regulation by Tukwila are: coal mine hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, geologic hazard areas, watercourses, wetlands and important geologic and archaeologic resources. 2. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance will implement goals and policies of the 1978 Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. 3. The 1990 Washington State Legislature approved ESHB 2929 (1990 Wash. Laws 17) which mandates that certain counties and cities within those counties address the protection of critical areas. Critical areas as defined in ESHB 2929 correlate generally with the Tukwila definitions and categories of sensitive areas. This Sensitive Areas Ordinance is designed to meet the challenges and satisfy the requirements of this act with regard to all critical areas except aquifer recharge areas and flood plains which will require a different regulatory approach or are regulated in an existing title of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 4. Regulation of the use of sensitive areas benefits property owners by preventing and avoiding activities which would have adverse impacts on property. 5. Development in wetlands, watercourses and erosion hazard areas results in: 1) increased soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream water bodies, including navigable channels; 2) increased shoreline erosion; 3) degraded water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; 4) elimination or degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; 5) loss of fishery resources from water quality degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the stream flow regimen; 6) loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow - release detention resulting in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the stream flow regimen of watersheds. Page 2 6. Development in erosion hazard and geologic hazard areas present a danger to the development on the site as well as neighboring sites and natural resources, and require special design, construction and site development measures to minimize risks from these hazards. 7. Tukwila is in an earthquake prone region subject to ground shaking, subsidence, landslide and liquefaction and special building design and construction measures are necessary to minimize risk from this hazard. 8. In their natural state, wetlands and watercourses provide many valuable social and ecological services, which are critical and cannot adequately be replicated or replaced, including: 1) controlling flooding and stormwater runoff by storing or regulating natural flows; 2) protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen ckmarl, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for naturally occurring sedimentation; 3) providing areas for groundwater recharge; 4) providing habitat areas for many species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on these water resources for their survival; 5) providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; 6) providing recreation opportunities; and 7) serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education. 9. Tukwila in enacting this ordinance has relied on extensive scientific documentation and testimony concerning these sensitive areas and the appropriate methods and mechanisms for their protection. This documentation is available in the Department of Community Development in file 89 -2 -CA: Sensitive Areas Ordinance. .10. This ordinance was made available to the public on October 25, 1989; was the subject of a public hearing in November 1989 before the Planning Commission; was redrafted in March, 1990 by a broad - based Citizen's Advisory Committee appointed by the Mayor and Council President; and was the subject of another public hearing in August, 1990 before the Planning Commission. CITY OF TUKWILA SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE 18.06 Definitions 18.45.010 Purpose and Definition 18.45.020 Sensitive Areas Designation and Applicability 18.45.040 Sensitive Areas Buffers 1. General 2. Wetland Buffers a. Modification of buffers b. Increase or decrease in buffers c. Disturbance of buffers 3. Watercourse Buffers a. Modification of buffers b. Increase or decrease in buffers c. Disturbance of buffers 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands 4. Watercourses 5. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 6. Abandoned Mine Areas 7. Areas of important geologic and archaeologic sites 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 18.45.130 Recording Required 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required ZONING CODE Section 2. Chapter 18.06 Amended. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of- way or utility" means a utility facility,utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities as defined in the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report by Geoengineers dated May 1990, on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and include the following: 9 1. Class 1 areas, where landslide potential is low, which slope less than 15 percent. 2. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. 3. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and (,c.f l% CA are. underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 065A0106 1 10/18/90 4. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 5. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. Why eh an ofe ' can diniensfratt Wert. 18.06.185 Constructed Wetlands. "Constructed wetland" wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. 18.06.385 Impervious Surface. " Impervious Surface" means those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre- existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces shich similarly affect the natural infiltaration or runoff patterns existing prior to devleopment. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. "Lot Coverage" means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. 18.06.590 Parcel. means those including, grass -lined treatment 18.06.650 Performance Standards: Specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures, which may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instability other than Class 1 areas, abandoned coal mine areas, and important geological or archaeological sites. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means the area contiguous to a sensitive area ef7' llfs!d /ab0ii41ficxlit/ tVil ArpcsdA /a4e'% that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.935 Watercourse. "Watercourse" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do supports vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds, lakes and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered wetlands for the purpose of this Chapter. However, those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands as permitted by the City shall be considered wetlands. 065A0106 2 10/18/90 ;or ZONING CODE Section 3. Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 entitled "Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone" is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions thereon in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. Standards are hereby established to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values these areas gfe bbtf4idY'he' abfvfla eriaVgat /0046 /. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeologica* sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 50103 C. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any pa al 1pieeperty, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within the City. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to any development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation under this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on technical studies; or B. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and including the following: • Abandoned coal mines • Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class 2,3,4 and seismic instability areas. ■ Wetlands • Watercourses ind C. Is a site which contains archaeological remnants of value _ blk1.,d to the archaeological r search community df colleges, ti universities or* societrof professional a � kV a n d which is designated as important to save as a record of the area's past by A ,4 iall,f ieti/ 'c,ka63Qlg1ait of 91,44/40'. AtAbdr 4 •t e o f M'shaeola onoi I OW4 f t inenCO . 2. For s sitive are s roc ye /ivYtd it tity/tobtogh arc. annex , or changes in the ecology of A0Vd existing systems, the inventory shall be updated or amended 065A0106 10/18/90 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original studies used to delineate sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila. 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 1. General: A. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas, ,a*' (ii) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, 104V (iii)Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value, .O (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. YVVI AVO tro geveA4 1rimp iond alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 as permitted. however Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. B. Wetland and Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii)Stabilize banks, and (iv) Intercept fine sediments, and (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. C. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and 5 4pYM (ii) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii)Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and 065A0106 4 10/18/90 3. WATERCOURSE 065A0106 (iv) Enhance the appearance of hillside development. 7 2. WETLANDS / b� .44 � t j � S� Q � SL t A. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. B. Buffers for all types of wetlands may be increased when the wetland is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland study by a qualified xpert which documents the basis for such increased or decreased width. An increase in buffer width may a appropriate when: gY 610201 (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. C. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site. 14 plan showing replacement vegetation shall be 50b j¢d'40 approv@ by the DCD Director. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner must replace existing vegetation with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. A. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. B. Buffers for watercourses may be increased when it is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a technical study by a opal' ied expert which documents the basis for such increased r decreased width. An increase in buffer width may be ppropriate when: er aliartd (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. C. Any disturbance of the buffers for natural watercourses 5 10/18/90 40 4. AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY A. Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(5). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall include the minimum buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report of the site as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES 1. General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any otherland use review which approves development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive any of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant a step in the procedures. A. Pre - application Conference: At this conference the applicant and appropriate City department representative will discuss the requirements for development an a amel eeriort s 06. sensitive area, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and he applicable standards for the proposed development. of it'S10A lr -fi,, ap /lint shall B. Sensitive Areas Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. 065A0106 shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the . specific site. A plan showing proposed replacement vegetation approved by the DCD Director. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner must replace existing vegetation along watercourses with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. It is intended that sensitive areas tudies a • information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. o r or ghar by C. Any new subdivision Aremultiple family resi ntial proposal which includes sensitive areas on site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. Jst a r'DetclerAn.fi ust ov attVitoPlAtitt D. Denial of Fait: A b will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. 6 10/18/90 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive ammAt area or buffer. Other uses may be permitted consistent with J the technical stud re gU d pursuant to h is c and the _underlying zoning. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. E. Essential roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. De v r US[S weAs 2. Administrative 'review Mole:ta : The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director B . an E. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre- construction conferences prior to any work on the site. F. Construction Monitoring: The specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities. B. Non - destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space. D. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping as approved by the DCD Director. A. Construction of new essential roads, rights -of -way and utilities 4beze► no✓ Pets N,e 401XsULAteixegeAAistVe. (?1 as ) Stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre- treated to remote oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland, t not be diverted to do so. 3. Wetlands A . General:' No use or development may occur in a wetland and /or its buffer except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080.(1 and 2). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. For those wetlands which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer alteration and relocation may be allowed when a mitigation plan ensures that water quality and vegetation following the alteration or relocation will meet or be an enhancement of that which existed prior to such alteration or relocation. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a tesianical study by a qualified expert. Any alteration or relocation shall ensure that water quality meets or exceeds that which existed prior to modification. G B. Essential Utilities (1 ) (3) 444 Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and Upon completion of installation of essential 065A0106 7 10/18/90 C. Essential Roads (3) (3) (5) utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. E. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. 065A0106 8 10/18/90 F. Dredging, digging or filling: (1) Dredging, digging or filling within a wetland and its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (A) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1) and 18.45.080(2); or (B) Maintenance of an existing wetland; or (C) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (D) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or 4. Watercourses (F) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. A. Diversion or Rerouting: (1) The existing course for any watercourse is highly preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can show that the rerouting maintains or enhances the value of the watercourse in water quality treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the diversity of wildlife and plant communities. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. Any mitigation must have the construction completed before the existing watercourse can be modified. (4) Any mitigation plan must have a written plan for monitoring and maintenance of the new construction Ate 4441 411 funding necessary for theggintenance of the new construction tertd fbo ding iheGrH6ga4fyo f IlWritaelinicernanaex gnat shall be guaranteed pursuant to Section 18.45.135. (3 (5) (E) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or For those watercourses which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study , alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan ensures that water quality and vegetation - following the alteration or relocation will meet or be an enhancement of that which existed prior to such alteration or relocation. 065A0106 9 10/18/90 Planning Commission Recommendation The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a b QP.T technical study by a specialist in fi heries, 5 d(.)& wetland biology or hydrology and approv y the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general watercourse quality would be maintained or improved by the alteration or relocation. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging filling alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetlands or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director. (6) If the watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species, it shall not be rerouted. (7) Any watercourse which does not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds, within 1000 feet downstream, a salmonids bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. B. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize, or where possible avoid, disturbance of the watercourse and its buffer; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the watercourse and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, watercourses and their buffers must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. C. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the watercourse and its buffer. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted 065A0106 10 10/18/90 Planning Commission Recommendation D. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered and uncovered viewing and seating areas, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect watercourses and their buffers by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (4) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (5) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas and must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. E. Piping: vegetation is established. (1) Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if the applicant can show that mechanisms will be put into place as part of the construction process that will address: i) excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event, and ii) flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures; and (2) No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured; and (3) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, flow must be comparable. (4) Piping in a watercourse sensitive area shall require approval of the DCD Director. F. Dredging, digging or filling 065A0106 11 10/18/90 (1) or C. Alterations: Dredging, digging or filling within a watercourse OW its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (A) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1) and 18.45.080(2); or (B) Maintenance of an existing watercourse; or (C) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (D) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (E) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (F) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. 5. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability A. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirements of a geotechnical study. B. Exemptions: Any slope which has been created through legal grading activities may be regraded under an approved permit. Any such slope which remains in excess of 40% in the absence of, or following, regrading shall be subject to this chapter. (1) Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: (A) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties; or (B) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated and slope stability is not decreased. (2) Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, the landscaping plan for the site shall include tree re- planting with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater, of vine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall 065A0106 12 10/18/90 be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. D. Pre - application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(a), the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre- application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: * the requirements of other applicable ordinances; * the requirements of this chapter; * the soils report to be provided by the applicant; * when independent review of the geotechnical report is necessary, * the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; * the design of the proposed structure; * a proposed construction schedule; and * any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City. They shall also be documents of record relative to the application and distributed to the attendees and others identified at the meeting. E. Geotechnical Report: a l�'caA f 1. The shall submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the Director of the Department of Community Development for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. 2. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. 3. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis should be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 and Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. 4. Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be 065A0106 13 10/18/90 9 based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. f eveloperp shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. 6. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other . applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. 7. An independent review of geotechnical reports will be required per TMC 21.04.440. F. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. 2. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans .and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. 065A0106 14 10/18/90 1. It shall be the responsibility of the owner o submit, consistent with the findings the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared A the Geotechnical Report stating that in hie judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development site, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. 065A0106 3. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. 4. The applicant' or t owner of the site if the aliX, shall submit a letter a`'PfiAgLAT l o w l y is not the to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. 5. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: 15 (A) The legal description of the Property; (B) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; (C) A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (D) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. G. Assurance Devices: Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in an area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the DCD Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. apritatie f o wnsr(?) H. Construction Monitoring: The owne shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer w o prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting 10/18/90 data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor, during construction, compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the City at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical- related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the DCD Director. tre btddopiwt1 I. Conditioning and Denial of ermits: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; which could include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities such as installing erosion control and drainage systems well in advance of construction. Dcb birr A permit will be denied if it is determined by the ¢ity that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development. 6. Abandoned Mine Areas A. Development of a site containing an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when a geotechnical report shows that significant risks associated with the abandoned mine workings can be eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval shall be ObtA grA0t Ad' from the DCD Director before any building or land altering permit processes begin B. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical report. C. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems,c41444x4 MOAsuras could include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dr4er season , or sequencing a • • ies such as:'1 as drainage systems well in a va devo of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined AV Aube/ "011 that the development will increase the potential of sgl4tW movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. 7. Areas of important geological or archaeological evidence. A. Development on a site determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or archaeological evidence, shall be prohibited 065A0106 16 10/18/90 B. Once the geologic or archaeological evidence or articles have been studied or researched, or the importance of the site is declared to be marginal or not of use to the scientific community, development shall be allowed on the site. The DCD 8irector shall give the approval for development to begin on such a site. or 4 torimhtomu►}' l*Ka/1 r»f klArn on such 4 Site uttiil f4u-ber Drrnt.4 ' 91Vrs etpprevit I. ge 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS /DENSITY CREDITS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS Anon ,L. /.A. In development proposals for planned res,Ldential and mixed use developments, short subdivisions, subdivisions, O i e k*ndzng, sitar •]cama,, prepeptai fawner* may elect to C9p4v establish a sensitive areas common tract. If such a common tract is established, the City of Tukwila may require the lot owners to enter into an agreement with the City to care for and protect the common tract. Alternatively, ownership may be transferred to a responsible entity acceptable to the city. rh /5 eefree i�► v;# ac. re aehrd t biia C tg 074/7 00blz/1dc - /ofirr,ttn. )O'. Each owner of a building lot within the development proposal shall own an undivided interest in the common tract and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot. 3 0. Common tract restrictions for tlands, watercourses and their associated buffers shal appear on the face of all PRDs, PMUDs, subdivisions, short subdivisions, 1x �,1j/% t v 'Omar and shall be recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots. 4. ys. /oo Zil/Wiy C raGh i 1'. /it. Density Credits are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning. The calculation of density credit is determined by the ratio of non - sensitive areas to sensitive areas including buffers on any particular site. The development factor ratio is intended to provide a basis by which the development credit for the wetland, watercourse and associated buffers portion of the site is transferred to the buildable (non- sensitive area) portion of the site. until that evidence has been studied or researched for any valuable information about our history. Removal or salvage of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW 27.53. 25 50 5 10% SENSITIVE AREAS & BUFFER DENSITY CREDIT Setbacks, height and other site development regulations except parking requirements may be modified to accommodate the allowable density credit. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the BAR, PMUD or PRD site plan review process. The calculation of potential dwelling units in residential development proposals and building size in commercial and industrial development proposals shall be based on a 100% development factor for the wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers on the development proposal site. 065A0106 17 10/19/90. 1. Shal 124 re ^ IT m eler 18.45.115 EXCEPTIONS 2. 065A0106 General: All residential, commercial, and industrial development located in wetlands, natural watercourses and /or their buffers or areas of potential geologic instability and any buffer in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, X% /oornfo requirements of PMC, the nonconformi rov 1hi 5 Modification of Existing Structures: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced provided that the new construction does not further intrude into a sensitive area or the required buffer; provided that such activity shall not be congtruoped as a further intrusion so long as the new construction is not any closer to a wetland, watercourse, or steep slope than the previously existing structure. 3. Modificatfion of Existing Structures in Areas of Potential Geologic tability, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard Areas: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter be remodelled provided that the new construction does not increase the potential of soil movement or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development ay rie��bbaN3 frott.'i+ts 4. Reasonable Use Exceptions: If application of this r�8� would deny all reasonable use of the property within its zoning category, the property owner or the proponent of a development proposal may apply for a reasonable use exception. The application for a reasonable use exception shall be filed with the DCD and shall be p the Planning Commission ursuant to the following: & � 3olIou apubc. h� Ma r' t3 imeto the use and .6astbettr* 6UWt r VW the and is not subject to her sions of Sect' n 18.70. w,Y* reed bfirst. re#tha 15 r w I The Commission, in �6 yyg approval of the reasonable use exception, must determine that: (�) No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area is possible; and (B) As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal sitrivi (1) Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property ; std 0) Any approved alteration of a sensitive area under this section may be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and may require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. 18.45.120 VARIANCES. 1. The Board of Adjustment shall review requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless 0Xe l.'e0 by Section 18.45.115. eX 2. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. 18 10/18/90 18.45.125 APPEALS e/ OWat1. t 1. Any .• • •o ent of a profe who objects to or disagrees with an interpretation of the ,, ensitive areas maps as defined by Section 18.45.020, 4 DCD decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, shall use the appeal process in TMC 18.90 (Board of Adjustment.) Any such appeal shall be made in writing within ten days of the interpretation, condition or decision being appealed, and.Mibbrl' set forth the basis for the appeal. OW/ 2. In considering appeals of decisions or conditions, the following shall be considered: A. The intent of ordinance; B. The best interests of the City of Tukwila weighed against the interest of the individual; C. Any circumstances and /or hardships caused by the ordinance; D. Damage that could result from strict adherence to the ordinance. � ovS G 1. The property owner receiving approval of /a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record * site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision, of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. On public property, the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any developable land will be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: 18.45.130 RECORDING REOUIRED "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.135 ASSURANCE DEVICE Deb I irterfrr 1. In appropriate circumstances, the 1ZXX,2f/ Yfil ilk xlott may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to the City, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements of this Chapter. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the director of DCD may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. 3. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for maintenance or correcting latent defects or deficiencies. 065A0106 19 10/18/90 Sections: Amend Amend Delete Delete Amend Amend Amend Delete Amend Add Amend DRAFT AMENDMENT -I.' 18.46.100 18.46.110 18.46.112 18.46.115 18.46.120 18.46.130 18.46.140 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development Chapter 18.46 PRD -- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 18.46.010 Purpose. 18.46.020 Permitted districts. 18.46.030 Permitted uses. 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. 18.46.070 Density standards. 18.46.080 Open space. Preapplication procedure. Application procedure for PRD approval. Review Criteria Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City attorney. Application procedures for building permit. Minor and major adjustments. Expiration of time limits. 18.46.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: (1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation, waterways, watercourses, wetlands, and views; (2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types; (3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements; (4) Create and /or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general public. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the following districts: (1) R - 1 Single- family residential; (2) R -2 Two - family residential; (3) R-3 Three and four family residential; (4) R-4 Low apartments; (5) RMH Multiple- residence high density. (Ord. 1289 §1, 1983: Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are allowed in planned residential development: (1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding residential character and built environment. Single unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units; however, attached units will be considered if necessary to accommodate underlying density and any density credits for sensitive areas and their buffers. 22 - • October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 C (2) In R-2, R -3, R-4, and RMH districts, residential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in which such residence is located, such as single- family residences, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; provided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels, and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded; (3) Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature; (4) In planned residential developments of ten acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self - service laundries. (Ord. 1289 §2, 1983: Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). SICPar 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. (1) Plained Residential Development Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this code are waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density. Building Height. Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining natural resources, significant vegetation, and enhances views within the site without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in building height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface. Setbacks Yard requirements of TMC. 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may permitted. (2) Off- Street Parking. Off - street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of buildings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple family zoned sites with sensitive areas, 2 parking stalls per unit will be the maximum number of parking stalls allowed, with a 50% compact stalls allowance. In addition, parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be allowed, if the design does not affect circulation. (3) Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. (Ord. 1289 §4, 1983; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). (4) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed on sensitive areas sites will be 33% for each single family dwelling and 50% for each multi -family development. (5) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums if usable recreation opportunities within these areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems, wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic areas. - 23 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 19 Planed Residential Development (6) Landscape and Site Treatment. Down slope and side yard buffers - Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show a minimum of 15 feet wide downslope and side yard buffers with trees averaging 10 feet on center to be effective within a reasonable growth period. (7) Board of Architectural Review review guidelines. The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. 18.46.070 Density standards. (1) The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. (2) In - - - • - - - - , the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a minimum lot size -net less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); and (B) Advantage or enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, streams, watercourses, or other natural characteristics; and (C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; and (D) • Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. (3) In With reference to multiple- family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a dwelling unit density not more than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) A variety of housing types are offered; (B) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); (C) Advantage or enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, stream watercourses or other natural characteristics; (D) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; (E) Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. 18.46.080 Open space. Each planned residential development shall provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site area for common open space which shall: (1) Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas; or (2) Incorporate and protect the environmentally sensitive areas on the site; or - 24 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 (3) Network with the trail system of the city and provide a connection and extension, if feasible; (4) Be under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership; or (5) Be held in common ownership by all of the owners of the development by means of a home owners or similar association. Such association shall be responsible for maintenance of the common open space; or (6) Be dedicated for public use, if acceptable to the city or other appropriate public agency. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas. (1) The design and layout of a planned residential development shall take into account the integration and compatibility of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent properties. (2) Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with, those of the existing development of adjacent properties or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped , the type of development which may be permitted. 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. A preapplication conference between representatives of the city and the potential applicant for a PRD is required prior to the acceptance of an application for PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the planning department at the written request of the potential applicant. All affected city departments shall be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint the applicant with the provisions of this section as well as other ordinances and regulations which would affect the property under consideration. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. The following procedure is required for approval of the planned residential development: area; 25 Flamed ed Residential Development October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Pr ined Residential Development (1) Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the-planning Department of Community Development and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and by the following: (i) Justification for the density bonus, if requested by the applicant, (ii) Program for development including staging or timing of development, (iii) Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of the project, (iv) Basic content of any restrictive covenants, (v) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a home owners association, or similar association, condominium development or other means acceptable to the city; (vi) An application for rezone may be submitted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be in addition to those of the PRD application; (vii) An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application. (2) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by city departments. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time. (3) Planning Commission Recommendation. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter and forward the report to the city council. (4) City Council Public Hearing. After receipt of the planning commission report, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed PRD as recommended by the planning commission. The city council shall give approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval to the proposed PRD. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). The PRD shall be an exception to the regulations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance. 18.46.112 Review criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall find the proposed development plans meet all the following criteria in their decision making. (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met, if appropriate; and _ (2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; and (3) Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; and (4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter; and - 26 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Plwtned Residential Development (5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; and (6) Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans; and (7) For planned residential developments, compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050). 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by city council and city attorney. The restrictive covenants intended to be used by the applicant in a planned residential development (PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other structures thereon, must be approved by the city council and the city attorney before the issuance of any building permit. (Ord. 1289 §6, 1983). 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development: (1) Time Limitation. A complete application for the initial building permit shall be filed by the applicant within twelve months of the date on which the city council approved the PRD. An extension of time for submitting an application may be requested in writing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the-city-council by the Director of DCD. If application for the initial building permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan shall be considered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code. (2) Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the DCD and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the building code. (3) Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be included in the building permit application presented in finalized, detailed form. •: • : • - • . These plans shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public dedication documents must be approved by the city council before the issuance of any building permits. (4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties, or other security device as shall be approved by the City Attorney, shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the PRD shall provide the same propor- tion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in the final plan. (5) Department of Community Development Action. The Department of Community Development shall determine whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in compliance with and carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Following approval of the DCD, the city clerk shall file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the city and the originals shall be recorded with the King County department of records and elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone. (Ord. 1247 §l(part),1982). 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. If minor adjustments or changes are proposed following the approval of the PRD, by the city council as provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall be approved by the DCD prior to the issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or open space provided. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning department, substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to make one or more major changes, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). - 27 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 C_ PCned Residential Development 18.46.140 Time limits for construction. Construction of improvements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date of the filing of the final PRD plan by the city clerk as provided in Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning construction may be requested in writing by the applicant, and such extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the planning commission upon showing of good cause. If construction does not occur within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD plans by the city clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from the official zoning map and the zoning shall revert to the underlying designation: (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). CHAPTER 17.08 Chapters: Amend Amend Amend Sections: 17.08.010 17.08.020 Amend 17.08.030 Amend 17.08.040 17.08.050 Amend 17.08.060 17.08.070 17.08.080 17.08.090 17.08.100 Title 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS DRAFT AMENDMENT Chapter 17.08 Purpose. Scope. Principles of acceptability. Application requirements. Fees. Review procedures. Required improvements. Filing of short plat. Expiration period. Limitations on further subdivision. - 29 - 17.04 General Provisions 17.08 Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions 17.12 Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions 17.16 Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plan 17.20 Design Standards for the Subdivision of Land 17.24 Minimum Standards for Residential Subdivision Design 17.28 Minimum Standards for Commercial /Industrial Subdivision Design 17.32 Exceptions, Penalties, Severability, Liability DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR SHORT SUBDIVISIONS 17.08.010 Purpose. The procedures regulating short subdivisions are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots while promoting the public health and general welfare and complying with provisions of RCW 58.17. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.020 Scope. Any land being divided into four or fewer parcels, lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than twenty acres in size, and which has not been divided in a short subdivision within a period of five years, shall meet the requirements of this section. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. The following principles shall determine the acceptability of short subdivisions: (1) Create legal building sites with respect to zoning and health regulations; (2) Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel; Subdivision (3) If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into consideration the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction, as well as the requirements of this code; (4) Make adequate provision for: drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes, as deemed necessary. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). (5) Comply with Chapter 17.20, Design standards for the subdivision of land, and Chapters 17.24 and Chapter 17.28 Minimum standards for Residential and Commercial Subdivision Design, respectively. October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision 17.08.040 Application requirements. (a) Application for a short subdivision shall be made with the Department offiee of Community Development on forms prescribed by that office. Said application shall be accompanied by ten copies of the short subdivision plat. (b) If the subject site is within the sensitive area overlay zone, administrative review and approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall be required for the proposed short plat. The standards and criteria for PRD design and review are those listed in TMC 18.46. The procedure shall be those listed in 17.08.060. (c) The short subdivision plat shall conform to the following requirements: (1) Shall be a neat and accurate drawing by a land surveyor on reproducible material at a decimal scale. The plat map shall measure between eight and one -half inches by eleven inches and eight and one -half inches by fourteen inches. (2) Shall show how the proposed subdivision will be served by streets and utilities. (3) Each application shall be accompanied by a preliminary title report dated within thirty calendar days of the submission date. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.050 Fees. A nonrefundable application fee of fifty dollars shall accompany each and every application for short subdivision to cover costs of administration and inspection. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.060 Review procedures. (a) Referral to Other Departments. Upon receipt of an application for a short subdivision, the planning division of the Department of Community Development shall transmit one copy of the application to each member of the short subdivision committee, and one copy to any department or agency deemed necessary. The application shall be transmitted at least five working days prior to the short subdivision committee meeting. (b) Notice to adjacent property owners. If a PRD is being processed as part of the short plat application per 17.08.040 (b), notice shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, fifteen days prior to the Short Subdivision Committee meeting, notifying them of the pending proposal and requesting comments. (c) Short Subdivision Committee. The short subdivision committee shall consist of the director of the office of community development, who shall be chairman; the public works director; and the fire chief; or their designated representatives. (d) Short Subdivision Committee Meeting. A meeting of the short subdivision committee, attended by the applicant at his option, shall be held no later than twenty calendar days from receipt of a complete application. Said meeting shall be open to the public. (1) Quorum. All members of the short subdivision committee or their representative must be present in order for action to be taken. (2) Action. The short subdivision committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for a short subdivision. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall be made at the meeting and the applicant notified in writing of such decision within three working days. An additional meeting may be called if a decision is not reached at the first meeting. The second meeting should be no later than seven days after the first meeting. An applicant may request to have an application on which the short subdivision committee has taken action reopened by the committee if it is found by the director of the office of community development and the applicant that new information has come to light that might affect the action taken by the short subdivision committee. (3) Appeal. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall.be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the planning commission within ten calendar days of the date of decision of the short subdivision committee. Said appeal shall be in writing to the planning commission and filed with the office of community development. The planning commission shall act on said appeal within forty calendar days unless an extension thereto is agreed to, in writing, by the applicant. The decision of the planning commission shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten calendar days, any aggrieved party files with the city clerk a written appeal addressed to the city council. The city council shall act on said appeal within twenty days of the date of appeal. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). - 30 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision 17.08.070 Required improvements. (a) Prior to recommending approval for any short subdivision, the short subdivision committee shall determine that the following improvements are available for each parcel created by the division of land: (1) Adequate water supply; (2) Adequate method of sewage disposal; (3) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; (4) Fire hydrants; (5) Adequate access to all parcels. Streets, alleys, and sidewalk improvements may be required by the short subdivision committee; (6) Provision for appropriate deed, dedication, and/ or easements. (b) Any and all improvements required pursuant to subsection (a) shall be as per the respective requirements of Chapters 17.20, 17.24 or 17.28 as appropriate for either the residential or commercial industry design standards. (c) Other improvements not specifically mentioned herein but found necessary due to conditions found on the site may be required. (d) Finished plans of all public improvements as installed shall be required before the city will accept the improvements. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.080 Filing of short plat. (a) All required improvements must be constructed by the applicant and accepted by the city, or a bond posted by the applicant for construction of same, prior to the short plat being filed. Said bond shall be in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of complete construction of such improvements as determined by the director of public works. (b) A short plat must be certified for filing by the chairman of the short subdivision committee before it is filed. (c) Short plats shall be filed by the applicant with the department of records and elections and a copy of the recorded instrument shall be returned to the office of community development prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with this filing. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.090 Expiration period. If the short plat is not filed within six months of the date of approval, the short plat shall be null and void. Upon written request by the subdivider, the short subdivision committee may grant one extension of not more than six months. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.100 Limitations on further subdivision. Any land subdivided under the requirements of this chapter shall not be further divided for a period of five years without following the procedures for subdivision. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). - 31- October 18,1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision Chapter 17.20 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sections: 17.20.010 Purpose. Amend 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. Amend 17.20.040 Grading. Amend 17.20.050 Streets. 17.20.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve watercourses and drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and preserve trees and -probe vegetation. These are beneficial to the city in lessening the costs of development to the city as a whole, to the subdivider in creating an attractive and quality environment, and in attainment of the goals and objectives of the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. (a) Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to the Flood Zone Control Ordinance as defined in TMC 16.52, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay zone, TMC 18.45, and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. (b) Trees. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on site as part of the preliminary plat application. . A tree retention/removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application. Such tree retention /removal plan shall assure the preservation of significant trees to be retained. - and- shall-be 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. (a) Buffer Between Uses. Where residential subdivisions are to be adjacent to multiple - family, commercial or industrial land use districts, and where natural separation does not exist, buffer strips shall be provided. - 32 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 (b) Conformity with Existing Plans. The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the city. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right -of -way or for easements to the city for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to and complement city ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.040 Grading. Prior to any grading within a proposed or approved subdivision, a grading permit shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.050 Streets. (a) Extension. Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the plat. Where appropriate, streets shall be extended to the boundaries of the plat to insure access to neighboring properties. The City's goal is . to have an integrated system of local streets rather than a system of cul -de- sacs. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective. However, in sensitive areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the standards and procedures of the sensitive areas overlay zone. (b) Names. All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval by the Department of office community development. (c) Intersections. Subdivision - . .. Any intersection of public streets, whatever the dassification, shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset in so far as practical. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). -:33 - October 18, 990 CHAPTER 17.08 Sections: 17.24.010 Amend 17.24.020 17.24.030 Amend 17.24.040 Conformance required. Street layout. Private access roads. Public rights -of -way. Chapter 17.24 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN 17.24.010 Conformance required. Any plat, subdivision or dedication for residential use shall be designed in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.020 Street layout. Street layout old shall provide for the most advantageous development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where sensitive areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights -of -way in the sensitive areas overlay zone shall be followed. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.030 Private access roads. Private access roads may be authorized if: (a) allowing private access roads in the area being subdivided will not adversely affect future circulation in neighboring parcels of property; and (b) adequate and reasonable provisions are made for the future maintenance and repair of the proposed private access roads; and (c) the proposed private access roads can accommodate potential full (future) development on the lots created; and (d) the proposed private access roads do not serve more than four lots nor are more than two hundred feet in length. When private access roads are authorized, the easement width shall be a minimum of thirty feet and shall conform to the applicable standards for design alignment set forth in Chapter 17.24.040, subsection (b). (Ord. 1014 (part) , 1977). 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. (a) Right -of -way Width. Street widths may vary according to function, traffic generated and topography. The following minimum street widths for streets, as defined in the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan, shall apply unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the preliminary plat or by the short subdivision committee in the case of short plats. TYPE OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY PAVEMENT Subdivision Major Arterial 80 feet 60 feet Secondary Arterial 75 feet 48 feet Collector 60 feet 36 feet Local Street 50 feet * 30 feet Cul- De-Sac Roadway 40 feet 26 feet Turnaround 80 feet diameter 60 feet diameter Alley 20 feet 15 feet * Right -of -way may be reduced to 40 feet with five foot easements on each side if the subject roadway will be traversing or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. 34 October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision (b) Design. The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the department of public works: (1) Street Intersection Offsets. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure less than two hundred fifty feet from centerline to centerline. (2) Cul -de -sacs. Cul -de -sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred feet unless authorized in accordance with Section 17.32.010. (3) Street Grades. Street grades shall standards -not exceed 15 percent. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18 percent, for not more than 200 feet when: (i) exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; and (ii) the greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive slopes;and (iii) the Fire Marshal grants approval. (4) Tangents. Minimum tangents shall conform to department of public works standards. (5) Horizontal Curves. Minimum curve radii shall conform to department of public works standards. (6) Vertical Curves. Changes in grade shall conform to department of public works standards. (c) Right -of -way Improvement. All right -of -way improvements shall conform to department of public works standards. (d) Utilities. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground and, if located within a sensitive area, shall be designed to meet the standards of the sensitive areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the department of public works; such installation shall be completed and approved prior to application of any surface materials. (1) Sanitary Sewers. Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the appropriate health agencies, sanitary sewers shall be provided at no cost to the city and designed in accordance with city standards. (2) Storm Drainage. An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water; the amount of runoff shall be determined by the rational method. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes. The diameter to be provided shall be determined by Manning's Equation, but in no case shall the inner diameter be less than twelve inches. (3) Water System. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with city standards. (e) Public Use and Service Areas. Due consideration shall be given by the subdivider to the allocation of adequately sized areas for public service or usage. (1) Easements. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the public works department. (f) Blocks. (1) Length. Blocks should not be less than three hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in length. Where circumstances warrant, the planning commission may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet nor more than fifteen feet in width dedicated in the city to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. (2) Width. Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the planning commission may approve a single tier. - 35 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision (g) Lots. (1) Arrangement. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each lot must have access to a public street that is approved at the time of plat review; however rather than designing flag lots, access shall be accomplished with common drive easements. Location of yards shall reflect the prevailing pattern within the neighborhood. For example, if adjacent developed lots front on the street the subdivision's lots fronting the street should also establish front yards for those lots. (2) Minimum Size. The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet or exceed the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. (3) Corner Lots. Corner lots may be required to be platted with additional width to allow for the additional side yard requirements. (4) Through Lots. Residential through lots are not encouraged and shall only be approved if there is a topographic or traffic safety concern preventing double tiered lots. Approved through lots shall be permitted access to only one street, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and shall provide 'a fifteen foot rear yard buffer of native vegetation. (5) Property Corners at Intersections. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights -of -way shall have a minimum radius of twenty -five feet. (h) Trees. Each lot within a new subdivision shall be landscaped with at least one tree in the front yard to create a uniform streetscape. Installation shall be required per 17.12.040(3) (hi) Other Improvements. (1) Monuments. (A) Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the department of public works. (B) All other lot corners shall be marked with suitable metal or wood markers. (2) Street Signs. The subdivider shall be responsible for the initial cost of any street name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, necessary in the subdivision as required by the department of public works. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). October 18, ;1990 CHAPTER 21.04 Sections: 21 21 21 Amend 21 21 21 21 21 Amend Amend 21.04.090 21.04.100 21.04.110 21.04.120 21.04.130 21.04.140 21.04.150 21.04.160 21.04.170 21.04.180 21.04.190 21.04.200 21.04.210 21.04.220 21.04.230 21.04.240 21.04.250 21.04.260 Jtate Environmental Policy Act Title 21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Chapter 21.04 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DRAFT AMENDMENT .04.010 Adopted -- Authority. .04.020 General provisions -- Adoption by reference. .04.030 Definitions -- Adoption by reference. .04.040 Definitions -- Additional. .04.050 Designation of responsible official. .04.060 Lead agency -- Determination -- Responsibilities. .04.070 Lead agency -- Transfer of status to state agency. .04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations -- Adoption b reference. Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations- -Time estimates. Categorical exemptions -- Adoption by reference. Categorical exemptions -- Flexible thresholds. Categorical exemptions -- Determination. Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. Threshold determinations -- Environmental checklist. Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. Documents required - -SEPA decisions. EIS -- Adoption by reference. EIS -- Preparation. EIS-- Additional elements. EIS -- Commenting -- Adoption by reference. Public notice — Procedure. Consulted agency responsibilities -- Official designated. Using existing environmental documents -- Adoption by reference. SEPA—Decisions--Adoption by reference. SEPA -- Decisions -- Substantive authority. SEPA—Compliance—Adoption by reference. Amend 21.04.270, SEPA — Policies. 21.04.280 Appeals. 21.04.290 Notice — Statute of limitations. Amend 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. 21.04.310 Fees. 21.04.320 Forms — Adoption by reference. 21.04.330 Copies on file. 21.04.340 Severability. 21.04.010 Adopted -- Authority. (a) The city adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197 -11 -904. This chapter contains the city's SEPA procedures and policies. (b) The SEPA rules contained in WAC Chapter 197 -11 must be used in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 1331 §1, 1984). 21.04.040 Definitions -- Additional. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197 -11 -700 through 799, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise: - 37 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act (1) "Department" means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order. (2) "Early notice" means the city's response to an applicant stating whether it • considers issuance of the determination of significance likely for the applicant's proposal. (3) "Environmentally sensitive area" - see 21.04.300. (4) "Notice of action" means the notice of the time for commencing an appeal of a SEPA determination that the city or the applicant may give following final city action upon an application for a permit or approval when said permit or approval does not have a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing an appeal. (Ord. 1344 §1, 1985; Ord. 1331 §3, 1984). (5) "Official notice" means the notice that the city shall give of the date and place for commencing an appeal of final city action upon an application for a permit or approval where said permit or approval has a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing appeal. (6) "SEPA Rules" means WAC Chapter 197 -11 adopted by the Department of Ecology. 21.04.130 Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. (a) If the city's only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. (b) In addition to the environmental documents an applicant may be required to submit the following information: (1) Conceptual site plans and building plans; (2) Other information as the responsible official may determine. (Ord. 1344 §5, 1985; Ord. 1331 §9,1984). (3) Environmentally sensitive areas studies as described in TMC 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. 21.04.140 Threshold determinations -- Environmental checklist. (a) A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197 -11 -960 with the following additions: (1) If the site is an environmentally sensitive area, a sensitive area study that meets the requirements of the SEPA official may be required. The SEPA official may waive any study requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a particular use or application. Environmentally sensitive area studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City shall be paid for by the applicant, to review the geotechnical reports on Class 2 and 3 Landslide, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard areas if the geotechnical report indicates Class 4 characteristics; and will be required in all Class 4 Landslide Hazard areas. (2) Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts; (3) Description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preferred course of action. (b) A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. (c) The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination. (d) For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide information as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal. - 38 - October 18,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 state Environmental Policy Act (e) The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: (1) The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or (2) The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. (Ord. 1344 §7, 1985; Ord. 1331 §13, 1984). 21.04.150 Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. (a) The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant. (b) An applicant may request in•writing early notice of whether a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely. The request must: . (1) Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and (2) Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal. (c) The responsible official's written response to the request for early notice shall: (1) State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and (2) State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and /or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. (d) When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. (1) If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required. (2) If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. (3) The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. (4) Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. (e) Mitigation plans for alterations to wetlands and watercourses. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: (1) Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (2) Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (3) Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: (A) Maintain or enhance stream channel dimensions. (B) Restore or plant native vegetation unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (C) Create an equivalent or improved channel bed. (D) Create equivalent or improved biofiltration. (E) Replace habitat value unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (F) Replace or lengthen horizontal alignment (meander length). - 39 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 'State Environmental Policy Act (4) Detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (5) Monitoring and /or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (6) Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. (f) The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fifteen days after the date of issuance. (g) Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of any license issued. (h) If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigation DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. (i) The city's written response under subsection (c) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 1344 §8, 1985; Ord. 1331 §14, 1984). 21.04.270 SEPA -- Policies. (a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. (b) The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: (1) Zoning Code -TMC Chapter 18:02; (2) Shoreline Master Plan -Ordinance 898; (3) Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan- Ordinance 1246; (4) Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan- Ordinance 1315; (5) Subdivision Ordinance -TMC Chapter 17.04; (6) Comprehensive Sewer Plan- Resolution 904; (7) Comprehensive Water Plan- Resolution 873; (8) Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition- Ordinance 1287; (9) Transportation Improvement Plan - Resolution 917; (10) Annexation Policy Plan- Resolution 626; (11) Sidewalk Ordinance-Ordinance 1233; (12) Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction -Ordinance 1250. (Ord. 1344 §14, 1985; Ord. 1331 §24,1984). 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. (a) Environmentally sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and/or as defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 and pursuant to 18.45.020 or hereinafter amended, designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded areas, and the Green/Duwamish River and its shoreline zone as defined by the Tukwila Master Program. For each environmentally sensitive area, the categorical exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for these areas are: WAC 197 -11- 800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6)(a), (14(c), (24)(a) through (g), and (25)(d), (f), (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. - 40 - October 18, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 41cate Environmental Policy. Act (b) The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (c) Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. (Ord. 1344 §13,1985; Ord. 1331 §30, 1984). CITY "UFTUKII'ILA t_°lul'ul' DICTATE Rlr(i('1EV.1RI). T1'1017 /..L II':1SII /.wino ' 98188 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1990 With regard to the Planning Commission's concern regarding the liability of the City requiring a professional review of a geo- technical report in Class 4 areas, Moira stated that the City Attorney felt that a professional review did not increase the City's liability, unless the City were negligent in who they chose as a consultant. Actually requiring a review would decrease the liability associated with a project. With regard to the Planning Commission's concern for the calculation of impervious surfaces, Moira presented five projects within the City with percentage calculations. Also, a review of other jurisdictions regulations show that the majority regulate structural coverage but not impervious surface. MR. RIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 18.46.070, PAGE 24 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: * IN ITEM 2., REPLACING THE WORDS "WITH REFERENCE TO" WITH THE WORD "IN ". The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Flesher, Malina, and Kirsop. Representing the staff were Moira Bradshaw and Rick Beeler. PIU.VE '2061 13 3.18UU (;,ln' L. t'unlho * IN ITEM 2.B., REPLACING THE WORD "AND" FOLLOWING "ADVANTAGE" WITH THE WORD "OR ". * MAKING THE ABOVE CHANGES TO SECTION 3. AS WELL. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 18.46.080, page 25 of the City Council's draft with the following changes: * Remove the letter "s" from the words, "Networks ", "Incorporates ", "protects ", and "provides ". * Add the word "or" to the end of paragraphs 2., and 5. * Add the word "Be" to the beginning of paragraphs 4., 5., and 6. Planning Commission Page 2 October 11, 1990 The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to have Section 18.46.090, Relationship to Adjacent Areas, to remain in the ordinance. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve the deletion of Section 18.46.110, (1) A,B, and C, pages 25 and 26 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 18.46.110 (1) i -vii, page 26 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 18.46.110 (2), page 26 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 18.46.110 (3), page 26 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 18.46.110 (4), page 26 of the City Council's draft subject to removing the words, "to the extent that approved conditions of the PRD may modify and supersede the regulations ". The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 18.46.112, page 27 of the City Council's draft subject to replacing the word "review" with the words "find that ", and replacing the words "and use" with the words, "meet all of ". Also adding the word "and" to the end of items 1 -6. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 18.46.120, page 27 of the City Council's draft subject to replacing the references to "planning department ", with "Department of Community Development ", in item number (5). The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve - Section 18.46.130, page 28 of the City Council's draft subject to replacing the references to "planning department" with "Department of Community Development ". The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to delete Section 18.46.140, page 28 of the City Council's draft. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE ALL OF THE CHANGES MADE TO THE PRD SECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 17.08.010, page 29 of the City Council's draft. Planning Commission October 11, 1990 The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 17.08.020, page 29 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 17.08.030, page 29 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 17.08.040, page 30 of the City Council's draft, subject to deleting the words "planning division of the" in paragraph (a). The Planning Commission held off on approving Section 17.08.050 until the fee ordinance can be checked. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 17.08.060, page 30 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 17.20.010, page 32 of the City Council's draft, subject to adding the words, "watercourses and" before the words "drainage patterns ", and deleting the word "provide" in the part of the sentence which reads "...prevent erosion and to preserve trees and provide vegetation." The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 17.20.020, page 32 of the City Council's draft, subject to retaining the word "reasonable" in item (b), and replacing the words, "discriminate removal" in item (b), with the word "preservation ". The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to 17.20.050, page 33 of the City Council's draft. Page 3 approve Section The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to 17.24.020, page 34 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to 17.24.040, page 34 of the City Council's draft. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Sections 21.04.040 and 21.04.130, pages 37 and 38 of the City Council's draft. approve Section approve Section The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 21.04.140, page 38 of the City Council's draft, subject to adding the words, "if the geotechnical report indicates Class 4 characteristics" to the last sentence in (1). Planning Commission October 11, 1990 Sylvia Appleton Administrative Secretary Page 4 The Planning Commission discussed the viability of wetland mitigation, what procedures should be used to administer compensatory mitigation proposals. It should address three basic criteria: timing, quantity and type of replacement, and remedy for failure. They agreed to have the staff research this area further and provide a recommendation. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 21.04.150, page 39 of the City Council's draft subject to replacing the word "better" with "enhance" and ending the sentence after the word "dimensions" for item 3. A. Also replacing the word "better" with the word "improved" for items 3.C. and 3.D. Finally, items e, f, g, and h, on page 40 of the City Council's draft should be re- lettered to be items f, g, h, and i. The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to approve Section 21.04.300, page 40 of the City Council's draft, subject to adding the words "and pursuant to 18.45.020" after "Zoning Code TMC 18.06 ". The Planning Commission agreed to meet again on October 25, 1990 at 6:00 P.M. The Planning Commissioners reviewed Section 18.46.060, item (4), and opted to leave it as written in the City Council's draft. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUK(VILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OCTOBER 11, 1990 I. Call to order. II. Attendance III. Continuation of SAO deliberations. IV. Adjournment PHONE #1206) 433.1800 Gary 1.. Van/uscu, ,Iluyur NNILA /909 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To: Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 11 October 1990 Subject: SAO October 4, 1990 Deliberations Attached on yellow paper is the Planning Commission's draft of the proposed zoning code sensitive areas overlay zone. The draft has been forwarded to the City Attorney's Office for their review and comment and they will be available on the 18th of October to discuss and respond to any outstanding concerns on this section of your recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission asked for an opinion regarding the requirement for a professional review of geotechnical reports in Class 4 areas and any areas that exhibited Class 4 characteristics. John Colgrove has stated that a professional review, even if solicited by the City, would not increase the City's liability unless the City were negligent in choosing a consultant and that consultant made serious error. He felt that having a professional review would actually decrease liability. The Planning Commission requested staff to reword the following paragraph to allow the possibility of greater variety of structural type in PRD's. Staff suggests: 18.46.030 Permitted uses (1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding residential character and built environment. Single unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units; however, attached units will be considered if necessary to accomodate underlying density and f iky density credits for sensitive areas and their buffers. The Planning Commission requested staff to provide additional information on the concept of an impervious surface limitation. Attached are five sheets with percentage calculations for five projects within the City. A review of surrounding jurisdictions regulations shows that the majority regulate structural coverage but not impervious surface. (Comparison attached) • The Planning Commission requested staff to reword the following section to provide some limitation on the use of sensitive areas for recreation space requirements. Staff suggests: (5) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums if useable recreation opportunities within these areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems, wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic areas. TUKWILLA HILLSIDE DESIGN AND DEVLOPMENT STANDARDS STUDY 11 January 1990 ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PROJECTS: North Hill Apartments Description: 54 unit apartment complex, 30 1- bedroom, 6 2- bedroom, and 18 Studio apartments in 5 primary buildings. Site area: Building Areas: Paved Surfaces: Total impervious Surfaces: Undisturbed Areas: 3,500 SF Retaining Walls: Rockery Cut/Fill: Sloped Areas: (Estimated) Landscape Areas: Tree Coverage 118,157 SF Apartments 13,309 SF Bridges /Stairs (included above) Utility Bldg 56 SF Garages 0 SF Carports Q SF 13,365 SF Drives/Parking 33,338 SF Walkways 5,400 SF Play Courts Q SF 38,738 SF 52,103 SF Total Length 10200 LF Average Height 7 FT Maximum Height 15 FT Total Length 265 LF Average Height 4 FT Maximum Height 6 FT Areas of Cut Areas of Fill No Cut/Fill 15% or less 15% - 39% 40% or greater Natural State 12,400 SF P.L. /Buffers 10,140 SF G.C. /Shrubs 10,115 SF Lawns 12,475 SF Found. Plant'g 4,670 SF Trail System 500 LF Easements 0 SF Total Area 50,300 SF 42 Deciduous 43 Conifers 00 Existing 8,400 SF 8,600 SF 00 SF 17,000 SF Note: "00" indicates quantity or area not calculated at this date. =11% Site/Building Ratio = 33% Paving /Site Ratio = 44% Impervious /Site Ratio = 3% of Site Area = 58% of Site Area = 34% of Site Area = 8% of Site Area = 2% of Site Area = 54% of Site Area = 44% of Site Area =10% of Site Area = 9% of Site Area = 9% of Site Area = 11% of Site Area = 4% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area =43% of Site Area =14% of Site Area TUKWILLA HILLSIDE DESIGN AND DEVLOPMENT STANDARDS STUDY 11 January 1990 ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRO CTS: Heatherwood Apartments Description: 66 unit apartment complex, 24 1- bedroom, 42 2- bedroom in six primary buildings. Carports, garages and a recreation building are proposed. Site area: Building Areas: Paved Surfaces: Drives/Parking 35079 SF Walkways 3758 SF Play Courts 1050 SF 39887 SF Total impervious Surfaces: 77450 SF Undisturbed Areas: 0 SF Retaining Walls: Total Length 0 LF Average Height 0 FT Maximum Height 0 FT Rockery Total Length 2000 LF Average Height 4 FT Maximum Height 11 FT Cut/Fill: Areas of Cut Areas of Fill No Cut/Fill 15% or less 15% - 39% 40% or greater Sloped Areas: (Estimated) Landscape Areas: 133,263 SF Apartments 20226 SF Bridges /Stairs 3587 SF Recreation 712 SF Garages 2940 SF Carports 10098 SF Natural State P.L. /Buffers G.C. /Shrubs Lawns Easements Total Area . 19,8000 SF SF 3,500 SF 4,840 SF 31,620 SF 65,800 SF Tree Coverage 29 Deciduous 7,800 SF 19 Conifers 3,800 SF 2 Ex. Doug Fir 1000 SF 12,600 SF 37563 SF = 27% Site/Building Ratio = 30% Paving /Site Ratio = 58% Impervious /Site Ratio = 0% of Site Area = 56% of Site Area = 20% of Site Area = 20% of Site Area = 52% of Site Area = 41% of Site Area = 7% of Site Area = 9% of Site Area = 2% of Site Area = 3% of Site Area = 15% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area =30% of Site Area =6% of Site Area Note: "00" indicates quantity or area not calculated at this date. Building Areas: Houses Garages Carports Total impervious Surfaces: Total impervious Surfaces: Undisturbed Areas: Retaining Walls: Rockery Cut/Fill: Sloped Areas: (Estimated) Landscape Areas: Natural State P.L./Buffers G.C. /Shrubs Lawns Easements Total Area TUKWILLA HILLSIDE DESIGN AND DEVLOPMENT STANDARDS STUDY 11 January 1990 ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PROJECTS: Silverview Subdivision Description: 22 lot single - family residential subdivision, 10,000 - 12,000 SF lots Site area: 311,266 SF Paved Surfaces: Drives/Parking 33,225 SF Walkways 8.050 SF 41,275 SF Total Length Average Height Maximum Height Total Length Average. Height Maximum Height Areas of Cut Areas of Fill No Cut/Fill 15% or less 15% - 39% 40% or greater O SF O SF Q SF O SF 00 SF 00 SF 00 SF 0 LF 0 FT 0 FT 0 LF 0 FT 0 FT O SF O SF O SF O SF O SF Tree Coverage 19 Deciduous 3,800 SF 0 Conifers 0 SF 0 Existing 0.3.E O SF Note: "00" indicates quantity or area not calculated at this date. =0% Site/Building Ratio = 33% Paving /Site Ratio = 00% Impervious /Site Ratio = 00% Impervious /Site Ratio = 00% of Site Area = 10% of Site Area = 4% of Site Area = 86% of Site Area = 43% of Site Area = 56% of Site Area = 1% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area =1% of Site Area TUKWILLA HILLSIDE DESIGN AND DEVLOPMENT STANDARDS STUDY 11 January 1990 ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PROJECTS: Mapletree Park Subdivision Description: 14 lot single family residential subdivision, 12,000 SF lots, typ. Site area: 217,300 SF Building Areas: Houses 00 SF Garages 00 SF Carports QQ SF 00 SF = 00% Site/Building Ratio Paved Surfaces: Roadway 19,921 SF Walkways 6,300 SF Drives/Parking Q SF 26,221 SF Total impervious Surfaces: Undisturbed Areas: Retaining Walls: Rockery Cut/Fill: Sloped Areas: (Estimated) Landscape Areas: Tree Coverage Total Length Average Height Maximum Height Total Length Average Height Maximum Height Areas of Cut Areas of Fill No Cut/Fill 15% or less 15% - 39% 40% or greater Natural State P.L. /Buffers G.C. /Shrubs Lawns Easements Total Area 0 Deciduous 0 Conifers 0 Existing = 12% Paving /Site Ratio 00 SF = 00% Impervious /Site Ratio 00 SF = 00% of Site Area 0 L 0 FT 0 FT 0 LF 0 FT 0 FT O SF O SF O SF O SF fUE O SF O SF O SF 0 SF O SF Note: "00" indicates quantity or area not calculated at this date. = 13% of Site Area = 3% of Site Area = 84% of Site Area = 62% of Site Area = 27% of Site Area = 11% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area = 0% of Site Area =0% of Site Area A V— G- 9 0 M O N 13: P A C K A G E S BREAKDOWN OF SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR 62ND AVE SOUTH APTS streets & sidewalk building coverage parking lot landscaping, rec. space Total Site srstsz =sassassz NOTE: No. of Units Parcel size Dwelling Units/ acre /5 ,8idG -, 17 7c) f'eo e i fb vO(Q i Parcel size Paved area (incl st) Bldg coverage Open space/ / landscape ._ -- re c {e( rm. zzzs== x= xazzsssssa= Parking provided Parking ratio Paved area -% of site Paved area /stall 0.75 ac. 20 % 0.97 ac. 26 % 1.21. ac. 32 % 0.84 ac. 22 % 3.75 ac. 100 % COMPARISONS BETWEEN SUNWOOD I & II AND 62ND AVE SOUTH APARTMENTS -mime sssssss=z =z=zsaez The statistics for Sunwood, Phases I & II were from original projections and not necessarily as built. 62nd Ave South 72 du's 3.75 ac. 19.2 du's /ac. ACREAGE U N L T D 3.75 ac. 1.96 ac. /. q4 0.97 ac. yoG77. - , q3. • • 'Wear aved area (inci st) Bldg coverage Open space landscape a ea PERCENTAGES 52 % 22 + 150 stalls 2.08 /unit 26.4 % 287.50 SF /stall 33 r 0 8 ARKING .02 —(i -90 -:=711m =s= s s s s s s s= s M a s s Sunwood, Phase I & Ii 178 du's 11.56 ac. 15.4 du's /ac. 11.56 ac. 3.17 ac. 1.93 ac. 6.46 ac. 27 % 17 % 56 % 308 stalls 1.73 /unit 27.4 448.3 SE' /stall cXD ... KO( ,5W et9WW (01/Q7/Res onley) ,..:. Kr 4t14i (AGa3e /,uPlrovs ,461kA ( 15e 1 (- -tic ) Pu (6alluf gairsld (5-mikwegs ek 30 4 .. 4/0 6 - n Coo 30 ro 3 0--'>'e; b To: From: Date: City Council Lucy Lauterbach October 9, 1990 Subject: Review of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Council should talk about the following issues before you begin to go through the SAO: 1. Is the Council ready and willing to begin your review of the SAO now, or do you want to wait for the new year? If Council committees begin their reviews of the budget this week, only one committee may need an extra meeting to finish their review. The Council should be able, if you start next week on full Council review of the budget, to easily finish by mid - December. Again, one extra COW may be needed to complete the budget by December 10th or 17th. If the Council wants to dig in Tuesday, Nov. 13, hold an extra meeting Thursday, Nov. 15, and work on the SAO ordinance twice a week, there's no reason you couldn't be done by the end of the month. It would mean a lot of extra meetings this month, but the bulk of your work would be finished then. If you agreed on this schedule, you could schedule a public hearing the first or second week of December. From there, you could either work like dogs again for 10 days and pass it by the end off the year, or leave it to January to think about it before you deal with it again. You could also wait until January to hold a public hearing. If you do decide to go ahead now, what will your schedule be? 2. How should the Planning Commission version, the rainbow version, the Council version of the SAO, plus King County's adopted SAO and the State's Model Wetland ordinance be used? Which should the Council work from? 3. How should the SAO be reviewed? Lucy will try to have a paper outlining the major differences between the various versions of the SAOs. The Council can either discuss six or seven major policy areas first, or you can jump right in on the first page of the planning Commission version and go line by line. I recommend you talk about policy areas first, and reach consensus on things like who decides where a sensitive area or a buffer is or should be. That should make it easier to review the detailed version. 4. How will you handle public comment during your deliberations? Do you want this to be a closed process for Council -only deliberations, or will you accept comments or input from the public as you go along? 5. What kind of staff input do you want? One option is for Moira Bradshaw, who staffed the citizen and Planning Commission versions, to go through the Planning Commission document and explain why the Commission came to certain conclusions. This information might be helpful in making decisions about Planning Commission decisions. Otherwise, you might prefer that the staff just answer questions. 5 CI7T OF 7'I •11 II7l..-1 MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting was called to order at 6:15 P.M., by Jerry Hamilton, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Hamilton, Knudson, Malina, Kirsop, and Flesher. Representing the staff were Moira Bradshaw and Sylvia Appleton. Mr. Hamilton notified the Planning Commission that they had the option of modifying their decision regarding Larry's Market and reconsidering their motion. Mr. Flesher noted that the reddish, brick -like materials which would be used for the structure could be targeted for graffiti. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO RE -OPEN FOR RECONSIDERATION, 90 -9 -DR: LARRY'S WITH REGARD TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE 25TH OF OCTOBER, 1990. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. MALINA OPPOSED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 1990. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO ADD THE WORDS, "BUT NOT LIMITED TO," AFTER THE WORD "INCLUDE" IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION I., PAGE 16 OF THE YELLOW DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO RE- INCLUDE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IF SECTION I., PAGE 16 OF THE YELLOW DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. There was a consensus by the Planning Commissioners to accept section 5., page 15 of the yellow draft, as worded. Mr. Knudson asked what would happen if the City's choice for the independent review alters the design of the plan, and then something happens after the applicant has acted in accordance with the independent consultant's decisions. . Planning Commission Page 2 October 4, 1990 Moira responded that she would get the City Attorney's opinion on the matter. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 5.A., PAGE 18 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT, SUBJECT TO ADDING AN "S" TO THE WORD "WORKING ", AND CHANGING THE "HAVE BEEN" TO "CAN BE ". MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 5.B., PAGE 18 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 5.C., PAGE 21 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT SUBJECT TO REPLACING THE WORDS, "SUCH MEASURES" WITH THE WORD "WHICH ", ADDING THE WORDS "BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO" AFTER THE WORD "INCLUDE ", DELETING THE WORDS "BETWEEN MAY AND THE END OF SEPTEMBER ", AND ADDING "OR EROSION CONTROLS" AFTER THE WORDS "DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ". MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO INCORPORATE SECTION 6.A., PAGE 19 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT IN WITH SECTION 1.C., PAGE 8, OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT, ALSO DELETING THE WORDS "PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST ". MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 6.B., PAGE 19 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN, AND RE- NUMBERING IT TO 6.A. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 6.C., PAGE 19 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN, AND RE- NUMBERING IT TO 6.B. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1.A., PAGE 18 OF THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN ITS CURRENT ORDER. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1.B., PAGE 19 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT AND SWITCH ITS ORDER WITH 1.A., SO THAT 1.B. WOULD COME FIRST. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1.C., PAGE OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 2., PAGE 18 OF THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. . Planning Commission Page 3 October 4, 1990 There was a consensus by the Planning Commissioners to table Section 2.a., page 18 of the Citizen Advisory Committee's draft and have the staff revise the table. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 2.B., PAGE 19 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission agreed not to include Section 3., page 18 of the Citizen Advisory Committee's draft, as it is included elsewhere in the draft. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1.A., OF THE GENERAL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 19 OF THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO REMOVING THE WORDS IN THE LAST SENTENCE WHICH READS: "WITH RESPECT TO USE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ". MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 2., PAGE 23 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT SUBJECT TO REMOVING THE WORDS: "FURTHER HOWEVER" IN THE ADDENDUM. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 3., PAGE 20 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 4., PAGE 23 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT SUBJECT TO ADDING "; AND ", TO SECTION (ii) AND (iii), AND CHANGING THE SECTION NUMBERS (1), (ii), (iii), and (iv) TO 1, 2, 3, AND 4. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Moira suggested that the Planning Commission strike the Variances Section since there are no standards in this chapter. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO DELETE THE VARIANCES SECTION. MR. HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION DID NOT PASS BY A VOTE OF 3 -2. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES SECTION, PAGE 23 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. KIRSOP AND MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEALS SECTION, PAGE 23 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT SUBJECT TO ADDING "(BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT) ", AFTER "TMC 18.90 ". MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. . Planning Commission Page 4 October 4, 1990 MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE PARAGRAPH 1. OF THE RECORDING REQUIRED SECTION, PAGE 20 OF THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE PARAGRAPH 2. OF THE RECORDING REQUIRED SECTION, PAGE 20 OF THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE ASSURANCE DEVICE SECTION, PAGE 24 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT SUBJECT TO REMOVING THE LAST SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH 2. AND MAKING IT ITS OWN SECTION, SECTION NO. 3. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "ESSENTIAL RIGHT - OF -WAY OR UTILITY" AS WRITTEN IN THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "IMPERVIOUS SURFACE" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "LOT COVERAGE" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF "NATURAL WATERCOURSES ". MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "WATERCOURSES" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • Planning Commission Page 5 October 4, 1990 MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "SENSITIVE AREAS" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT, SUBJECT TO ADDING THE WORDS "EXCEPT IN CLASS I AREAS" AFTER THE WORDS "GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY ". MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSE UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION OF "WETLANDS" AS WRITTEN IN THE SEGALE DRAFT, SUBJECT TO ADDING COMMAS AFTER THE WORDS: "SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT..." AND "CIRCUMSTANCES DO SUPPORT... ", AND ADDING THE WORDS, "AND SIMILAR AREAS" AFTER THE WORD "LAKES ". MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE INTRODUCTION AND FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER THE HEADING "PURPOSES ", PAGE 9 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH AND ITEMS 1 THRU 7 UNDER THE "PURPOSES" SECTION, PAGE 9 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1.A. UNDER THE "SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY" SECTION, PAGE 9 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1.B., PAGE 9 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1.C., PAGE 9 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSE .UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 2., PAGE 10 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 3., PAGE 10 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 4., PAGE 10 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Page 6 October 4, 1990 Note: With regard to Chapter 18.46, "PRD- Planned Residential Development ", the Planning Commission provided motions on only those items which had been amended. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 1., UNDER 18.46.010 "PURPOSE ", PAGE 22 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT, MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION (1). MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Item 18.46.030 "Permitted Uses" was tabled for staff to re -word and clarify the intent. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE DELETION OF ITEM 18.46.040. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE DELETION OF ITEM 18.46.050. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 18.46.060, SECTION 1. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 18.46.060, SECTION 2. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO TABLE ITEM 18.46.060, SECTION 4. UNTIL PLANS CAN BE EVALUATED TO FIND HOW THESE PERCENTAGES ARE DETERMINED. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Item 18.46.060, Section 5 was tabled for further staff review. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO REPLACE ITEM 18.46.060, WITH THE 2ND PARAGRAPH, PAGE 14 OF THE TUKWILA HILLSIDES DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERIODICAL. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO DELETE ALL BUT THE FIRST SENTENCE IN ITEM 18.46.060, SECTION 7. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission agreed to meet again on October 11, 1990; at 6:00 P.M. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Sylvia Appleton Administrative Secretary CITY OF T /;1171 -..l • Continuation of SAO deliberations: r % ' '2446, MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SEPTEMBER 27, 1990; 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 6:15 P.M. by Jerry Hamilton, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Hamilton, Knudson, Flesher, Kirsop, and Malina. Mr. Gomez was excused. Representing the staff were Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, Jack Pace, Ann Siegenthaler, and Darren Wilson. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 MEETING AT THE NEXT MEETING (OCT. 4, 1990). MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Rick Beeler noted that the City Council had adopted amendments to the memorandum from Mayor, Gary Van Dusen, to the Planning Commission dated September 20, 1990. These amendments consisted of the following: the Council is holding the Planning Commission to getting an ordinance to the Council by the end of October, letting the Planning Commission decide as to whether they wanted to hold a public hearing on the ordinance they pass, and committing themselves on holding a public hearing on whatever final draft of the ordinance the Council puts together. He also stated that the Council planned to extend the moratorium indefinitely. The Planning Commissioners agreed that the City Attorney need not be present at every meeting. With regard to the sections which were tabled for staff revising at the last meeting (9- 20 -90), the Planning Commissioners agreed to add a definition of the word "alteration" to the definitions section. This definition will be derived from a modification of King County's definition. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE MOIRA'S REVISION OF SECTION 5.C.(1) AND (2) OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. THIS REVISION IS LOCATED IN SECTION 5.C.(1) (Al AND (B), PAGE 12 OF THE "YELLOW" DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 2 September 27, 1990 MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE MOIRA'S REVISION OF SECTION 5.C.(3) OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WORD "NINE" WITH THE WORD "VINE ". THIS REVISION IS LOCATED IN SECTION 5.C.(2), PAGE 12 OF THE "YELLOW" DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE MOIRA'S REVISION OF SECTION 5.D. OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. THIS REVISION IS LOCATED IN SECTION 5.D., PAGE 13 OF THE "YELLOW" DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO DELETE E.7. AND AMEND IT TO READ, "INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ARE THE SUBJECT OF 21.04.140 ". THE MOTION WAS SECONDED; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO NUMBER THE PARAGRAPHS UNDER 5.F., PAGE 15 OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT, APPROVE PARAGRAPH 5.F.(1) SUBJECT TO REMOVING THE FIRST SENTENCE AND ADDING THE WORD "SITE" TO THE END OF THE SENTENCE WHICH READS: "...DAMAGE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE, FROM SOIL INSTABILITY... ". MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE PARAGRAPH 5.F.(2), PAGE 15 OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE PARAGRAPH 5.F.(3), PAGE 15 OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE PARAGRAPH 5.F.(4), PAGE 16 OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO REPLACING THE WORD "AND" WITH THE WORD "OR" OF THE FIRST SENTENCE (THIRD WORD), AND REPLACING THE WORD "AND" WITH THE WORD "ANY" IN THE SECTION OF THE SENTENCE WHICH READS: "... HE OR SHE WILL ADVISE, IN WRITING, ANY PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS... ". MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO TABLE PARAGRAPH 5.F.(5), PAGE 16 OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT UNTIL THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN REVIEW IT. ALSO TO RE- LETTER 5.(1),(2)... TO 5.(A),(B)... MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 4.F., PAGE 20 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT IN PLACE OF 5.G., PAGE 16 OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT, SUBJECT TO REPLACING THE WORD "A" WITH THE WORD "AN" IN THE SECTION OF THE PARAGRAPH READING: "...THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT IN AN AREA OF POTENTIAL... ". ALSO, DELETING THE WORD "PROVIDING ". MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission /B.A.R. September 27, 1990 MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE'SECTIONS 4.G. AND 4.H., PAGE 20 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT, IN PLACE OF SECTION 5.H. OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.' MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 5.I., PAGE 17 OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO REPLACING THE WORD "SUCH" WITH THE WORD "WHICH ", AND DELETING "BETWEEN MAY AND THE END OF SEPTEMBER ", AND DELETING "INSTALLING" WITH "EROSION CONTROLS OR...". MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The SAO deliberations were adjourned until October 4, 1990 at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. Page 3 Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 4 September 27, 1990 The Board of Architectural Review meeting was called to order at 8:04 P.M. MR. MALINA MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 30, 1990 AND SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. There were no public comments. 90 - 8 - DR: DONDERO MOTEL Darren Wilson presented the staff report for the Dondero Motel. Darren noted that the Mitigated SEPA Determination report was not included in the Board's packet, therefore, Darren submitted the report to the Board. The original proposal for the motel consisted of 37 units, however, the number of units was reduced since one of the conditions of the Mitigated SEPA Determination was for the developer to dedicate a ten foot right of way along 146th Street. The applicant has proposed a modulation to the design so that the second level of the motel projects outward. The staff's concern dealt with the landscape treatment. Another staff recommendation is that taller evergreen screening should be added to the parking islands to better screen the adjacent areas. He noted that the height and scale of the building is compatible with its surroundings. In conclusion, the staff recommends approval of the project with conditions. Mr. Malina asked where the irrigation plan was. Darren noted that the applicant would be providing a landscape plan prior to the issuance of a building permit, and at that time Public Works and Planning Dept. would review. Mr. Malina asked if there was adequate parking for the employees. Jack Pace noted that the applicant already exceeds the code requirement for parking. The zoning code only requires one parking space per unit (34). Mr. Malina asked if the six foot fenced in area for the dumpster would be adequate, and if anything would be done to landscape plan regarding this issue. Darren noted that the staff and the applicant had not discussed that issue. They felt that the current proposed screening was adequate. Russell Hasse, architect for the project, 1020 A street S.E., Auburn, WA; spoke next. • Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 5 September 27, 1990 Mr. Malina asked the architect if the dumpster area would be large enough to accommodate recycling. Mr. Hasse noted there was room for two dumpsters. He went on to say that they would be willing to build a fence or structure to enclose the dumpster. There is also storage area in the maids quarters. Smaller recycling containers could replace the two larger dumpsters. He noted that a recycling program would not increase the amount of area required, but increase the number and variety of containers used. Mr. Flesher asked about the applicant's plans for signage. Mr. Hasse stated that the signage issue hadn't been addressed for this meeting. Ann Siegenthaler noted that no sign permit applications had been submitted as yet, however, the applicant planned to have signage on the entry portico. Mr. Kirsop asked if it would be visible from the highway. Ann stated that it probably would, at least by south -bound traffic, she went on to say that the entry portico sits close enough to the street to be seen. Darren said that a sign permit is not required for design review. Mr. Hasse said that they had an agreement with a neighbor to use a higher sign, but found that an off - premise sign was illegal. Mr. Knudson asked if the applicant was in agreement with the staff's recommendation for replacing the flowering cherry trees, and the additional ground cover. Mr. Hasse noted they were in agreement with these recommendations, and noted that there would be an irrigation system. Richard Dondero, Owner, 37022 8th Ave. S. Federal Way: Stated he had built over 20 motels and agreed that the signage issue was an important one. He stated that he had a corner of property on 146th which could never be hidden due to the requirement of a twenty foot setback on 146th. He had planned to share signage on the highway with a fishing company. Then, a few of weeks ago, he was notified by the Planning staff that this was not permitted under Tukwila's sign code. Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 6 September 27, 1990 Ann clarified that the applicant had been initially told that it might be possible for him to get a variance for an off - premise sign. However, after counseling with the City Attorney, it was learned that this would not be possible. An application for a variance was never received, just an initial inquiry. Pat Stark, 1160 Military Road S.: Asked if the parking spaces would be eight feet long as indicated in the staff report. Ann clarified that they would be 18 feet long. Mr. Stark stated he felt Tukwila was saturated with motels and did not need anymore. The public hearing was closed at 8:57 P.M. Mr. Malina said he had no problem with the staff's recommendation of adding taller evergreens to the south edge, however, he did have a concern that something else could be done to the front portion of the project where the cherry trees would be located. Mr. Hamilton asked staff if signage could be located in the setback area. Jack Pace said a free standing sign could be located in the setback area, however, if a six foot sign were to be placed in the setback, then it would have to be placed six feet back from the property line. He noted a monument sign might be used. Mr. Flesher reiterated his concern that an irrigation plan be submitted. Mr. Malina said that the applicant must be sure to include an area for recycling in their designs, to comply with any recycling program which the City adopts. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THEIR REGULAR OCTOBER MEETING IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO STUDY THE SIGN ISSUE AND PREPARE SOME EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE SIGNS. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED 4 -1, WITH MR. MALINA OPPOSED. 90 -9 -DR: LARRY'S MARKET Jack Pace presented the staff report. He noted that this was the first project the City has done since the Cascade View annexation. Originally, Larry's had planned to go through the King County Building Permit process. Since the annexation vote they've been working with the City of Tukwila to make the transition from King County regulations to Tukwila's. The site plan does not reflect the separate sidewalk since some of these • Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 7 September 27, 1990 issues were just completed through the SEPA process. The project is 54,000 square feet, setback 20 feet from highway 99, and 10 feet back from 146th. The building height will be 23 -36 feet on Highway 99. On 146th, the building height drops from 36 feet to approximately 10 feet. One of the staff's concerns was how the structure relates to Hwy. 99. The staff is recommending a two foot jog in the rear of the wall along 146th, to break up the long expanse. Another concern is how to provide a better transition between the street and the structure. The police have expressed a concern for some fencing so people don't trespass from 146th through the adjoining apartments to Larry's. Another issue is trying to provide additional screening at the adjacent apartments and the electric transformer at the corner of Hwy. 99 and 146th. There is also a concern for pedestrian access. There will be a pedestrian connection on Hwy. 99, but there is no pedestrian access to Larry's from 144th without walking through the parking lot. The staff is suggesting that there be a better pedestrian linkage from 144th to Larry's. In summary, the staff is looking for some policy direction as to whether this is the quality of development the Planning Commission wants for Highway 99. The key issue is the relationship of the building to both 146th and Hwy. 99. The applicant has shown where the two signs will be placed. Mr. Malina asked how easy it would be to cut through the Exxon station to get to Larry's parking lot. Jack stated that there would be curbing and dense landscaping, there is also a biofiltration swale to deter people from cutting through the gas station. Jack went on to note that due to the SEPA process, the applicant will be making pedestrian improvements in front of the Exxon 'station. The applicant will be writing to the gas station property owner to get permission to make those improvements. Mr. Malina asked if there would be public restrooms available. Jack responded that there would be. Mr. Knudson asked why this project was before them tonight. Jack said that the staff is at a point where they have worked out most of the issues, and the issues before the Planning Commission are basic policy direction. Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable with this design? • Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 8 September 27, 1990 Mr. Knudson stated that a rush job had been done and some of the details have not been worked out due to the annexation. Jack noted that the drawings had been modified to meet Tukwila's setback requirements. The only area in which the drawings are inaccurate is the portion showing the lack of separation between the sidewalks, because those design issues were worked out only one week ago and they have not had a chance to correct the drawing. Mr. Knudson indicated that the structure seems to turn its back on Hwy. 99. Jack said that the issue before the Planning Commission is whether this design is acceptable. Mr. Flesher concurred that the structure did turn its back on Hwy. 99. He also indicated his distaste for the galvanized steel proposed for the construction. Don Carlson, architect, Carlson /Ferrin Architects: He stated that they had worked closely with the City of Tukwila, and the building has improved since speaking with the staff. These buildings are very upscale and design conscious. The first two buildings which they completed won American Institute of Architecture awards, as well as national design awards. One of their goals was to break down the scale of the building since it is so massive. The architects are basically in agreement with the staff's recommendations. They have no problem with the landscaping suggestions. In terms of the Hwy. 99 edge, they've provided a grass slope and a wall on the south end of the building. Within that wall would be flowering trees. They would like to have the grass slope remain because it provides a nice transition from the sidewalk up to the building. According to the zoning code, they can only have a three foot wall; this would eliminate the proposed wall because it is seven feet. They wanted to have a wall which was of a significant height to act as a base for the building. A small wall would not provide a good base for the building. They feel that another jog in the wall, as staff is recommending, would be insignificant. In conclusion, they've tried to design the building to take advantage of the slope and to be a nice neighbor on Hwy. 99. Jack Hendricks, 3515 S. 142nd: He stated that the entry way into the current Larry's Market, off of 144th, is very narrow. He asked if the new entry way would be any wider. Jack Pace answered that the new entry way will allow for three car turning movements. Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 9 September 27, 1990 Mr. Malina trees, and Les Johnson, 14012 Military Rd. S., Owner of Exxon Station: Asked if there would be a wall built between the Exxon station and Pacific Hwy., and how the applicant will prevent pedestrians from walking through the shrubbery when trying to get from the Exxon station to Larry's. He noted that unless they have some way to stop them, people will walk through the shrubbery. Jack noted proposed. that a swale would be located where The swale will contain storm water. stated that the proposal called for asked what those would be. Mr. Hamilton closed the public hearing. the bus stop is fruit bearing Mr. Carlson indicated they would be providing strawberry plants for the wildlife near the drainage area. Ann Siegenthaler clarified that a "strawberry tree" is a type of tree which carries an edible berry. Fruit bearing plants have been used as part of the overall theme of the landscape, and to make it more natural. Mr. Malina stated that his concern was that kids may try to consume some of these berries, and asked how toxic they were. Terry Meyers, Carlson /Ferrin Architects: Stated that the berries would be in the swale area, and although they are edible, they are also not toxic. Mr. Knudson asked if the other stores contained landscaping in the parking lot. Mr. Carlson stated they had not done this with any of the Larry's stores, however, they were using it on a big project in California. David Bolin, representing Larry's Markets: With regard to the structure turning its back on Hwy. 99, the entry way and door had to be oriented to where people would be parking. This is the only grocery site available in this area for people to shop. Mr. Knudson clarified that he didn't feel the design was bad, but it wasn't what he had anticipated. Although it appears that it turns its back toward Hwy. 99, that doesn't mean that it's a bad design. Planning Commission /B.A.R. September 27, 1990 Page 10 MR. MALINA MOVED TO CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE PLANTER WALL AT 146TH AND HWY. 99 FROM 24" TALL TO 36" TALL AND EXTEND IT TO THE DRIVEWAY, THUS APPROVING RECOMMENDATION A.1. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. KNUDSON OPPOSED. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO NOT APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION A.2., ADDING A 2 FOOT STEP TO THE WALL ALONG 146TH. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION B.3., CREATING A PEDESTRIAN PATH FROM 144TH, THROUGH THE PARKING LOT TO THE ENTRY. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED 3 -2, WITH MR. KNUDSON AND MR. KIRSOP OPPOSED. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION B.4., USING FENCING OR OTHER MATERIALS TO ELIMINATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS IN NARROW CORRIDORS AT THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Malina reiterated the fact that he would like to see some sort of deterrent so people won't cut through the gas station to get to Larry's. Ann noted that a thorny, hedge plant could planted in that area to be used as a deterrent. MR. MALINA MOVED TO SCREEN THE ELECTRICAL VAULT WITH PLANTS AND SHRUBS IF IT IS TO BE LOCATED ABOVE GROUND, THUS APPROVING RECOMMENDATION B.5. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. KNUDSON OPPOSED. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION C.6., REQUIRING STREET TREES IN THE SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP ALONG HWY. 99. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION C.7, INCORPORATING EVERGREEN TREES ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERN EDGE OF THE SITE AND DECIDUOUS TREES ALONG THE NORTHWESTERN EDGE. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION C.8., INCLUDING IRRIGATION PLANS FOR ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS WHEN SUBMITTING FOR BUILDING PERMIT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Malina asked if the applicant had submitted a plan for recycling. • Planning Commission /B.A.R. Page 11 September 27, 1990 Jack Pace responded that Larry's was currently involved in a recycling program. All recycling will take place inside the building. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE INCLUSION OF BARRIER .PLANTINGS BETWEEN THE EXXON STATION, 144TH, AND HWY. 99. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Flesher noted his disappointment with the project as it relates to Hwy. 99. He feels the material structure and lighting are typical factory -like elements. This is not aesthetically pleasant and he's concerned with the metal and aluminum construction materials. Mr. Knudson expressed his displeasure also with the way the structure deals with Hwy. 99. MR. MALINA MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROJECT AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. During the Director's report, the Planning Commission agreed to revise their meeting dates for the months of November and December. They agreed to meet on November 8, and December 13. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WA SIIINCTON 98188 PHONE # (2061433.1800 To: Tukwila Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 27 September 1990 Subject: Planning Commission Recommended SAO Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor The attached yellow copy is your work to date. The pending issues from the last meeting are listed below. Staff has suggested new language to clarify the City's intent. The wording is paraphrased below for you. 1) 5.C. ,page 12, Alterations to Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. (1) A standard is established by the City regarding development of these areas. The development site must either be proved stable OR whatever inherent instability exists will not be decreased because of the project and there will be no on -site or off -site impacts. (2) Revegetation must occur and specific planting ratios are established. 2) E.8., page 14, Geotechnical Report Geoengineers, the City's geotechnical consultant for this project, has recommended review requirements, on page 5 of their report. "The Public Works Director may request an independent review of any such report and should request such a review of reports regarding proposed development in Class 4 landslide hazard areas." According to the maps of the City there are two areas of Class 4. The maps however are best available information and subject to revision. Revisions would occur when development is proposed and site specific reports are conducted. Therefore the wording suggested by staff, says that an independent review (not a second report) would automatically occur for known Class 4 area and would be required when a report revealed Class 4 characteristics at mapped Class 2 and 3 sites. The question of payment is a question of whether or how much of development costs should be born by the city collective and provided as a public service versus by the individual developing the land. In general, developments, from single family homes to multi- million dollar developments, receive free public services up to the point they submit applications; then fees are charged to recover the "average" cost to the city, or the full cost in the case of building permits, minus overhead. 065A0106 development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation of this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on technical studies; or b. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following: Abandoned coal mines Areas of Potential Geologic Instability Wetlands Watercourses 2. For wetlands and watercourses which may come into the City through annexation, or to address changes in the ecology of the existing systems, the inventory can be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original study. If the study identifies wetlands or watercourses which can have compensatory mitigation, then the provisions of Sections 18.45.080(3)(b) and 18.45.080(4)(b) shall apply. 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. ��� 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. �' ___ = 4 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 1. General: a. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas, and (ii) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, and (iii)Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value, or (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are is permitted. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. b. Wetland and Natural Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (1) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and 3 9/27/90 (iii)Stabilize banks, and (iv) Intercept fine sediments, and (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. c. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii)Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (iv) Enhance the appearance of hillside development. 2. WETLANDS See Addendum A, "Scope of Work, Wetlands and Watercourses." A. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. B. Buffers for all types of wetlands may be increased when the wetland is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland study by a qualified expert which documents the basis for such increased or decreased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive -eE- mannered species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. C. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site. A plan showing replacement vegetation shall be approved by the DCD Director. as- detewmieed-lay- the -D6D er- etheE-- pEetessieaaly Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner appl &cant -Low pewit must replace existing vegetation along the wetland with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 065A0106 4 9/27/90 3. NATURAL WATERCOURSE A. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. B. Buffers for natural watercourses may be increased when it is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a technical study by a qualified expert which documents the basis for such increased or decreased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i ) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive a -men tered species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. C. Any disturbance of the buffers for natural watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site. A plan showing proposed replacement vegetation shall be approved by the DCD Director. as determined-- by- tke-- BEB- 69E-- etkef- pfe €essienaly Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner applicant-ter-permit must replace existing vegetation along watercourses with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 4. AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY A. Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(5). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall include the minimum buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report of the site as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves development or future 065A0106 5 9/27/90 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive any of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant a step in the procedures. A. Pre - application Conference: At this conference the applicant and appropriate City department representative will discuss the requirements for development in a sensitive area, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and the applicable standards for the proposed development. B. Sensitive Areas Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. It is intended that sensitive areas and technical studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. C. Any new subdivision and multiple family residential proposal which includes sensitive areas on site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. D. Denial of Permit: A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. E. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - construction conferences prior to any work on the site. F. Construction Monitoring: The specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Other uses may be permitted consistent with the technical study required pursuant to this chapter and the underlying zoning. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities. B. Non - destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space. D. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping as approved by the DCD Director. E. Essential roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. 2. Administrative Review Required: The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director. A. Construction of new essential roads, rights -of way and utilities where no feasible-alternative exists,. B. Stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre- treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally 065A0106 6 9/27/90 3. Wetlands does not flow into a wetland must not be diverted to do so. A. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland and /or its buffer except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080.(1 and 2). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. For those wetlands which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study, alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan ensures that water quality and vegetation following the alteration or relocation will meet or be an enhancement of that which existed prior to such alteration or relocation. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a qualified expert. Any alteration or relocation shall ensure that water quality meets or exceeds that which existed prior to modification. B. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. (3) C. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. 065A0106 7 9/27/90 E. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. F. Dredging, digging or filling: 065A0106 8 9/27/90 9 /go /90 (1) Dredging, digging or filling within a wetland and its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: sue? 4. Natural Watercourses (A) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1) and 18.45.080(2); or (B) Maintenance of an existing wetland; or (C) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (D) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (E) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (F) Maintemance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alkteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lesened. AT--- Genera €t - -Ne- use- eE- deve €epment- mad*- eeeur- €R-- a- Ratural watereeafse-- ea- the-- prepeEty- prepesed-- €eE- develepmeat fde €€ Red-- as- a- watereeuEse-- Ret- med € € €ed-- by-maR- during the-- last-- twenty- € €ve -- *ears }T-- exeept-- as - -a€ €ewed -by Seat €eR- 481.45T088Tf4 }T -- ARC► -- use- eE- deve €epmeRt -a€ €ewed €s- subjeet -te- the - standards- a € -this- seer €env A. Diversion or Rerouting: (1) The existing course for any natuEa€ watercourse is highly preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can show that the rerouting maintains or enhances the value of the watercourse in water quality treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the diversity of wildlife and plant communities. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. (3) Any mitigation must have the construction completed before the existing watercourse can be dEa €Red. modified. (4) Any mitigation plan must have a written plan for monitoring and maintenance of the new construction and all funding necessary for the maintenance of the new construction and all funding necessary for the maintenance; which shall be guaranteed pursuant to Section 18.45.135. 065A0106 9 9/27/90 (5) B. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize, or where possible avoid, disturbance of the watercourse and its buffer; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the watercourse and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, watercourses and their buffers must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. (3) For those watercourses which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study , alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan ensures that water quality and vegetation following the alteration or relocation will meet or ne an enhancement of that which existed prior to such alteration or relocation. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a specialist in fisheries, wetland biology or hydrology and approved by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general watercourse quality would be maintained or improved by the alteration or relocation. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging filling alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetlands or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director. If the Ratural watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species, it shall not be rerouted. Any natural watercourse which does not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds, within 1000 feet downstream, a salmonids bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. C. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and Ret avoid restricting the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and 065A0106 10 9/27/90 D. Public Use and Access: (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the watercourse and its buffer. - - -aad iatesfelated-- wateE-- kabitat? Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, covered and uncovered viewing and seating areas, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect watercourses and their buffers by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (4) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (r) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas and must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. E. Piping: (1) Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if the applicant can show that mechanisms will be put into place as part of the construction process that will address: i) excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event, and ii) flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures; and (2) No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured; and (3) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, flow must be comparable. (4) Piping in a watercourse sensitive area shall require approval of the DCD Director. 065A0106 11 9/27/90 065A01 6 (F) F. Dredging, digging or filling: (1) Dredging, digging or filling within a watercourse and its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (A) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1) and 18.45.080(2); or (B) Maintenance of an existing watercourse; or (C) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (D) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (E) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or Maintemance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alkteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lesened. 5. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability A. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirements of a geotechnical study. B. Exemptions: Any slope which has been created through legal grading activities may be regraded under an approved permit. Any such slope which remains in excess of 40% in the absence of, or following, regrading this chapter. C. Alterations: (1) Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a (A) There is no evidence of past instability W earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development orsurrounding properties; or (B) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and40 surrounding properties is eliminated and slope stability is not decreased. (2) Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, 4ftare 6L 12 9/27/90 landscaping plan for the site shall include tree re- planting with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater, ofV'Aine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. D. Pre - application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(a), the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: * the requirements of other applicable ordinances; * the requirements of this chapter; * the soils report to be provided by the applicant; * when independent review of the geotechnical report is necessary; * the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; * the design of the proposed structure; * a proposed construction schedule; and * any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City. They shall also be documents of record relative to the application and distributed to the attendees and others identified at the meeting. E. Geotechnical Report: The owner shall submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the Director of the Department of Community Development for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. L Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent 065A0106 13 9/27/90 9 065A0106 �5> areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis should be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 and Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. t4, Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. Developers shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. 61) The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. ( 7.) An independent review of the geotechnical report's analysis, conclusions and recommendations of the site and for the proposed development will be required for all development in Class 4 areas and will be required for Class 2 and 3 areas when the geotechnical report reveals that the conditions of the site are Class 4 in character. The independent review will be performed by a qualified geotechnical consultant selected by the City and paid fqr by the applicant.-'' ' � 'U rr c i t tl li ! ' r ;_ ' , 6 ) ; 0 4/O F. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. When required' by the City the owner shall submit a complete set of , plans and specifications for the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from 14 9/27/90 �. • . yr I yr rvILA 6200 Southce .,r Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 9 MEMORANDUM Planning Commissioners O: _ _ Jim Haggerton, Chairman 'ROM: )ATE: ;OBJECT: Joan Hernandez September 26, 1990 SAO Process and Schedule '48 Proposed by Mayor Van Dusen September 20, 1990 The City Council discussed the Mayor's recommendation for the SAO schedule at the September 24, 1990 Committee of the Whole Meeting and arrived at the following modifications to his proposal: 1. The Planning Commission will continue with the following scheduled deliberations on their proposal to the City Council: September 20 and 27, October 4, 11, 18, and 25th. 2. The Planning Commission will forward their recommended SAO Ordinance to the City Council with or without further public hearings on or before November 1, 1990. 3. The City Council will extend the expiration moratorium until the adopted date of the SAO. 4. The City Council will hold a public hearing on as soon as possible. 5. The City Council will then deliberate and Ordinance. date of the the ordinance adopt an SAO Although the Planning Commission may not concur with these changes to the schedule, the Council felt they were necessary in order to allow more options and alternatives for the following reasons: 1. The Council is very interested in receiving the Planning Commission's recommendations; however, they do not want to commit themselves to holding a public hearing on the Planning Commission's version of the SAO. They have no objection to the Planning Commission holding their own public hearings on their recommendations. 2. Although it is possible that the Planning Commission's recommendation will be close to the adopted version, if major changes are made, the Council prefers to retain the option of holding public hearings on the version that is as close to the final version as possible. They feel it would be unfair to the public for the Council to hold public hearings on a version that may be substantially different than what is finally proposed. 3. By deleting reference to a specific date for ending the moratorium and coordinating it to end when the SAO is adopted, it will prevent us from having to deal with any further extensions of the moratorium. Thank you for your dedication in putting forth the extra time and effort this process is requiring. I hope this clarifies the reasons behind some of the modifications the Council felt were necessary for them to make. Although we may have some differences of opinion in the process, I think we can agree that it is in the best interests of our citizens if we can work out our differences in order to adopt the SAO ordinance and lift the moratorium as soon as possible. cc: Mayor Van Dusen Sincerely, Joan Hernandez Council President (206) 433 -1800 CITY OF TUfi GVILA 6200 .ti(J('TIICE.VTIiR10)1.7.I : l',-1RD. T!'h'IIY /.:1 II':1.tiUI.�'l;T�).V0 186 MINUTES CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 PHONE # 1206) -133-1)W0 Guru 1,. liuiDuscu, Mayor The meeting was called to order at 6:15 P.M. by Chairman, Jerry Hamilton. Members present were Messrs. Hamilton, Gomez, Knudson, Flesher and Malina. Representing the staff were Moira Bradshaw and Sylvia Appleton. MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 MEETING. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hamilton asked the City Attorney, Mr. Colgrove if the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the SAO would have any validity, assuming they used the Citizen Advisory Committee's draft as a baseline to make these recommendations. Mr. Colgrove noted that it did not matter as to how their recommendations were derived. Mr. Malina asked Mr. Colgrove if the City Council could modify, approve or disapprove of their recommendations without a public hearing. Mr. Colgrove felt they could do any one of these things without a • public hearing. Mr. Hamilton read a memorandum from Mayor Van Dusen to the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding a proposal for the SAO process. (See attached memo.) NR. FLESHER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Under Section 4, Page 10 of the Citizen Advisory Committee's draft, Mr. Hamilton suggested that the word, "Natural" be removed where a reference is made to "Natural Watercourse(s) ". The Planning Commissioners agreed to eliminate the word "natural ", and Moira noted that one could refer back to the definitional section for a precise definition of "watercourse ". Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 September 27, 1990 With regard to Section 4, "Watercourses ", page 10 of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO DELETE PARAGRAPH 4.a. "GENERAL ", AND REPLACING SECTION 4.b.(1) OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH SECTION E.1., PAGE 16 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.b.(2), page 10 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS SECTION OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.b.(3), page 10 of the Citizen's draft: MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS SECTION OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WORD "DRAINED" WITH THE WORD "MODIFIED ". MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.b.(4), page 10 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO REPLACE THIS SECTION OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH SECTION E.4., PAGE 14 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. KNUDSON OPPOSED. With regard to Section 4.b.(5), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO REPLACE THIS PARAGRAPH WITH THE SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS UNDER SECTION 3., PAGE 14 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.b.(6), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.b.(7), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.c.(1), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO PLACING A COMMA AFTER THE WORD "MINIMIZE" AND ADDING ";AND" AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.c.(2), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 September 20, 1990 With regard to Section 4.c.(3), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.c.(4), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.d MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE REPLACEMENT WORDS "AVOID RESTRICTING ". MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. .(1), page 11 of the Citizen's draft: THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT OF THE WORDS "NOT RESTRICT" WITH THE MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; With regard to Section 4.d.(2), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. NALINA MOVED TO REPLACE THIS PARAGRAPH WITH SECTION B.2., PAGE 15 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.d.(3), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO PLACING A PERIOD AFTER THE WORD "BUFFER" AND DELETING THE WORDS "AND INTERRELATED WATER HABITAT ". MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.d.(4), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO REPLACE THIS PARAGRAPH WITH SECTION B.4., PAGE 15 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Following a break, Mr. Hamilton noted that Laurie Pinard, an attorney for Segale, submitted a set of tapes from the September 6, 1990 Planning Commission public hearing to be added to the record. He noted they would accept the tapes, however, the City's tapes would be the "official" tapes. With regard to Section 4.e.(1), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH IT READING AS FOLLOWS: "PUBLIC ACCESS SHALL BE LIMITED TO TRAILS, BOARDWALKS, COVERED OR UNCOVERED VIEWING AND SEATING AREAS, AND DISPLAYS AND MUST BE LOCATED IN AREAS WHICH HAVE THE LOWEST SENSITIVITY TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE OR ALTERATION; AND ". MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.e.(2), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Page 4 With regard to Section 4.e.(3), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.e.(4), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO ADD A FIFTH PARAGRAPH [e.(5)] TO SECTION 4.e. OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. THIS PARAGRAPH WOULD BE TAKEN FROM SECTION C.7., PAGE 16 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.f.(1), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.f.(1)(i), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.f.(1)(ii), page 12 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.f.(2), page 13 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 4.f.(3), page 13 of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO ADDING THE WORDS "; AND TO THE END OF THE THIS PARAGRAPH, AS WELL AS, ADDING "; AND TO THE END OF PARAGRAPHS 4.f.(1), AND 4.f.(2) IN PLACE OF A PERIOD. MR. MALINA MOVED TO ADD A FOURTH PARAGRAPH [4.f.(4)] TO SECTION 4.f. OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. THIS PARAGRAPH WOULD BE TAKEN FROM F.4., PAGE 14 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT, DELETING THE WORDS "AND THE CITY COUNCIL" AND PLACING A PERIOD AFTER THE WORD "DIRECTOR ". THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 With regard to Section 4.g., page 13 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO REVISE THE TITLE OF SECTION 4.g. OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT TO READ: "DREDGING, DIGGING OR FILLING ". MR. RNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Page 5 The Planning Commissioners agreed to revise Section 4.g. of the Citizen's draft into an outline format. Thus, they referred to Section D.1. of the Segale draft, page 16, in making their motions. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.1., PAGE 16 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AND REMOVING THE WORD "WETLAND" FROM THE PARAGRAPH. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.1.(a) OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.1.(b) OF THE SEGALE DRAFT, REMOVING THE WORD "WETLAND" FROM THE PARAGRAPH. MR. RNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.1.(c) OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.1.(d) OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.1.(e) AND D.1.(f) OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.2. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 5.a., page 13 of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 5.b., page 13 of the Citizen's draft: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGING THE LAST TWO WORDS FROM "THESE RULES" TO THIS CHAPTER ". MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Section 5.c., pages 13 and 14 of the Citizen's draft: MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO TABLE SECTION 5.c. FOR NOW SO STAFF CAN RE- WRITE THE SECTION. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting Page,6 September 20, 1990 With regard to Section 5.d., page 13 of the Citizen's draft: MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO TABLE SECTION 5.d. TO HAVE STAFF RE -WRITE THE SECTION IN AN OUTLINE FORMAT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commissioners agreed to revise Section 5.e., page 14 of the Citizen's draft into an outline format. Thus, they referred to Section D., pages 18 and 19 of the Segale draft in making their motions. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.1., OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.2. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.3. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.4. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.5. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION D.6. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AS WRITTEN. MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO DELETE SECTION D.7. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED WITH MR. KNUDSON OPPOSED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO TABLE SECTION D.8. OF THE SEGALE DRAFT AND HAVE STAFF RE -WORD THE SECTION. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission agreed to meet at 6:00 P.M. on September 27, 1990 in Conference Room #3. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Sylvia Appleton • MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; MAYOR VANDUSEN SUBJ: SAO PROCESS DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 THE SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE IS REACHING A CONCLUSION. THERE ARE MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT NEED RESOLVING BEFORE FINAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADAPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SINCE THE ISSUE OF THE MORATORIUM HAS CREATED A CONFLICT IN THE PROCESS THE FOLLOWING IS MY RECOMMENDATION: 1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUE THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULED DELIBERATIONS ON THEIR PROPOSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SEPTEMBER 20 AND 27 OCTOBER 4, 11, 18 AND 25 2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDED SAO ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1990. 2. THE CITY COUNCIL, ON MY RECOMMENDATION, WILL EXTEND THE MORATORIUM OF THE SAO UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1991. 3. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL THEN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, EARLY IN NOVEMBER, ON THE ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 4. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL THEN DELIBERATE AND ADOPT A SAO ORDINANCE BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1990. I HAVE PRESENTED THIS RECOMMENDED PROCESS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 20 AND THEY HAVE CONCURRED WITH THE PROPOSAL. THE QUESTION IS, WILL THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO AGREE WITH MY RECOMMENDED PROCESS? I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS AN ..Nrutimu... mu'rlurl UN StPTElr BER 24, SUPPORTING THE ABOVE PROCESS.1 TO: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; MAYOR VANDUSEN SUBJ: SAO PROCESS DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 MEMORANDUM THE SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE IS REACHING A CONCLUSION. THERE ARE MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT NEED RESOLVING BEFORE FINAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADAPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SINCE THE ISSUE OF THE MORATORIUM HAS CREATED A CONFLICT IN THE PROCESS THE FOLLOWING IS MY RECOMMENDATION: 1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUE THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULED DELIBERATIONS ON THEIR PROPOSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SEPTEMBER 20 AND 27 OCTOBER 4, 11, 18 AND 25 2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDED SAO ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1990. 2. THE CITY COUNCIL, ON MY RECOMMENDATION, WILL EXTEND THE MORATORIUM OF THE SAO UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1991. 3. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL THEN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, EARLY IN NOVEMBER, ON THE ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 4. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL THEN DELIBERATE AND ADOPT A SAO ORDINANCE BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1990. I HAVE PRESENTED THIS RECOMMENDED PROCESS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 20 AND THEY HAVE CONCURRED WITH THE PROPOSAL. THE QUESTION IS, WILL THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO AGREE WITH. MY RECOMMENDED PROCESS? I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS AN A.AkOstrial, iJ1'1UV ON SEPTEMBER 24, SUPPORTING THE ABOVE PROCESS.1 September 20, 1990 Dear Mr. Hamilton: ney or Mario A. Segale, e Business Park, Segale, Inc. et al. LAURIE A. PINARD 18010 Southcenter Parkway • rukwila, Washington 9818 (206) 575 -3200 Mr. Jerry Hamilton Acting. Planning Commission Chairman City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Planning Commission Deliberations September 6, 1990 In as much as the "minutes" of the September 6, 1990 Planning Commission meeting are not a verbatim transcription of the testimony given, in the interest of accuracy, and so that no significant points are overlooked, we are providing for your use (and the use of the other Planning Commission members) a copy of tapes of the recorded testimony given at that hearing. These tapes are suitable for listening with any standard cassette player. Very truly yours, Attachments - Two (2) cassette tapes CITY OF TUKWILA G200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 I. Call to order. II. Attendance III. Approval of minutes from August 30, 1990 and September 6, 1990 public hearings. IV. Continuation of Deliberations. V. Establishment of dates for next meeting and /or second . public hearing. VI. Adjournment. PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, September 20, 1990; 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDnscn, Mayor CITY OF 7'UR it - ILA 62(J) O1 THCE'.\'Tfi /!'>O!'Llil':1Rl), T(KIt'll..l, II':ISN /. \Y;TO,\ .'!8R (Amended 9- 20 -90) CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 1710. \'E e l206v •1:13 • MM Gan. 1.. l a u i)u..'ru..l h,pnr The meeting was called to order at 8:04 P.M. by Jim Haggerton, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Malina, Knudson, Flesher. Mr. Kirsop arrived at approximately 8:30 P.M., while Mr. Gomez was excused. Representing the staff was Rick Beeler. Rick Beeler read two new letters which were submitted since the last meeting from Stuart McLeod and Don Miles. Rick also read two letters which were referred to at the last public hearing on August 30, 1990 from the Seattle Autobon Society, and Glenn Amster, representing Spieker Partners. These letters are attached. Mr. Haggerton opened the public meeting. M. Catherine Harris, 5610 S. 141, Tukwila: She noted that the City Council provided too little time to hold the public hearings and Planning Commission too little time to formulate its recommendations so that the Council can meet its self - imposed deadline for passage of this subject in the next few weeks. Time did not allow any single speaker to address all the concerns, inequities and other problems with this draft. Either we do or do not have an ordinance to address and it should be submitted to the public as such. The status of "draft" invites changes herein which may not be subject to public review and result in the public having to attempt to respond to unexpected differences in the versions meeting to meeting. The proper way to process this is to have the proposed ordinance and any changes thereto be made by formal amendment and public review. The usage of drafts is usually limited to internal processing prior to introduction to the public. In fact, this packet the "rainbow" version, does not even look like an ordinance. What we have here are amendments to three other city ordinances. Regarding due process, there's inadequate time from August 16, 1990 thru September 1990 for the public to understand, assimilate, research and respond to this mind boggling array of Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 September 9, 1990 different, detailed, confusing material. Many areas are vague and ambiguous. Municipal ordinances are supposed to contain one subject, yet what the public sees in this packet are at least three: zoning, subdivisions and plats, and environmental regulations. There wasn't a clue in the public notices that these three different subject were included, and in particular, the SEPA ordinance, it has no real connection to zoning. References were made to designated or sensitive areas relating to the existing zoning map. The designated classifications and areas were not referred to, and processed by the Planning Commission or considered and adopted by the Council as an individual and separate subject. There was no public participation and review of the formalization of what areas, and or things, are now considered sensitive. To develop an ordinance around the zoning code overlay map, called the sensitive areas overlay district, without due process is questionable procedure. There was no specific opportunity provided where a property owner was able to appeal or protest their inclusion in a designated sensitive area on the overlay zoning map. I challenge the legality of the overlay map to the zoning code map. Studies such as the Jones & Stokes, have not been specifically referred to and processed by the Planning Commission and acted upon by the Council and formally given status by adoption as an official working document of the City. Most of the designated, sensitive areas are mostly residential areas of varying degrees of zoning on mostly already developed areas. Anyone can be subject to this packet, although some business people may think they are unaffected. In my opinion, the color of structures and the determination of the types of plantings are not within the scope of legislation. This packet mandates what colors are acceptable and sets forth landscaping requirements. Changes in the PDR R1, would allow zero lot lines. We have side yard setbacks for reasons such as safety, has anyone consulted the fire department on this point? Has anyone consulted the insurance agencies regarding its input to zero lot lines? There is also the idea not to allow a structure on the ends of abudding culd -a -sacs because the City may someday want to have a thru street there. The City does not now have a future street program, this would seem to be a hit and miss, helter skelter street development system. I protest the imposition of a requirement that the owner and their successors or assignees be forced to forfeit and waive any claim against the City of Tukwila for issuance of a building permit if there is a loss or damage or property on or off the site. I also protest the provision requiring the total submission to the future and unknown amendments of this packet. Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 September 6, 1990 This packet holds little resemblance to the Citizen's Advisory Committee's version. This is considerably different. What was the purpose of that Committee? Was the Citizen's Committee just a sham on the part of the Council? This packet is different than that presented late last year, in that it contains considerable new material. The Determination of Non - Significance issued and appealed last year did not address this new material, so how can it still be applicable? A new or updated DNS or EIS has not been issued for the public to review and to be submitted to the SEPA process. I see this packet as a vehicle for the Council, with the support of some City employees to do what they are unable to otherwise do legally or are unwilling to do through bond issue or compensation or purchase of development rights, and that is to obtain open spaces and control of our property. Mr. Haggerton asked Rick if it had been historically true in the City of Tukwila, that an ordinance contain one subject. Rick noted that the question is what is a single subject? In this case, with review by the City attorney, the Sensitive Areas ordinance is basically one subject. Al Pieper, 17083 53rd Ave. S., Tukwila: With regard to the statement on page 8, item 6; " protect the community's resources and distinctive features of natural land and wooded hillsides which benefit all citizens ". If my land and its features benefit all citizens, how come I have to bear all the tax load? Our national constitution establishes, among other things, government by the people. We should be able to dictate what we want. I've heard no -one speak in favor of this ordinance. This indicates that there is no support for the ordinance. If this ordinance gets enacted into law, I suggest that the voting public remove every elected official that votes for it. If a person owns property with trees or streams or waterways; the taxes on such properties are as high or higher than similar property without trees or streams. The tax assessor does not recognize that development is restricted. You confiscate property rights without compensation. Although it is not the obligation of the City that property owners make money, it is also not the obligation of the City to deny them the particular opportunity to make money, and that's what this ordinance will do. Relative to paint colors, I will not allow you or anyone else to dictate to me what color to paint my house. I will plant or cut any tree of any size or species on my property that I see fit. If you compensate me, then you buy my rights and then I'll do what you want. If this ordinance had been in effect years ago, we could not have built City Hall. This ordinance is no good and Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 September 6, 1990 it should be trashed. Ron Smith, 17025 West Valley Hwy.: I am also here in my capacity as Chair of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce. As a member of Tukwila's business community, I would like to take the opportunity to urge the City to take its time to develop an ordinance that meets the needs of all Tukwila citizens. I do not believe the current ordinance before you meets those needs. The closest I've seen was the Citizen's Advisory Committee version. I suggest the City re -group to the Citizen's Advisory draft and build a realistic ordinance based on this document. Rick, I would like to know how much money has the City spent thus far attempting to develop an ordinance? I've heard a number of $200,000 in consulting fees. Is that a fairly accurate number? Rick stated that he didn't think the fees were that high. He also stated that they had not calculated the number of staff hours they've spent on it. It would be hard for me to venture a guess. Diane Deabo, 4628 S. 138th, Tukwila: I'm in a R1 zoning, it's residential and I like the proposal. I like the proposal for a lot of reasons, but there were things I disagreed with. I own 3/4 of an acre on a designated slope, 15 -40 degrees. My concern is that I may have common sense about removing trees from my land, but what I do on my land effects other people. A person who owns a grading /excavating company, bought two acres next to me and had dumped 27,000 cubic feet of dirt. He was granted permission from King County, before the annexation, to dump dirt on his property for a period of 5 to 7 years. His 1.67 acres, which he is going to develop or dump dirt on, sits on the bottom of my hillside and so any moving of the vegetation or the water down there affects my land and the two people surrounding the adjacent areas. I appealed that decision because there was no geotechnical reports and not alot of investigation about how his development was going to affect my land. I feel that this sensitive ordinance addresses some of the issues I'm concerned with. I do feel that people have a right to develop their land, but that should be balanced with who they're adjacent to. I have a college degree, but this document was very difficult to read. I'm not sure what it means to my land. I think this ordinance is too strict for some people, it should be done on a site -by -site basis. I feel that an environmental review should be done before the SEPA review process. Also, I think the Citizen Advisory Committee's version was less confusing. Mr. Knudson asked whether she was in favor or not in favor with the "rainbow" packet version. Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 September 6, 1990 Ms. Deabo indicated that she was in favor of having an ordinance which protected the regular property owner, but disagreed with some of it, such as lack of site -by -site decisions. Lorraine Hanson, 4661 S. 148th, Tukwila: My house isn't in a sensitive area, but the ravine behind my house is. I don't think the landowners in the newly annexed portion of Tukwila should be penalized with so many new ordinances that obviously did not apply to Tukwila prior to the annexation. We need more individual flexibility and the right to alter and improve our own property. I would like to be able to improve my property, cut a few trees, blackberries, and clean it up. I don't think it's fair. Mr. Malina asked if at anytime during the annexation, did anyone mention that there would be a sensitive area ordinance that may affect a lot of the residents in the area. Mrs. Hanson stated that she had heard about it from her neighbor. She agreed that there was a sensitive area to the east and to the south of her property. Laurie Pinard, 18010 Southcenter Pkwy., Tukwila: I am here on behalf of Mario Segale, M.A. Segale, Inc., Segale Business Park, and Segale family members who together with their relatives have resided in Tukwila for many years and continue to make their homes here. We've prepared from written materials which I will be explaining further in my remarks. (Ms. Pinard handed her materials to the Planning Commissioners, Rick Beeler, and Clerk). We wish to acknowledge and thank the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and the Planning Commission, and others who are working hard to try and achieve a workable process for establishing a sensitive area overlay zone and standards for the use and development of lands related to those zones. I have two areas of concern I wish to address. First, the issue of the opportunity for public involvement and input, or lack thereof, not only with regard to the documents before you tonight, but with regard to the entire scope of the legislative matters the city of Tukwila proposes relative to sensitive areas. As you are aware the City prepared an addendum to the original environmental checklist which was prepared relative to the City's sensitive area ordinance proposed. This addendum indicates that the City intends to legislate additional regulations related to the subject of sensitive areas and land uses within such areas; namely a clearing, grading and filling ordinance (also referred to as a Land Altering ordinance) and a tree preservation ordinance. Thus, the City has indicated that it regards these two additional ordinances as part of the whole sensitive areas package, and yet, neither of these are before you tonight. The provisions of the draft materials before you will be enforced Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 September 6, 1990 hand -in -hand with the Clearing, Grading and Filling and Tree Preservation ordinances yet to come. In our opinion it is impossible to thoroughly evaluate the sensitive areas ordinance legislation without taking into account all of its related parts. Without addressing specific procedural rules we'd just like to state that we feel strongly that the citizens of Tukwila and the planning Commission should have an opportunity to review these forth coming related land use ordinances. We encourage the Planning Commission to take whatever measures necessary to ensure that these other ordinances will receive appropriate public comment. Let me state that as between the City of Tukwila's August 16, 1990 version of the sensitive areas ordinance and the Citizen's version (March 22, 1990), we would prefer to see the Citizen's version enacted. It is a carefully drawn document and represents a reasonable approach to addressing Tukwila's unique sensitive areas. Recognizing, however, that the Planning Commission may disagree, for whatever reason, with our position, and recognizing that even were the Planning Commission to agree, the Tukwila City Council might not, we feel strongly that it is our responsibility to address ourselves to particular issues that concern us most. Although we have many concerns about the 8 -16 -90 SAO draft, I wish to address four particular provisions of the City's version of the SAO. Each of these provisions represents a significant departure from the Citizen's version which results in either arbitrary requirements or provisions which are unjustifiably inconsistent with the City's underlying zoning designations and its Comprehensive Plan (or both) depending upon the particular situation. The document each of you has received, legal sized, blue pages marked "September 6, 1990 - DRAFT" is the City's 8 -16 -90 version of the SAO including several levels of suggested changes: typographical and grammatical; those related to improved clarity of meaning and consistency; and the more meaty items, four of which I will now address. The City's version will create arbitrary and unscientific buffers for all wetlands in the City of Tukwila. These buffers will be either 25', 50', or 100' wide. In addition, the City proposes setbacks of either 10' or 15'. You say yes, but these buffers vary in width based upon the type of wetland, 1, 2, or 3 - and wetlands are classified based on a scientific procedure aren't they? While it may be true that the classification of a wetland as having a low, medium or high value may be based upon evaluation of scientific information, where is the scientific information which indicates that these wetland types need to have Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 September 6, 1990 25, 50 and 100 foot buffers and 10 -15 foot added as a mandatory setback? Folks, there is none. What the City has proposed is that we pick a number, use it as a buffer width and call it good. This is arbitrary and it does not function to further the stated purposes of the SAO. There are only 21 wetlands in the City of Tukwila, we suggest that these wetlands be evaluated individually and that buffers be established based upon these evaluations and that no additional setbacks be required. We believe buffers should vary, depending on conditions. In this way, a wetland which as been functioning well without the City's would -be prescribed buffer can continue to function without depriving the landowner, or adjacent landowner of development potential while at the same time providing for a functional and irregular buffer where site conditions indicate that such a buffer will protect and preserve the wetland. With regard to watercourse buffers, watercourses and wetlands are different and yet they are treated together in the SAO. The City's version of the SAO establishes arbitrary buffers for watercourses much the way it establishes arbitrary buffers for wetlands and with the same lack of scientific justification. With regard to reasonable use exceptions, both the City's and Citizen's versions recognize that the application of the provisions of the SAO have the risk of denying any reasonable use of a property within its zoning classification, however, each document resolves the predicament differently. The City's version provides that "development of a single family dwelling shall be allowed if application of this section would deny all other reasonable uses of the property based on the zoning ". In other words, if all else fails, you can still build a house. In our opinion, this is not an appropriate approach for an ordinance which purports to be comprehensive or for a situation which is very, very serious. We suggest that a procedure be implemented whereby in the event the application of the SAO would deny all reasonable use of the property, the property owner or the proponent of the development proposal may apply for a reasonable use exception. We suggest that such applications will be evaluated based on stated criteria which are both protective of the sensitive area in question and reasonable. This case by case approach is reasonable and in light of variable conditions which may exist, and provides a framework for decision making which may reduce the City's exposure to lawsuits filed on the basis of unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. Finally with regard to the provisions which relate to relocation Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 September 6, 1990 or alteration of wetlands or watercourses, page 12, section 3 of the City's draft following a general prohibition on use or development in a wetland, watercourse or its associated buffer, an exception is set forth: "alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan conclusively demonstrates that the change would be an improvement of the wetland or watercourse quantitative and qualitative functions and their buffers." We submit that this is unduly restrictive and that it would be impossible to "conclusively demonstrate" what this provision suggests. We have proposed alternative language which we believe makes more sense - i.e. that assurances be provided that the changes will result in the water and vegetative quality meeting or exceeding what was there before. I might add that these revised pages in any situation where a suggested deletion of the City's language is suggested, those words are stricken with a line through them and any area where additional language or substitute language is suggested, that language is shaded. Phil Swanburg, 14809 51st S., Tukwila: I feel the SAO suggested by the City Council unfairly targets a minority of the landowners in Tukwila. About 85% of the City has been developed. If the citizens of Tukwila want the nice setting and benefits of trees, we will plant trees on small lots, as well as large lots. Some of those restrictions do not apply to smaller lots. Another option is to purchase undeveloped areas and greenbelt at a fair compensation to those people who currently own them. I do think that tree renewal should be encouraged. I think the ordinance should include the language of being site specific. If the SAO were to go into effect, that would be the second down- zoning of my property which is in one of the annexation areas. When the annexation proposals went out there was promotional material by the City about annexation which said there would be no downzoning. Before the annexation vote, all the plans included some down- zoning, including my property. This ordinance will be doing the same thing. I'm concerned that insufficient numbers of the City Council are not listening to the concerns of those being affected by the elements of the SAO. Mr. Haggerton asked who had stated there would be no down- zoning. Mr. Swanburg stated that the promotional literature regarding the annexation indicated that there would be no down- zoning. Mr. Knudson asked what his zoning was prior to and after the annexation. Mr. Swanburg replied that before the annexation, his property was Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 September 6, 1990 zoned R -2400 and now it was R3. Stuart McLeod, 213 Lake Street S., Kirkland: I'm delighted to hear comments tonight pertaining to the mitigation opportunity with respect to wetlands and buffers. I think that's an issue that had been overlooked with respect to the SAO. Al White, 14202 149th P1. SE, Renton: I am the shared owner of a undeveloped 6 acre parcel in Tukwila. It has been designated a sensitive area, and lost its economic value. I'm an attorney and I estimate that it would take me approximately 20 hours to digest this SAO draft. My property taxes are going to be $1,000 a month. If you leave one reasonable use, put "a" house on the property, what reasonable person is going to purchase a piece of property for $365,000 and put "a" house on it? The citizens will argue that this SAO is the taking of property rights, we'll argue due process, we'll argue that it's not equal protection under the law since it only applies to proposed developments, not those areas which have already been developed. I think you've done a great job on this and spent lots of money, but I think they haven't taken into consideration the human values to the people who will be directly effected by the legislation. I have a $365,000 piece of property which isn't worth anything as far as I'm considered. There hasn't been a study done by the City of Tukwila as to the economic value of all this land effected by this. What is the economic base before this legislation and the study should include what is going to be the economic base after this is adopted. You're going to reduce the economic wealth of this community. You need to think about mitigation of the litigations you're going to get swamped with. There should be a guarantee clause in there and an economic clause to off -set any adjustments made. What you're doing is redistributing the wealth. On page one, item 2 it states that one goal of this SAO is to create regulations which balance the rights of property owners with public safety, public needs, and public responsibilities. This SAO doesn't do that. This SAO indicates credits will be given, but they don't say how much. I'm told I can build 12 houses on 6 acres of land, it's not economically feasible. The City would save itself a lot of problems if it would address the economic balance issue. There should be a clause regarding flexible zoning. Mr. Haggerton asked where his property was located and how it would be affected by the Sensitive ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 September 6, 1990 Mr. White stated it was on S. 65th, the old Watkins property. There's a man made pond on my property due to other developments around me. One of my neighbors decided he wanted to expand his backyard, so he cleared between 900 -1000 square feet of my land. He cut all my trees, but I can't? So now I have to sue him. Shirley Siegel, 5651 S. 144th, Tukwila: Mrs. Seal could not stay and left a letter for the record. John Welch: I've got 12 acres on Hwy. 99 upon which I planned to build an office building. I read the Citizen's Committee draft and was encouraged. That was a product of negotiation and expert testimony. It struck a balance between the private property owner and the environmentally sensitive issues. I'm also upset that it doesn't appear that the City Council has paid any attention to it. It's certainly not a part of the new ordinance. The main issue I liked about the Citizen's Committee draft was the variable buffers. The Jones and Stokes report goes into great detail about buffers and their values, but it was completely missing when it came to the ordinance that was drafted, it made no provision for quality of buffer. I have a suspicion this is not a sensitive areas ordinance, but a way to gain open space without paying for it. A few owners are asked to make a contribution for the whole city. My plea would be to try and keep it scientific. The Corps. of Engineers reports that two wetlands have disappeared in the State of Washington, so the hysteria we're feeling is unfounded. I'm concerned about table top sized wetlands. That gets the same 115' buffer on each side as Tukwila Pond or some other legitimate wetland. I certainly think there ought to be a minimum sized wetland. There is a concern to preserve the natural growth, the natural growth in my area is blackberries. They can pose a fire hazard when they dry out. It also mandates that there be no increase in the foot print of a home in a buffer or sensitive area. If you don't allow the increase of the foot print, you're going to guarantee that the 800' house remain that way. If they could expand the foot print, they'd have a contemporary home. It also creates a non- conforming use in the buffer and sensitive area. If the house burns down, you won't have the ability to rebuild it. I'm strictly opposed to regulating the color of buildings. I'm also confused about the 50% vegetation coverage. I did an informal study and I thought there was $700,000,000 worth of property impacted by the SAO and the moratorium. Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 September 6, 1990 Don Timosso, 13707 41st Ave. S., Tukwila: If the SAO gets adopted as it is, I'll be severely impacted. My property is on three different levels. With only 22 wetlands in the area, I think it's odd that the City is spending this much money for just 22 sites. This current SAO has too much impact on the residential areas and too restrictive. The Citizen's Advisory report looks much more liveable, as opposed to the current draft. Catherine Harris, 5610 S. 141st Tukwila: Laurie Pinard made reference to an addendum that had been prepared. I had gone to the Planning Dept. to ask if there was an addendum or anything added to or changed from the DNS that was put forth last fall and appealed. I was assured there was no addendum regarding the DNS statement. If there was an addendum, why has it not been made available to everyone. Mable Harris, 14301 Interurban Ave., Tukwila: I was a co -chair of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. I'm against mandating the color of buildings and restricting the cutting down of trees. I hope that the Council will take your recommendations, and I hope you will take our recommendations of what the Citizen's Advisory Committee prepared. Mr. Knudson asked Mrs. Harris's opinion of what was proposed after the Citizen's Advisory Committee prepared its draft. Mable Harris stated that the Council didn't really want what they gave them and that they made up their minds ahead of time. Along with our efforts were the efforts of professional groups who came to speak to us. I was very grateful for the professional's input. Mr. Knudson asked if anyone contacted her while they revised their proposed sensitive areas summary. Mrs. Harris replied that no -one had contacted her. I felt that we had prepared a document that would be very useful to the Council. Mr. Haggerton urged the public to share their comments and concerns with the City Council. He then closed the public hearing at 10:50 P.M. Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 1990 Page 12 MR. HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL BE NOTIFIED THAT THE RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE USING THE CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE DRAFT AS A BASELINE, AND THEY WILL BE MODIFYING THAT BASED ON THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE A RECOMMENDATION IS MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission announced that they would be meeting on September 13, 1990 at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers to begin their deliberations. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Sylvia Appleton, Administrative Secretary CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 To: The Tukwila Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Date: 14 September 1990 APPEALS PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Attached on yellow paper is the completed work from your meeting on September 13. Below are a couple of staff notes on the work completed to date. 1. In several instances, reference is made to a sensitive area study and a technical study. Staff assumes this is one study. For brevity and clarity, suggest that one title be used throughout document. 2. Under the USES and STANDARDS section (page 8): "Other uses may be permitted consistent with the technical study required pursuant to this chapter and underlying zoning." Does this mean the City will allow over water development or fill of wetlands and watercourses if the developer's consultant approves of such in the technical study and the use is permitted in the underlying zoning? This question is raised because the City has received studies which support these types of uses in these resources. 3. 18.45.080 (1) (e) page 8 would be a use permitted administratively and therefore ought to be moved to (2.) Below is information on the two issues discussed by the Planning Commission with a request for additional staff research. 18.45, Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, is being drafted as a new chapter of the zoning code; therefore any DCD Director's decision would be appealable to the Board of Adjustment as outlined in the Zoning Code chapter on appeals (TMC 18.90.) Since there are many administrative decisions made in a development process, an appeal may occur at any time. Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Current Use Assessment 18.45.010 Current Use Assessment The net result of the current use assessment program would be a lesser tax burden for the property owner who applys for and meets the open space criteria established by the city and a greater tax burden for the remaining property owners of the city. The proposed sensitive areas legislation effects water resources differently than geologic hazard areas, therefore the areas defined as meeting the open space criteria should be carefully examined for their policy implications. In order to facilitate and clarify the city's position with regard to open space tax breaks, the following could be inserted into the proposed ordinance: General: It is the intent of this section to implement RCW Chapter 84.34, as amended, by establishing criteria for applications for current use assessment on "open space ".. The provisions of RCW 84.34 and the regulations adopted thereunder and King County's provisions of R.C.C. 20.36 shall govern the matters not expressly covered in this section. Criteria for approval: The property contains wetlands, watercourses, geological and archeological sites and Class 4 geologic instability areas, as defined in TMC 18.06., as amended, and 1. a sensitive areas buffer is in place; and 2. density credits have not been awarded from the sensitive area. 4 . 9//3 through annexation, or to address changes in the ecology of the existing systems, the inventory can be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original study. If the study identifies wetlands or watercourses which can have compensatory mitigation, then the provisions of Sections 18.45.080(3)(b) and 18.45.080(4)(b) shall apply. 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18. 45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 1. 065A0106 General: a. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas, and (ii) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, and (iii)Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value, or (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are is permitted. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. b. Wetland and Natural Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and 4 9/17/90 065A0106 (iii)Stabilize banks, and (iv) Intercept fine sediments, and (i ) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. c. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii)Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (iv) Enhance the appearance of hillside development. 2. WETLANDS BUFFER See Addendum A, "Scope of Work, Wetlands and Watercourses." - 7 a. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. b. Buffers for all types of wetlands may be increased when the wetland is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland study by a qualified expert which documents the basis for such increased or decreased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive- er- menitered species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. c. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native 5 9/17/90 1 northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site. A plan showing replacement vegetation shall be approved by the DCD Director. as- determined -by- the - -DCD er- ether-- prefessieaaly Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner applicant-for permit must replace existing vegetation along the wetland with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 3. NATURAL WATERCOURSE BUFFERS a. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. b. Buffers for natural watercourses may be increased when it is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a technical study by a qualified expert which documents the basis for such increased or decreased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare or sensitive er- menitered species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. c. Any disturbance of the buffers for natural watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site. A plan showing proposed replacement vegetation shall be approved by the DCD Director. as determined - -by- the-- B6B -er -- ether- prefessieaalw Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or 065A0106 6 9/17/90 because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the property owner applieant--feE-permit must replace existing vegetation along watercourses with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 4. AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY A. Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(5). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall include the minimum buffer distances as defined with the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report of the site as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas or buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. If a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive any of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant a step in the procedures. A. Pre - application Conference: At this conference the applicant and appropriate City department representative will discuss the requirements for development in a sensitive area, the appropriate techniques and sutdies necessary and the applicable standards for the proposed development. B. Sensitive Areas and Technical Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. It is intended that sensitive areas and technical studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be 065A0106 7 9/17/90 undertaken early in the design stages of a project. C. Any new subdivision and multiple family residential proposal which includes sensitive areas on site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. D. Denial of Permit: A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. E Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - construction conferences prior to any work on the site. Construction Monitoring: The specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Other uses may be permitted consistent with the technical studies required pursuant to this chapter and the underlying zoning. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. a. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities b. Non - destructive education and research c. Passive recreation and open space mainteaaaee -et- existing- faellitles e. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping as approved by the DCD Director. f. Essential, roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. 2. Administrative Review Required: The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director. a. Construction of new essential roads, rights-of-way and utilities-- ineluding -- elevated -- reads- er-- bE ±dges7- -and aeeess-- Eeads - -en -- fill when no reaseaable -- feasible alternative existst -and 065A0106 8 9/17/90 alternative existst -aad b. Stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre- treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland must not be diverted to do 9X3 so. 3. Wetlands a. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland and /or its buffer except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080.(1). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. b. For those wetlands which are designated for potential modification according to the ranking system adopted as part of this ordinance, alteration and relocation may be allowed subject to an approved mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a qualified expert. Any alteration or relocation shall ensure that water quality meets or exceeds that which existed prior to modification. c. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. (3) d. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the 065A0106 9 9/17/90 TO: Mayor Van Dusen FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 14 September 1990 Subject: 13 September Planning Commission Sensitive Areas Meeting The meeting opened at 6 :00 p.m. and the first two hours were spent in general discussion of issues. The final two hours were spent fashioning a document which staff will be typing this week. Process George Malina started the meeting by making a motion that the PC start with the rainbow package because the testimony received had been directed towards it and because he was concerned about the Council's reaction to starting with the Citizen's Draft. The motion was seconded but did not pass. The Planning Commission did ask staff to clarify if the rainbow package was indeed a Council product. I confirmed that it was. Jim Haggerton commented that the product that the Council will get will be the Planning Commission's recommendation and will be a reflection of all the verbal testimony and written testimony received. The Planning Commission is in fact working from three documents and editing based on the testimony and their own opinions of appropriate regulation. The three documents are the Citizens Draft SAO, the Rainbow Package 8/16/90, and the Segale Draft SAO 9/6/90. Buffers Chose to go with the current process of allowing property owners to hire a biologist to make the decision of how wide the buffer should be. (This means there will never be a buffer wider than 25 feet and small residential building permits will be delayed and bear the cost of hiring someone to give them an opinion.) Tax relief Asked staff to report back with a recommendation on criteria and procedure for current use assessment on sensitive areas. Appeals Asked staff to report back on appeals of decisions; to whom would a property owner appeal a decision. 56 r re f The Planning Commission has completed the Buffer, Procedures and some of the Uses and Standards section of the proposed overlay zone. They anticipated it would take one additional evening; I however, anticipate it will take at least 2 and possibly 3. Jim Haggerton will be on vacation for the next 3 weeks and Jerry Hamilton will step into the role of chairman. There was no discussion about when they would hold another hearing. The meeting was continued to Thursday, 20 September at 6:00p.m. M b() a7 6 00.6 /let. /y2ta„A / a� e�L�s ay? ar�o y9r� r ,�eQ d/ � u/ill a�/��f 716 hq I/� 1/u/v ��o� /n � ee-� � � 2g-(a�iO1.2i ,ke in z/- Yae5 VA,aufk, / ibK eosi/e-ns pubA- luar/Yt rVia Hof Lei U/1�i/ as OeAlijiY ke,vo I miou/a 9be nged, tw-r, o ,i(14?‘ /v 01,,Votk/s / f/yt.1 b 1U6K•MmL, ups if �Co0Kw/ itievw#44x: I. Call to order. II. Attendance AGENDA PLANNING COMMISS Thursday, September 4, 1990; 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall III. Approval of minutes; August 30, 1990 and' September 6, 1990. IV. Deliberations V. Establishment of dates for next meeting and /or second public hearing. VI. Adjournment. Sensitive Areas Legislation Amendments Public Hearing Issue Summary Definitions 18.06.415 - Areas of Potential Geologic . instability are arbitrary classifications. (No recommendations made for alternatives.) A definition of critical wildlife is needed since it is used as a criteria for watercourse relocation. Watercourse definition should not include any watercourse that has been altered by man within last 25 years. (No definition of alteration proposed or if this means for the entire length or per lot.) There is scientific consensus that no wetland can be duplicated because of the complexity of natural systems; therefore mitigation should be defined using the SEPA definition: Avoid impact altogether Minimize impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of action. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute resources Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Constructed wetlands definition should be changed to delete sites that have been intentionally created as mitigation. Administrative Rather than setting a specific standard for buffer size adjacent to wetlands and watercourses, ordinance should allow developers to hire their own biologist to determine an appropriate size for a buffer. A standard buffer width should be set then allow it to be altered based on sensitivity of site (type 1, 2, 3 wetland ?); significance of area (to Tukwila ?) and the nature of the proposal (residential, commercial, industrial ?). Mitigation for wetland and watercourse destruction should have criteria for no net loss in acreage and function. A minimum of 1:1 acreage replacement should be specified; the ratio should be increased where off -site mitigation is proposed, project losses in wetland functions are anticipated or there will be a time lag between wetland loss and replacement ( such as a forested swamp) The use of buffers and setbacks adjacent to wetlands and watercourses is redundant. It is unclear as to who will decide when you may construct on grades exceeding 6 %. It is unclear as to who will decide which tree may be removed. Species listed as rare and sensitive are decided by professionals rather than through a public process; therefore, they are arbitrary and therefore should not be used. Monitored species are not species which are listed for their protection but are used as indicators of the health of a -2- environment and therefore should not be used. It would be inappropriate to use a species listed as threatened or endangered as a criteria preventing watercourse or wetland alteration because it may be listed as such by the state or federal government because of its degraded habitat. You would therefore be preventing an improvement of species habitats. Fluctuating water levels are okay and should be allowed in wetlands and watercourses. Water level changes can greatly modify a wetland by changing the wetland vegetation and reducing the variety which in turn alter wildlife habitat; therefore, stormwater detention facilities in wetlands should be permitted uses only where there is no feasible alternative and mitigation is provided. Wetlands and watercourses are different and should be addressed in separate sections. Trails and other public access facilities should only be permitted where no reasonable alternative exists. Regulations are too complicated for a developer to understand or to comply with. The Board of Adjustment would not understand the regulatory impact on property resources, lifestyle and future and therefore the Planning Commission would be a better decision maker for variances. The standard Zoning Code process of appeal of any DCD administrative decisions to the Board of Adjustment is flawed. Due to Planning Commission and City Council involvement in the legislative process they would be make better decisions and possibly prevent future litigation. -3- There is no process specified for reduction or increase in buffer widths. Policy The type of development on hillsides should be left to the individual and should not be a matter of public policy. Color should not be a part of BAR or Planning Commission development review. Tree planting should not be a matter of public review. The City should develop regulations that encourage tree removal. Tree retention should be regulated and any removal should address impacts to other properties. If a landowner finds his property devalued by the proposed regulations, than there ought to be a system of monetary return for him or her. Scientific support for buffers around wetlands or watercourses is not complete; therefore recommend that no buffers be required. Buffers should be to provide area for construction activity out of the wetland /watercourse area. The reasonable use exception section should allow more than a single family house in commercial and industrial areas. Zero -lot line development should not be allowed in single family districts. A minimum size for a regulated wetland should be decided. -4- 18.45.130 (1) requires developers to record site plans of sensitive sites in order to notify potential buyers and the Assessors office of the restrictions on the site. It does not seem appropriate to state that regulations amended in the future restrict the property. Procedure All legislation ought to be combined into one package (upcoming legislation includes tree preservation, land altering and stormwater). Zoning, subdivision, environmental codes ought to be treated separately. The public notice should be redone to more clearly state that the environmental and subdivision codes will be amended. The process needs to be broken down into a two -step procedure: 1. Hold public hearings on definitions, categories and maps. 2. Then holding a hearing on regulations for these areas. The city should provide tax credits and or purchase development rights of affected landowners. The city should provide additional time for public review and comment; suggest four months total or until November before further hearing. Exhibits 1. August 16, 1990 Proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation 2. Memorandum August 30, 1990 - Draft SAO Revisions 3. Memorandum August 30, 1990 - Draft SAO Issues for consideration -5- 4. Department of Ecology letter August 30, 1990. 5. Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce Comments August 30,1990 6. Norris & Mildred Saari letter August 30, 1990 7. Marie Gardner letter August 24, 1990 8. Craig Hittle letter 9. Mr. & Mrs. L. E. Crostick letter August 24, 1990 10. NC Machinery Site - Memorandum June 7, 1990 11. Joel Beneliel letter and photograph September 5, 1990 12. Glenn Amster letter July 26, 1990 13. Seattle Audubon Society letter July 30, 1990 14. Don Miles letter July 29 1990 15. M. Catherine Harris Comments August 30, 1990 16. Laurie Pinard September 6, 1990 Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance 17. Stuart McLeod letter August 29, 1990. 18. Shirley Siegel letter 19. John C. Strander letter August 30, 1990 -6 -. r CITY' OP 7'U II7LA )1TIIiE`. :u( CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 / I/O. F e " "i 433 "!.`+nu r;un 1.. Urnl hr;rn..11awr Representing the staff was Moira Bradshaw. The meeting was called to order at 6:15 P.M. by Jim Haggerton, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Knudson, Gomez, Malina, Kirsop, and Flesher. Mr. Hamilton was excused. MR. MALINA MOVED TO USE THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT ( "RAINBOW" PACKET) AS A BASELINE, RATHER THAN THE CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE PACKET. GEORGE GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION DID NOT PASS BY A VOTE OF 3 -2. MESSRS. HAGGERTON, KIRSOP, AND KNUDSON OPPOSED THE MOTION; MESSRS. MALINA AND GOMEZ APPROVED THE MOTION, WHILE MR. FLESHER ABSTAINED FROM VOTING. THERE WAS A MOTION TO WAIVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 30, 1990 AND SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 MEETINGS UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THEM. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Haggerton noted there were approximately ten or so items which the citizens were very concerned with. He noted they could start with those concerns, or run through the Citizen's draft item by item. With regard to the buffer issue, Mr. Haggerton thought some guidelines are needed. Mr. Flesher thought, however, the opposite was true since a geo -tech report would be needed anyway for developments in a sensitive area. Moira Bradshaw noted this would be a problem for the single family home owner who might want to do a remodel. She stated that if there were some minimum standard, then perhaps that could be varied if the need arose. She went on to say there were no formulas, or special measuring tapes with which to use. Therefore, your left with the opinion of an individual, and those opinions can vary from one person to another if you decide to let the property owner hire someone to make a recommendation. In situations where there are large scale projects, then utilizing a Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 September 13, 1990 wetland biologist might be appropriate. She noted it would not be a bad idea to provide some base with which they could go from. Mr. Malina suggested a grammatical correction on page 4 of the Citizen's draft. Under 18.45.040 in the paragraph which begins, "Provided however, that land alteration... ", the word "are" should be changed to "is ". Mr. Haggerton made reference to a comment made by the wetland biologist during the public hearing. He noted that in many cases the SAO turns around the original intent of wetland preservation. If certain structures exist on a wetland, then the SAO prevents them from being improved. He then asked if the Planning Commissioners were in agreement on a site -by -site buffer area. Everyone was in agreement. Mr. Haggerton went on to state the public was under the opinion there were no clear definitions for types 1, 2, and 3 watercourses and wetlands. Moira stated the Citizen's Committee recommended that a professional should go out and look at the specific resources that Tukwila has and come up with something unique for the Tukwila environment. Therefore, rating sheets were developed for the wetlands and watercourses and those sheets were tested with the lay person. She went on to say that a better job could be done,.in the Ordinance of referencing the report to clarify the definitions of types 1, 2, and 3. Moira said that the rating sheets themselves could be an attachment to the Ordinance. Mr. Malina reiterated staff's concern, from their memo to the Planning Commission dated August 30, 1990, that the City Council's draft is lacking language which would monitor the removal of vegetation for projects which do not require a permit. Moira stated that language could be added which provides authorization to the DCD to monitor the removal and replacement of vegetation where a permit is not required for a project. Mr. Haggerton asked the Commission's opinion regarding remuneration since it was a common concern of many citizens during the public hearings. Mr. Kirsop stated that their role is to keep the impact on the individual property owner to a reasonable amount, therefore, avoiding getting into the remuneration business. Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 September 13, 1990 Mr. Haggerton said he had heard of other jurisdictions reducing taxes on such properties, as a forts of remuneration. Moira stated that the State has passed a statute called Current Use Assessment. The procedure is that any property owner can apply for Current Use Assessment. The City would need to have some criteria for determining what would be recognized as open space4 lands. The City would have to look at the tax ramifications because we'd be taking reduced taxes from the assessed valuation. This option is available now. Mr. Kirsop asked if that applied without regard to the size of the parcel. Moira clarified that it does apply to timber lands and agricultural lands. There is no specific size limit on open space. The County, which as been using this program, would allow the current use assessment for open space lands if it was designated as some future potential site, as well as other criteria. There is a contract with conditions approved. The property owner would have to abide by those conditions or lose their current use status and pay back taxes for seven years with a 2% penalty clause. Mr. Haggerton asked if a study has been done to find out what the impact would be if those property owners impacted by the SAO were to want relief on current use status of their land. Moira indicated no study has be done. She went on to say she would study the current use assessment further and get back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation. Mr. Kirsop suggested that the word "monitored" be removed from page 5, section 2 b(ii) of the Citizen's draft. Mr. Malina noted that the Council's draft treats watercourses and wetlands the same, whereas, the Citizen's draft does not. He recommended that they treat each separately. Mr. Malina indicated he preferred the layout of the "Areas of Potential Geologic Instability" section in the City Council's draft over the Citizen's layout. He also stated that on page 7 of the Citizen's draft, the last sentence which begins, "Development proposals shall include... ", the word "with" should be replaced with "within ". Mr. Malina excused himself from the meeting at 8 :03 P.M. Following a break, Mr. Haggerton recommended that the Planning Commission ask for motions and have a vote on any changes or Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 September 13, 1990 deliberations. He then asked that they review the items already discussed. They began the review with the buffers issue. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO ADOPT PAGE 4 AND THE TOP SECTION OF PAGE 5, DOWN TO "WETLANDS BUFFER" OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 5, Section 2. "Wetlands Buffer" of the Citizen's draft: MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 2) "WETLANDS BUFFER" AS IN THE CITIZENS DRAFT ON PAGES 5 AND THE UPPER PORTION OF PAGE 6 SUBJECT TO: THE DELETION OF THE WORD "MONITORED" FROM 2 (b)(ii); ITEM 2 (c) A PERIOD SHOULD BE PLACED AFTER THE WORD "SITE" IN THE FIRST SENTENCE; THE NEXT SENTENCE SHOULD READ, "A PLAN SHOWING REPLACEMENT OF VEGETATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DCD" AND REMOVING THE WORDS, "OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL. "; ON PAGE 6, THE WORDS "APPLICANT FOR PERMIT" SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH "OWNER "; AND THE WORD "WATERCOURSES" SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH "WETLANDS ". MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 6, Section 3) "Natural Watercourse Buffers" of the Citizen's draft: MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO ADOPT SECTION 3) "NATURAL WATERCOURSE BUFFERS" WITH THE EXACT SAME CHANGES AS MADE IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 6, Section 4) "Areas of Potential Geologic Instability" of the Citizen's draft: MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 4) "AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY" OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT SUBJECT TO: THE WORD "WITH" BE REPLACED WITH " WITHIN" IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT PARAGRAPH; ALSO PARAGRAPH 3 (B), PAGE 10 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DRAFT, SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH THE WORDS AND BY A SITE VISIT" DELETED. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 7, Section 18.45.060 "Procedures" of the Citizen's draft: MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO REPLACE SECTION 18.45.060 "PROCEDURES" OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH THAT SAME SECTION IN THE SEGALE DRAFT WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: PARAGRAPH 5 BE DELETED; PARAGRAPH 6 WILL CONSIST OF ONLY THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE REMAINDER WHICH BEGINS "PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES..." WILL BE DELETED; ALSO, A SENTENCE READING "DEPENDING ON THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT, THE DCD DIRECTOR NAY WAIVE ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES." SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE END OF THE "GENERAL" PARAGRAPH AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCEDURES SECTION. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. §,* Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 September 13, 1990 With regard to Page 7, Section 18.45.080 "Uses and Standards ", item number 1. of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO REPLACE THIS SECTION OF THE:CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH THAT SAME SECTION ON PAGE 14 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED JJN NIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 7, Section 8.45.080 "Uses and Standards ", item number 2. of the Citizen's draft: MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO REPLACE THIS SECTION OF THE CI I$ N'S DRAFT WITH THAT SAME SECTION ON PAGE 14 OF THE SEGALE MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED IMOUSLY. With regard to Page 8, Section 3) "Wetlands" of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO REPLACE SECTIONS 3(a) and 3(b) OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS UNDER SECTION 3) OF "USES AND STANDARDS" ON PAGE 14 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. ALSO, TO ACCEPT THE CITIZEN'S VERSION OF 3(c) "ESSENTIAL UTILITIES ". MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 9, Section (d) "Essential Roads" of the Citizen's draft: MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO REPLACE THI /SECTION OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH SECTION 3(B) "ESSENTIAL S" ON PAGE 15 OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED - MOTION, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 9, Section (e) "Public Use and Access" of the Citizen's draft: MR. FLESHER MOVED TO ACCEPT SEC ON (e) "PUBLIC USE AND ACCESS" OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT. MR. RSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to Page 10, Section (f) "Dredging or filling within a wetland and its buffer may occur only the following purposes :" of the Citizen's drat( MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO REPLACE S SECTION OF THE CITIZEN'S DRAFT WITH SECTION 3(D) "DREDGI , DIGGING OR FILLING" OF THE SEGALE DRAFT. MR. KNUDSON SECOND D THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Haggerton noted that they would stop there for now and continue at Page 10, Section 4 "Natural Watercourses" of the Citizen's draft at the next meeting. The Planning Commission agreed to meet again on September 20, 1990 at 6 :00 P.M. to continue its deliberations. The meeting was adjourned at 10 :00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Sylvia Appleton, Administrative Secretary P(e) CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WA SHINGTON 98188 PHONE a (206) 433.1800 PUBLIC NOTICE PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS FOR THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT FILE NO. 89 -2 -CA: Sensitive Areas Overlay District The Tukwila Planning Commission will be conducting its deliberations for the Sensitive Areas. Ordinance on. September 13, 1990; 6 :00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington. No public testimony will be taken, the audience will observe and listen to deliberations. If you have any questions, please call: Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner Department of Community Development 431 -3670 Gary 1.. VanDuse,r, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA (PLANNING COMMISION) 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA. 98188 TO THE PLANNING CONMISION FOR PUBLIC RECORD Sept. 10, 1990 We feel the Sensitive Area Ordinance is unfair because you should not authorize rezoning properties sirniliar to the ones recently developed in Tukwila. It appears to us that this ordinance is against the people and it is a way to gain open space without paying for it! We are for the City of Tukwila to pay a fair price for green belts. For example, look at Queen Ann, West Seattle and Magnolia where obviously no land was undevelopable. I'm asking, just how manyyears must pass before you change the ord- inance and declare senitive areas developable? In the meantime, longtime residents who are the backbone of this community, have property that has lost its poten tial value and.. can cause severe hardships for these elderly people. Buffer Zones should be veiwed case by case with due con- sideration and flexibility for reasonable use. Buffer Zones in some cases are not necessary at all. If you have any questions,please call: 243 -4615 Keith & Lorraine Hanson 4661 So. 148th St. Tukwila, Wa. 98168 LIOM S E P 111990 PLANNING , 1908 _ BACKGROUND Part of the 1989 work program for the Department of Community Development (DCD) was to provide implementation for the Open Space and Natural Environment policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff published a draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance in October 1989 on which the Planning Commission held two public hearings in November 1989. Due to the community's interest in a greater degree of public involvement in the legislation process, the City Council formed a Citizens Advisory Committee who worked from January through March and produced a recommended Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. The Citizens Committee recommended and the City Council requested additional professional and technical information which was produced through several consultant contracts. The City Council also requested a study regarding hillside development. The recent public notice mailed to property owners discusses the four studies that were produced. The City Council compiled all of the information produced into a draft legislative proposal which was to be the subject for the Planning Commission Public Hearing on Wednesday, 25 July 1990. The Planning Commission postponed the above hearing until Thursday, August 30, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. The attached amendments to the Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental Codes reflect the latest changes to the draft and consequently are dated August 16,1990. LEGISLATION PROPOSAL The overall legislative goal is to: 1. Recognize that Tukwila lies in the center of an urban region that has already experienced tremendous natural system changes. Tukwila must accommodate and plan for increasing use and development and more clearly prioritize the preservation of its natural resources. 2. Create regulations that balance the existing private rights of property owners with public safety, public needs, and public responsibilities. The sensitive areas are identified in an overlay zone. All property within the City is already within a zoning district (such as R- 1 -7.2). The sensitive areas zone and its requirements will lay on top of existing zoning forming another layer of regulations. The proposed overlay zone will be a new chapter in the Zoning Code, that references other existing chapters within the code. Therefore, to understand developing on a sensitive areas site, one must become familiar with the Zoning Code. In addition, the existing Environmental and Subdivision Codes and the Planned Residential Development Chapter of the Zoning Code are modified to reflect and incorporate the sensitive areas policies and regulations. PROCESS City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS LEGISLATION SUMMARY The Planning Commission will take written comments up until the dose of the public hearing and will take oral testimony at the public hearing on Thursday, August 30, 1990. The hearing may be continued to another day, if needed, to accommodate all those who wish to testify. After deliberations, they will make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposal. All of their meetings are open to the public; however, at the close of the public hearing, no additional testimony will be allowed. The City Council will hold an additional hearing, then deliberate and adopt an ordinance. �'Nrgirl. f PROPOSED SENSITIVE( REAS LEGISLATION SU �" -:1 (continued) SUBDIVISION TEXT 1 The subdivision code is an existing ordinance which regulates the division of land into lots for sale. The subdivision text amendment shows the new wording in bold and strikes deleted language. The changes are to eliminate any conflict between the new sensitive areas proposal and existing code language and to strengthen subdivision design standards. A summary of the changes are as follows: • Replace "unsuitable land" section with sensitive areas language per the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. • Add a section that requires administrative review of PRDs for short plats with a public notice requirement. • Retain and replant vegetation as part of the initial design. • Street and utility construction and layout should reference Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. • Allow reduction of local access street right -of -way width to minimize impact to sensitive areas. • Allow increase in grade to 18% for no more than 200 feet subject to criteria, review and approval. • Create clear goal of integrated street system and circulation solutions as criteria for plat design. Establish cut and fill results as secondary concern. • Delete reference to "Community Assets" which suggests that "due regard" be shown towards sensitive areas and trees. • Lot arrangement should emphasize integration with existing neighborhood, avoid through lots or require down slope buffers. Eliminate flag lot design in favor of common access drives. • Require planting of trees in new plats. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1 The Planned Residential Development (PRD) is a design and development tool that provides flexibility for the developer, public design review for the City and an opportunity to have the site's characteristics govern the design rather than zoning code standards. The PRD process requires a public hearing, Planning Commission recommendation, then City Council approval. Procedure requirements of the proposed Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone would require PRD approval for new residential subdivisions and multiple - family developments within sensitive areas. 2 - August 16,1990 PROPOSED SENSIT _REM LEGISLATION SU ,:I (continued) The Tukwila Zoning Code has an existing PRD process. The PRD text amendment shows the new wording in bold and strikes deleted language. The following summary of changes would only apply to developments undergoing PRD review. • Delete the minimum site acreage and location requirements. • Allow flexibility in the yard requirements and in structure type in PRDs in R -1 zones to allow zero lot line developments and greater clustering ability. • Allow flexibility in height, parking (in multiple- family zones) and recreation space requirements on sensitive sites. • Require retention of vegetation on significant hillsides, and downslope and side yard buffers. • Specify acceptable ranges of chroma and value of building color for new developments. • Revise PRD review criteria of suitability of site for proposed development. • Establish 33 and 50 percent impervious surface requirements on sensitive sites for single - family and multiple - family, respectively. • Require boulevards with five foot medians on roads cut perpendicular to the topography and buffers on roads with significant cut and fill and retention wall requirements. • Modify criteria for density bonuses and open space location. • Revise approval authority from Council to DCD Director for PRD 6 month construction extension. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT TUKWILA IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE The Environmental Code is an existing ordinance which regulates the City's implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposed language is shown in bold and deleted language is stricken. A summary of the changes follows: • Change the definition of "environmentally sensitive areas" from those areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as "special development consideration" areas to the areas defined and mapped in the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. • Specify that a sensitive area study may be required when developing a sensitive area as part of the SEPA process. • Require applicant funding of an independent review by a geotechnical engineer for developments in Class 4 landslide hazard areas, with possible independent review in Class 2 and 3 landslide, seismic and coal mine hazard areas. • Identify the elements of a mitigation plan for alteration of a wetland or watercourse. - 3 - August 16, 1990 SUMMARY PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE TYPE OF AREA LANDSLIDE - PRONE AREAS SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS ARCHAEO- • LOGICAL AREA ABANDONED COAL MINE AREAS WETLANDS WATERCOURSES OBJECTIVES Ensure safe geologically stable development on- site. Prevent damage off -site from development within these areas. Minimize disruption and maintain vegetated character. Ensure seismically safe development Prevent disturbance of archaeological areas. Allow study, research, and salvage. Preserve significant useful sites. Prevent unsafe development due to subsidence. Provide flood attenuation and storage. Improve Tukwila and region's water quality. Maintain or enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat. Provide flood attenuation and storage. Improve Tukwila and region's water quality. Maintain or enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat. IDENTIFICATION City -wide mapping of 3 landslide categories where hazard is moderate, high and very high. Mapping elements included slope, geology and hydrology. City -wide mapping of areas where ground shaking and liquification potential is significant. Areas are generally underlain by soft or loose soils and have a shallow groundwater table. One known site within City. Comprehensive survey of City; located one area that is mapped. Federal Definition of Wetlands; 22 identified and mapped within City. A route formed by nature or modified by man generally consisting of a bed and banks throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally. Generally referred to as creeks or streams. Mapping in progress. IMPLEMENTATION Soil investigation and review. Establish permit review and construction procedures. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. Soil investigation and review. Establish permit review and construction procedures. Compliance with State laws and guidelines. Control development of historic sites in association with research community. Require site investigation at time of redevelopment or new development. Prevent development on portion of site that is a wetland and its buffer. Transfer development rights to other portion of site. Allow exceptions in certain circumstances. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. Prevent development or piping of portion of site that is a watercourse and its buffer. Transfer development rights to other portion of site. Allow exceptions in certain circumstances. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. - 4 - August 16,1990 Chapters: S� i SITIVE AREA ORD&ANCE DRAFT 8/16/90 Title 18 ZONING 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions Amend 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established -Map 18.10 R A District - Agricultural 18.12 R-1 District -- Single - family Residence 18.14 R-2 District - Two-family Residential 18.16 R-3 District - -Three and Four Family Dwellings 18.18 R-4 District -Low Apartments 18.20 RMH District - Multiple- residence High Density 18.26 P-0 District-Professional and Office District 18.28 C -1 District-Community Retail Business 18.30 C -2 District -- Regional Retail Business 18.34 C -P District-Planned Business Center 18.38 C -M District - Industrial Park 18.40 M -1 District-Light Industry 18.42 M -2 District -Heavy Industry 18.43 M -2L District -Heavy Industry /Special Landscaping 18.44 Shoreline Zone Add 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Amend 18.46 PRD-- Planned Residential Development 18.48 PMUD - Planned Mixed -use Development 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Regulations 18.52 Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements 18.56 Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 18.64 General Conditional Uses 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments 18.84 Requests for Changes in Zoning 18.88 Application Fees 18.90 Appeals 18.92 Public Notice of Hearing 18.96 Administration and Enforcement CHAPTER 18.45 18.06 Definitions '18.45.010 Purpose 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation and Applicability 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers 1. Purpose 2. Wetland and Watercourse A. Wetlands B. Watercourses C. Reduction D. Increase E. Maintenance 3. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands and Watercourses 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 5. Abandoned Mine Areas 6. Areas of Important Geological or Archaeological Evidence 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 1. General 2. Density Credits 3. Sensitive areas common tract restrictions 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 18.45.130 Recording 1. Procedure 2. Signage 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required ZONING CODE Chapter 18.06 Amended. . Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility, utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities defined in the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report by GeoEngineers dated May 1990 on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and includes the following: 1. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. 2. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. - 6 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 3. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 4. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. 18.06.185 Constructed Wetlands. Wetlands do not include those wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands, if permitted by the City. 18.06.385 "Impervious surface" Those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre- existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. The surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. • 18.06.650 Performance Standards. These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instability, abandoned coal mine areas, and important geological or archaeological sites. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means any portion of a sensitive area or land contiguous to a sensitive area that is required to be enhanced and /or left undisturbed in order to maintain the function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.935 Watercourses. 'Watercourses" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. 'Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered regulated wetlands. - 7 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone ZONING CODE Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Sensitive Area Overlay District is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. The standards are being set to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values these areas perform for the community and region. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and watercourses and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. • Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides which benefit all citizens. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeological sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation of this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on a sensitive area study; or B. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following: • Abandoned coal mines • Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class 2, 3, 4 and seismic instability areas. • Wetlands • Watercourses C. Is a site which contains archaeological remnants of value to the archaeological research community of colleges, universities, or a society of professional archaeologists. 2. For sensitive areas which may come into the City through annexation, or to address changes in the ecology of the existing systems, the inventory shall be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original studies list. 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. - 8 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 1. Purpose: A. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Sensitive area buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas, and (ii) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development, and (iii) Preserve the edge of the sensitive area for its critical habitat value, or (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are permitted. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. B. Wetland and Natural Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii) Stabilize banks, and Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (iv) Prevent erosion and increased surface water runoff that increase silt and contaminants. (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. C. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii) Prevent avoidable loss of or damage to property. (iv) Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (v) Protect Tukwila's amenity and identifying physical characteristic of wooded hillsides. 2. WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES BUFFERS General. The type of wetland or watercourse shall be determined by using the May 1990 report by Jones & Stokes Associates entitled "Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendation" on file with the Tukwila Department of Community Development. All development shall be setback 15 feet from the buffer. However single- family residences shall be set back 10 feet. Setbacks to buildings shall be measured to the foundation line. 9 August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 3. BUFFERS FOR AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY �... Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone A. For wetlands: 1. Type 1--100 foot wide buffer. 2. Type 2 -- 50 foot wide buffer. 3. Type 3 -- 25 foot wide buffer. B. For watercourses, the buffer shall be the greater of the following: 1. Type 1 Watercourse -- 70 feet 2. Type 2 Watercourse-35 feet 3. Type 3 Watercourse-15 feet 4. 25 feet from the top of slope, when the watercourse is within 25 feet of the toe of a 15% slope. C Buffer width reductions are negotiable only when topographical or existing conditions leave no alternative, or when essential roads and utilities as described in 18.45.080 are required. D. Buffers for all types of wetlands and watercourses may be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland or watercourse study by a qualified wetlands biologist or expert which documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland or watercourse which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. E. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the Director of the Department of Community Development (DCD Director). If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands and watercourses with comparable specimens approved by the City which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. A. Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(4). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall then include buffer distances as defined with the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the reports of the site by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. -10 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 18.45.060 PROCEDURES E. Essential right -of -way. Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply: 1. Pre- application conference with the appropriate City departments. At this conference the applicant and City representatives will discuss the requirements for development in a sensitive area, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and the applicable standards for the proposed development. 2. Sensitive Areas Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this Chapter, and any relevant City ordinances. It is intended that sensitive areas and technical studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 3. Any new subdivision and multiple family resi ik:r tial proposal which includes sensitive areas on site shall apply for Planned Residential Development and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. 4. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - development conferences prior to any work on the site. 5. Conditioning: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. 6. Denial of Permit: A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. Proposed developments in wetlands, watercourses, class 4 and seismic geological hazard areas and their buffers are assumed to carry a great potential for damaging the environment. The applicant in those areas must bear the burden of proof in assuring the safety and environmental sensitivity of his or her development. 7. Construction Monitoring: The geotechnical consultant or other specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Other uses may be permitted consistent with the technical study required pursuant to this chapter and the underlying zoning. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities, where no additional alterations or fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. B. Non - destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space. D. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping as approved by the Director of DCD. -11- August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 2. Administrative Review Required: The following uses may be permitted only after review and approval. A. DCD Director approval of stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre - treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland must not be diverted to do so. B. Essential utilities and roads where no feasible alternative exists and maintenance of existing facilities other than 1(a), as approved by the DCD Director and City Council. 3. Wetlands and Watercourses General: No use or development may occur in a wetland, watercourse and /or their buffers except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080.(1 and 2). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. For those wetlands and watercourses which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study, alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan conclusively demonstrates that the change would be an improvement of the wetland or watercourse quantitative and qualitative functions and their buffers. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a specialist in fisheries, wetland biology or hydrology and approved by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland or watercourse quality would be improved by the alteration or relocation. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetland or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director and the City Council. A. Essential Utilities Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland or watercourse disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland, watercourse and their buffers against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands and watercourse must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. B. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions in both the long and the short terms is accomplished. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and -12 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 C. Public Use and Access: Sensitive Areas Overla Zone (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland, watercourse or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to an approved plan by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland, watercourse or their buffers except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland, watercourse or their buffers must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. D. Dredging or filling 1. Dredging or filling within a wetland, watercourse and their buffers may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and City Council and only for the following purposes: (a) Uses permitted by 18.45.080(1); or (b) Maintenance of an existing wetland or water course; or (c) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (d) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (e) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila. 2. Any dredging or digging shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to do such maintenance at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. -13 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone E. Diversion or Rerouting of Watercourses: (1) The existing course for any natural watercourse is highly preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can show that the rerouting enhances the value of the watercourse in water quality treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the diversity of wildlife and plant communities. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director and the City Council. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. (3) Any mitigation must have the construction completed before the existing watercourse can be diverted. (4) Any mitigation plan must have a written plan for monitoring and maintenance of the new construction and all funding necessary for the maintenance of the new construction which shall be guaranteed pursuant to Section 18.45.135. (5) If the natural watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species, it shall not be rerouted. (6) Any natural watercourse which does not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds within 1000 feet downstream a salmonid bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. F. Piping (1) Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if the applicant can show that mechanisms will be put into place as part of the construction process that will address: a. excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event, b. flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. (2) No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured. (3) Water quality must be as good or better for any, water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, flow must be comparable. (4) Piping in a wetland or watercourse sensitive area shall be approved by the DCD Director and the City Council. 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability A. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which . contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirement of a geotechnical study. -14 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 (. Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone B. Alterations: Prior to preparation of a proposal involving alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant shall contact the City of Tukwila to discuss the overall feasibility, scope of special studies, and regulatory restrictions. Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a landscaping plan for the site shall be required, including both tree retention and replanting. In addition, live groundcover shall be planted in accordance with erosion control practices. Development proposals must demonstrate one of the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development. (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project is reduced to a level acceptable to the DCD Director. The development proposal should cause no increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation and should not decrease slope stability. The life span of the proposed development and of the proposed mitigation measures shall be discussed. Any anticipated requirements for maintenance, repair, or replacement of the mitigating measures over the anticipated life span of the project shall be discussed. C. Pre - application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(1) the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: the requirements of other applicable ordinances; the requirements of this chapter; the soils report to be provided by the applicant; the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; the design of the proposed structure; a proposed construction schedule; and any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City, and shall be documents of record relative to the application, distributed to the attenders and others identified at the meeting. D. Geotechnical Report: 1. The owner shall be responsible to submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in areas identified as Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the DCD Director for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. 2. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. 3. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 and Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. -15 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 -- Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 4. Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the • performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. 5. Developers shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. 6. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotec Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. 7. Reports prepared for development applications shall address comments received from the public and governmental agencies concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The City will require such supplements or amendments to the report as are needed to develop a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the soil conditions on the site. 8. Based on a review of the information contained in the geotechnical report and the site conditions, either the Public Works Director or the DCD Director may require an independent review of any such report on a site in a Class 2, 3, seismic or coal mine hazard area, and shall require such a review of reports regarding proposed development in all Class 4 landslide hazard areas. The independent review shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical consultant selected by the City and paid for by the applicant. The requirement for the independent review should be dearly and explicitly stated in the permit requirements, and may be required for any sensitive area development. E. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. 1. When required by the City the owner shall submit a complete set of plans and specifications for the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in their judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. -16 - August 16, 1990 CFIAPTER 18.45 ( ..- Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 2. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. 3. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. 4. The applicant and the owner of the site, if the owner is not the applicant, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, and prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. 5. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: (1) The legal description of the Property; (2) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; (3) A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (4) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. F. Assurance Devices. Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a p ermit in a area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the Department of Community Development Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. -17 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 5. Abandoned Mine Areas Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone G. Construction Monitoring: The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The owner shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. H. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor during construction compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the Department of Public Works at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical- related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Department of Community Development. Conditioning and Denial of Permits: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. A. Development of a site containing an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when a geotechnical report shows that significant risks associated with the abandoned mine working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval shall be granted from the DCD Director before any building or land altering permit processes begin. B. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical report. C. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. CHAPTER 18.45 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS /DENSITY CREDITS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 6. Areas of important geological or archaeological evidence. A. Any specific site or area which is designated as important to save as a record of our area's past by a qualified archaeologist, professional archaeologist or geologist, shall be deemed a sensitive area subject to controls on development. B. Development on a site determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or archaeological evidence, shall be prohibited until that evidence has been studied or researched for any valuable information about our history. Removal or salvage of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW 27.53. C. Once the geologic or archaeological evidence or articles have been studied or researched, or the importance of the site is declared to be marginal or not of use to the scientific community, development shall be allowed on the site. The DCD Director shall give the approval for development to begin on such a site. 1. A. Each owner of a building lot within the development proposal shall own an undivided interest in the common tract and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot. B. In development proposals for planned residential or mixed use developments, short subdivisions, subdivisions, or binding site plans, property owners may elect to establish a sensitive areas common tract. If such a common tract is established, the City of Tukwila may require the lot owners to enter into an agreement with the City to care for and protect the common tract. Alternatively, ownership may be transferred to a responsible entity acceptable to the City. C. Common tract restrictions for wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers shall appear on the face of all PRDs and PMUDs, subdivisions, short plats and binding site plans, and shall be recorded on all documents of title and record for all affected lots. . 2. Density Credits are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning. The calculation of density credit is determined by the ratio of non - sensitive areas to sensitive areas including buffers on any particular site. The development factor ratio is intended to provide a basis by which the development credit for the wetland, watercourse and associated buffers portion of the site is transferred to the buildable (non - sensitive area) portion of the site. a. Development Factor: WETLAND, WATERCOURSES, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS AS PERCENTAGE OF SITE PERCENT DENSITY ALLOWED ON BUILDABLE PORTION OF SITE 25% or less 100% 26% to 50% 75% 51% to 75% 50% 76% or more 25% b. Setbacks, height and other site development regulations except parking requirements may be modified to accommodate the allowable density credit. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the BAR, PRD or PMUD review process. The calculation of potential dwelling units in residential development proposals and building size in commercial and industrial development proposals shall be based on a 100% development factor for the wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers on the development proposal site. CHAPTER 18.45 ¶ Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.4 EXCEPTIONS 1. Conforming uses: All residential, commercial, and industrial development located in wetlands, natural watercourses and /or their buffers or areas of potential geologic instability and any buffer in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. 2. Modification of Existing Structures in Wetlands, Watercourses and their Buffers: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced provided that the new construction does not further intrude into a sensitive area or the required buffer. 3. Modification of Existing Structures in Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard Areas: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled provided that the new construction does not increase the potential of soil movement or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development. 4. Reasonable Use Exceptions: Development of a single family dwelling shall be allowed if application of this Section would deny all other reasonable uses of the property based on the zoning. 18.45.120 VARIANCES. The Board of Adjustment shall review requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless exempted in 18.45.115. 1. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. 18.45.125 APPEALS 1. Any proponent of a project who objects to or disagrees with an interpretation by the Department of Community Development of the sensitive areas maps as defined by Section 18.45.020, or decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, shall use the appeal process in the Section 18.90 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 18.45.130 RECORDING REQUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. On public property, the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any developable land will be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.135 ASSURANCE DEVICE 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City of Tukwila may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to City of Tukwila, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements of this Chapter. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. - 20 - August 16, 1990 fiL_ .. Sensitive Areas Overlay, Zone 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the DCD Director may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies. CHAPTER 18.45 CHAPTER 18.46 � Canned Residential Development Chapter 18.46 PRD -- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sections: DRAFT AMENDMENT Amend 18.46.010 Purpose. 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Amend 18.46.030 Permitted uses. Delete Delete Amend 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. Amend 18.46.070 Density standards. Amend 18.46.080 Open space. Delete 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. Amend 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. Add 18.46.112 Review Criteria 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City attorney. Amend 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. 18.46.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: (1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation, waterways, watercourses, wetlands, and views; (2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types; (3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements; (4) Create and /or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general public. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the following districts: (1) R -1 Single - family residential; (2) R -2 Two - family residential; (3) R -3 Three and four family residential; (4) R-4 Low apartments; (5) RMH Multiple - residence high density. (Ord. 1289 §1, 1983: Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are allowed in planned residential development: (1) In R -1 districts, single - family dwellings and duplexes; (2) In R-2, R -3, R-4, and RMH districts, residential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in which such residence is located, such as single - family residences, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; provided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels, and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded; - 22 - August 16,1990 CHAPTER 18.46 §1(par-t0982-): 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. (1) fanned Residential Development (3) Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature; (4) In planned residential developments of ten acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self - service laundries. (Ord. 1289 §2, 1983: Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this code are waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density. Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining natural resources, significant vegetation, and enhances views within the site without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in building height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface. Setbacks. Yard requirement provisions of TMC.18.50 shall be waived within the PRD however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. (2) Off - Street Parking. Off -street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of buildings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple family zoned sites with sensitive areas, 2 parking stalls per unit will be the maximum number of parking stalls allowed, with a 50% compact stalls allowance. In addition, parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be allowed, if the design does not affect circulation. (3) Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. (Ord. 1289 §4, 1983; Ord. 1247 §1(part),1982). (4) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed on sensitive areas sites will be 33% for each single family dwelling and 50% for each multi - family development. (5) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums for multi - family developments. - 23 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 C - ,anned Residential Development (6) Landscape and Site Treatment. Down slope and side yard buffers - Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape coverage of 25% of the structures at time of project completion with anticipated 40% coverage within 15 years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement. Any road or access drive which cuts perpendicular to a slope to the ridgeline of a hill shall have minimum five foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species that provides a branch pattern sufficient to provide at maturity, 50 % coverage of the pavement area. Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of northwest native plant species. (7) Board of Architectural Review review guidelines. The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. For areas of potential geologic instability, the following shall be in addition to the existing B.A.R. guideline retarding (4) Building Design (D) Colors shall be harmonious with a landscaped environment and use hues which have chromas which do not exceed 6 and values of between 4 and 5 according to the Munsell Color system. Other colors harmonious with the primary color may be used for accent. 18.46.070 Density standards. (1) The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. (2) ' . - • - - • - - , the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a minimum lot size -net less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); and (B) Advantage and enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, beams, watercourses, or other natural characteristics; and (C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; and (D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan; and (3) With reference to multiple - family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a dwelling unit density not more than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) A variety of housing types are offered; (B) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); (C) Advantage and enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses or other natural characteristics; (D) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; (E) Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan; 19 - 24 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 18.46.080 Open space. Each planned residential development shall provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site area for common open space which shall: (1) Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas; or (2) Incorporates and protects the environmentally sensitive areas on the site; (3) Networks with the trail system of the city and provides a connection and extension, if feasible; (4) If under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership; or (5) Held in common ownership by all of the owners of the development by means of a home owners or similar association. Such association shall be responsible for maintenance of the common open space; (6) Dedicated for public use, if acceptable to the city or other appropriate public agency. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). i•• propertic . ,anned Residential Development 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. A preapplication conference between representatives of the city and the potential applicant for a PRD is required prior to the acceptance of an application for PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the planning department at the written request of the potential applicant. All affected city departments shall be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint the applicant with the provisions of this section as well as other ordinances and regulations which would affect the property under consideration. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. The following procedure is required for approval of the planned residential development: CHAPTER 18.46 _mined Residential Development (1) Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the -planning Department of Community Development and which shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and by the following: (i) Justification for the density bonus, if requested by the applicant, (ii) Program for development including staging or timing of development, (iii) Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of the project, (iv) Basic content of any restrictive covenants, (v) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a home owners association, or similar association, condominium development or other means acceptable to the city; (vi) , An application for rezone may be submitted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be in addition to those of the PRD application; (vii) An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application. (2) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by city departments. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time. (3) Planning Commission Recommendation. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter and forward the report to the city council. (4) City Council Public Hearing. After receipt of the planning commission report, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed PRD as recommended by the planning commission. The city council shall give approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval to the proposed PRD. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). The PRD shall be an exception to the regulations to the extent that approved conditions of the PRD may modify and supersede the regulations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance. - 26 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Limed Residential Development 38.46.112 Review criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the proposed development plans and use the following criteria in their decision making. (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met; if appropriate; and (2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; and (3) Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; (4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter; (5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; (6) Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans; (7) For multiple family developments, compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050). 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by city council and city attorney. The restrictive covenants intended to be used by the applicant in a planned residential development (PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other structures thereon, must be approved by the city council and the city attorney before the issuance of any building permit. (Ord. 1289 §6, 1983). 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development: (1) Time Limitation. A complete application for the initial building permit shall be filed by the applicant within twelve months of the date on which the city council approved the PRD. An extension of time for submitting an application may be requested in writing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding six months may be granted by t by the Director of DCD. If application for the initial building permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan shall be considered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code. (2) Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the DCD and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the building code. (3) Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be included in the building permit application presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public dedication documents must be approved by the city council before the issuance of any building permits. (4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties, or other security device as shall be approved by the City Attorney, shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in the final plan. (5) Planning Department Action. The planning department shall determine whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in compliance with and carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Following approval of the planning department, the city clerk shall file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the city and the originals shall be recorded with the King County department of records and elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). - - 27 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 18.46.130 Minor and in jor adjustments. If minor adjustme is or changes are proposed following the approval of the PRD, by the city council as provide in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall be approved by the planning departm = t prior to the issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are those which may a fect the precise dimensions or siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic character • r arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development o open space provided. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the • lanning department, substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other sub tantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to make one or more major chang :, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.46.140 Expiration of Construction of im of the filing of the f extension of time f and such extension upon showing of g the date of filing of the official zoning 1247 §l(part), 1982). c armed Residential Development me limits. rovements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date al PRD plan by the city clerk as provided in Section 18.46.130.. An beginning construction may be requested in writing by the applicant, of exceeding six months may be granted by the planning commission d cause. If construction does not occur within eighteen months from RD plans by the city clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from ap and the zoning shall revert to the underlying designation. (Ord. CHAPTER 17.08 Chapters: Amend Amend Amend Title 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS DRAFT AMENDMENT 17.04 General Provisions 17.08 Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions 17.12 Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions 17.16 Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plan 17.20 Design Standards for the Subdivision of Land 17.24 Minimum Standards for Residential Subdivision Design 17.28 Minimum Standards for Commercial /Industrial Subdivision Design 17.32 Exceptions, Penalties, Severability, Liability Chapter 17.08 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR SHORT SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 17.08.010 Purpose. 17.08.020 Scope. Amend 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. Amend 17.08.040 Application requirements. 17.08.050 Fees. Amend 17.08.060 Review procedures. 17.08.070 Required improvements. 17.08.080 Filing of short plat. 17.08.090 Expiration period. 17.08.100 Limitations on further subdivision. 17.08.010 Purpose. The procedures regulating short subdivisions are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots while promoting the public health and general welfare and complying with provisions of RCW 58.17. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Subdivision 17.08.020 Scope. Any land being divided into four or fewer parcels, lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than twenty acres in size, and which has not been divided in a short subdivision within a period of five years, shall meet the requirements of this section. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. The following principles shall determine the acceptability of short subdivisions: (1) Create legal building sites with respect to zoning and health regulations; (2) Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel; (4) If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into consideration the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction, as well as the requirements of this code; (5) Make adequate provision for: drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes, as deemed necessary. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). (6) Comply with Chapter17.20, Design standards for the subdivision of land, and Chapters 17.24 and Chapter 17.28 Minimum standards for Residential and Commercial Subdivision Design, respectively. - 29 - August 16,1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision 17.08.040 Application requirements. (a) Application for a short subdivision shall be made with the planning division of the Department office of community development on forms prescribed by that office. Said application shall be accompanied by ten copies of the short subdivision plat. (b) If the subject site is within the sensitive area overlay zone, administrative review and approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall be required for the proposed short plat. The standards and criteria for PRD design and review are those listed in TMC 18.46. The procedure shall be those listed in 17.08.060. (c) The short subdivision plat shall conform to the following requirements: (1) Shall be a neat and accurate drawing by a land surveyor on reproducible material at a decimal scale. The plat map shall measure between eight and one -half inches by eleven inches and eight and one -half inches by fourteen inches. (2) Shall show how the proposed subdivision will be served by streets and utilities. (3) Each application shall be accompanied by a preliminary title report dated within thirty calendar days of the submission date. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.050 Fees. A nonrefundable application fee of fifty dollars shall accompany each and every application for short subdivision to cover costs of administration and inspection. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.060 Review procedures. (a) Referral to Other Departments. Upon receipt of an application for a short subdivision, the planning division of the Department office of community development shall transmit one copy of the application to each member of the short subdivision committee, and one copy to any department or agency deemed necessary. The application shall be transmitted at least five working days prior to the short subdivision committee meeting. (b) Notice to adjacent property owners. If a PRD is being processed as part of the short plat application per 17.08.040 (b), notice shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, fifteen days prior to the Short Subdivision Committee meeting, notifying them of the pending proposal and requesting comments. (c) Short Subdivision Committee. The short subdivision committee shall consist of the director of the office of community development, who shall be chairman; the public works director; and the fire chief; or their designated representatives. (d) Short Subdivision Committee Meeting. A meeting of the short subdivision committee, attended by the applicant at his option, shall be held no later than twenty calendar days from receipt of a complete application. Said meeting shall be open to the public. (1) Quorum. All members of the short subdivision committee or their representative must be present in order for action to be taken. (2) Action. The short subdivision committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for a short subdivision. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall be made at the meeting and the applicant notified in writing of such decision within three working days. An additional meeting may be called if a decision is not reached at the first meeting. The second meeting should be no later than seven days after the first meeting. An applicant may request to have an application on which the short subdivision committee has taken action reopened by the committee if it is found by the director of the office of community development and the applicant that new information has come to light that might affect the action taken by the short subdivision committee. (3) Appeal. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall.be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the planning commission within ten calendar days of the date of decision of the short subdivision committee. Said appeal shall be in writing to the planning commission and filed with the office of community development. The planning commission shall act on said appeal within forty calendar days unless an extension thereto is agreed to, in writing, by the applicant. The decision of the planning commission shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten calendar days, any aggrieved party files with the city clerk a written appeal addressed to the city council. The city council shall act on said appeal within twenty days of the date of appeal. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). - 30 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision 17.08.070 Required improvements. (a) Prior to recommending approval for any short subdivision, the short subdivision committee shall determine that the following improvements are available for each parcel created by the division of land: (1) Adequate water supply; (2) Adequate method of sewage disposal; (3) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; (4) Fire hydrants; (5) Adequate access to all parcels. Streets, alleys, and sidewalk improvements may be required by the short subdivision committee; (6) Provision for appropriate deed, dedication, and/ or easements. (b) Any and all improvements required pursuant to subsection (a) shall be as per the respective requirements of Chapters 17.20, 17.24 or 17.28 as appropriate for either the residential or commercial industry design standards. (c) Other improvements not specifically mentioned herein but found necessary due to conditions found on the site may be required. (d) Finished plans of all public improvements as installed shall be required before the city will accept the improvements. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.080 Filing of short plat. (a). All required improvements must be constructed by the applicant and accepted by the city, or a bond posted by the applicant for construction of same, prior to the short plat being filed. Said bond shall be in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of complete construction of such improvements as determined by the director of public works. (b) A short plat must be certified for filing by the chairman of the short subdivision committee before it is filed. (c) Short plats shall be filed by the applicant with the department of records and elections and a copy of the recorded instrument shall be returned to the office of community development prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with this filing. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.090 Expiration period. If the short plat is not filed within six months of the date of approval, the short plat shall be null and void. Upon written request by the subdivider, the short subdivision committee may grant one extension of not more than six months. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.100 Limitations on further subdivision. Any land subdivided under the requirements of this chapter shall not be further divided for a period of five years without following the procedures for subdivision. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). - 31- August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Chapter 17.20 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sections: 17.20.010 Purpose. Amend 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. Amend 17.20.040 Grading. Amend 17.20.050 Streets. 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. (a) Unsuitable Land. 9 Subdivision 17.20.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and provide vegetation. These are beneficial to the city in lessening the costs of development to the city as a whole, to the subdivider in creating an attractive and quality environment, and in attainment of the goals and objectives of the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to the Flood Zone Control Ordinance as defined in TMC 16.52, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Area Overlay zone, TMC 18.45, and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. (b) Trees. Every feasenable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on site as part of the preliminary plat application. . A tree retention/removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application. Such tree retention /removal plan shall assure the discriminate removal of significant trees. 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. (a) Buffer Between Uses. Where residential subdivisions are to be adjacent to multiple - family, commercial or industrial land use districts, and where natural separation does not exist, buffer strips shall be provided. - 32 - August 16, 1990 CHA1''TER 17.08 Subdivision (b) Conformity with Existing Plans. The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the city. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right -of -way or for easements to the city for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to and complement city ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.040 Grading. Prior to any grading within a proposed or approved subdivision, a grading permit shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.050 Streets. (a) Extension. Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the plat. Where appropriate, streets shall extended to the boundaries of the plat to insure access to neighboring properties. The City's goal is to have an integrated system of local streets rather than a system of cul -de -sacs. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective. However, in sensitive areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the standards and procedures of the sensitive areas overlay zone. (b) Names. All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval by the Department of o iee community development. (c) Intersections. . Any intersection of public streets, whatever the classification, shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset in so far as practical. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). CHAPTER 17.08 Sections: 17.24.010 Amend 17.24.020 17.24.030 Amend 17.24.040 Subdivision Chapter 17.24 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN Conformance required. Street layout. Private access roads. Public rights -of -way. 17.24.010 Conformance required. Any plat, subdivision or dedication for residential use shall be designed in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.020 Street layout. Street layout -should shall provide for the most advantageous development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where sensitive areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights -of -way in the sensitive areas overlay zone shall be followed. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.030 Private access roads. Private access roads may be authorized if: (a) allowing private access roads in the area being subdivided will not adversely affect future circulation in neighboring parcels of property; and (b) adequate and reasonable provisions are made for the future maintenance and repair of the proposed private access roads; and (c) the proposed private access roads can accommodate potential full (future) development on the lots created; and (d) the proposed private access roads do not serve more than four lots nor are more than two hundred feet in length. When private access roads are authorized, the easement width shall be a minimum of thirty feet and shall conform to the applicable standards for design alignment set forth in Chapter 17.24.040, subsection (b). (Ord. 1014 (part) , 1977). 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. (a) Right -of -way Width. Street widths may vary according to function, traffic generated and topography. The following minimum street widths for streets, as defined in the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan, shall apply unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the preliminary plat or by the short subdivision committee in the case of short plats. TYPE OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY PAVEMENT Major Arterial 80 feet 60 feet Secondary Arterial 75 feet 48 feet Collector 60 feet 36 feet Local Street 50 feet * 30 feet Cul- De-Sac Roadway 40 feet 26 feet Turnaround 80 feet diameter 60 feet diameter Alley 20 feet 15 feet * Right -of -way may be reduced to 40 feet with five foot easements on each side if the subject roadway will be traversing or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. - 34 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision (b) Design. The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the department of public works: (1) Street Intersection Offsets. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure less than two hundred fifty feet from centerline to centerline. (2) Cul -de -sacs. Cul -de -sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred feet unless authorized in accordance with Section 17.32.010. (3) Street Grades. Street grades shall standards-not exceed 15 percent. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18 percent, for not more than 200 feet when: (i) exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; and (ii) the greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive slopes;and (iii) the Fire Marshall grants approval. (4) Tangents. Minimum tangents shall conform to department of public works standards. (5) Horizontal Curves. Minimum curve radii shall conform to department of public works standards. (6) Vertical Curves. Changes in grade shall conform to department of public works standards. (c) Right -of -way Improvement. All right -of -way improvements shall conform to department of public works standards. (d) Utilities. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground and, if located within a sensitive area, shall be designed to meet the standards of the sensitive areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the department of public works; such installation shall be completed and approved prior to application of any surface materials. (1) Sanitary Sewers. Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the appropriate health agencies, sanitary sewers shall be provided at no cost to the city and designed in accordance with city standards. (2) Storm Drainage. An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water; the amount of runoff shall be determined by the rational method. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes. The diameter to be provided shall be determined by Manning's Equation, but in no case shall the inner diameter be less than twelve inches. (3) Water System. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with city standards. (e) Public Use and Service Areas. Due consideration shall be given by the subdivider to the allocation of adequately sized areas for public service or usage. (1) Easements. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the public works department. (f) Blocks. (1) Length. Blocks should not be less than three hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in length. Where circumstances warrant, the planning commission may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet nor more than fifteen feet in width dedicated in the city to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. (2) Width. Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the planning commission may approve a single tier. - 35 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Subdivision (g) Lots. (1) Arrangement. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each lot must have access to a public street that is approved at the time of plat review; however rather than designing flag lots, access shall be accomplished with common drive easements. Location of yards shall reflect the prevailing pattern within the neighborhood. For example, if adjacent developed lots front on the street the subdivision's lots fronting the street should also establish front yards for those lots. (2) Minimum Size. The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet or exceed the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. (3) Corner Lots. Corner lots may be required to be platted with additional width to allow for the additional side yard requirements. (4) Through Lots. Residential through lots are not encouraged and shall only be approved if there is a topographic or traffic safety concern preventing double tiered lots. Approved through lots shall be permitted access to only one street, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and shall provide a fifteen foot rear yard buffer of native vegetation. (5) Property. Corners at Intersections. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights -of -way shall have a minimum radius of twenty -five feet. (h) Trees. Each lot within a new subdivision shall be landscaped with at least one tree in the front yard to create a uniform streetscape. Installation shall be required per 17.12.040(3) (hi) Other Improvements. (1) Monuments. (A) Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior: monuments shall be located as determined by the department of public works. (B) All other lot corners shall be marked with suitable metal or wood markers. (2) Street Signs. The subdivider shall be responsible for the initial cost of any street name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, necessary in the subdivision as required by the department of public works. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). :August16,:1990.: CHAPTER 21.04 Title 21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Chapter 21.04 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DRAFT AMENDMENT State Environmental Policy Act Sections: 21.04.010 Adopted — Authority. 21.04.020 General provisions — Adoption by reference. 21.04.030 Definitions -- Adoption by reference. Amend 21.04.040 Definitions -- Additional. 21.04.050 Designation of responsible official. 21.04.060 Lead agency -- Determination -- Responsibilities. 21.04.070 Lead agency— Transfer of status to state agency. 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations — Adoption by reference. 21.04.090 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations —Time estimates. 21.04.100 Categorical exemptions — Adoption by reference. 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions — Flexible thresholds. 21.04.120 Categorical exemptions -- Determination. Amend 21.04.130 Threshold determination— Review at conceptual stage. Amend 21.04.140 Threshold determinations — Environmental checklist. 21.04.150 Threshold determinations — Mitigated DNS. 21.04.160 Documents required —SEPA decisions. 21.04.170 EIS — Adoption by reference. 21.04.180 EIS — Preparation. 21.04.190 EIS -- Additional elements. 21.04.200 EIS -- Commenting -- Adoption by reference. 21.04.210 Public notice — Procedure. 21.04.220 Consulted agency responsibilities—Official designated. . 21.04.230 Using existing environmental documents -- Adoption by reference. 21.04.240 SEPA—Decisions—Adoption by reference. 21.04.250 SEPA -- Decisions— Substantive authority. 21.04.260 SEPA-- Compliance— Adoption by reference. Amend 21.04.270 SEPA — Policies. 21.04.280 Appeals. 21.04.290 Notice — Statute of limitations. Amend 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. 21.04.310 Fees. 21.04.320 Forms — Adoption by reference. 21.04.330 Copies on file. 21.04.340 Severability. 21.04.010 Adopted—Authority. (a) The city adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197 -11 -904. This chapter contains the city's SEPA procedures and policies. (b) The SEPA rules contained in WAC Chapter 197 -11 must be used in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 1331 §1, 1984). 21.04.040 Definitions — Additional. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197 -11 -700 through 799, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise: - 37 - August 16,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act (1) "Department" means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order. (2) "Early notice" means the city's response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of the determination of significance likely for the applicant's proposal. (3) "Environmentally sensitive area" — see 21.04.300. (4) "Notice of action" means the notice of the time for commencing an appeal of a SEPA determination that the city or the applicant may give following final city action upon an application for a permit or approval when said permit or approval does not have a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing an appeal. (Ord. 1344 §1, 1985; Ord. 1331 §3, 1984). (5) "Official notice" means the notice that the city shall give of the date and place for commencing an appeal of final city action upon an application for a permit or approval where said permit or approval has a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing appeal. (6) "SEPA Rules" means WAC Chapter 197 -11 adopted by the Department of Ecology. 21.04.130 Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. (a) If the city's only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. (b) In addition to the environmental documents an applicant may be required to submit the following information: (1) Conceptual site plans and building plans; (2) Other information as the responsible official may determine. (Ord. 1344 §5, 1985; Ord. 1331 §9, 1984). (3) Environmentally sensitive areas studies as described in 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. 21.04.140 Threshold determinations—Environmental checklist. (a) A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197 -11 -960 with the following additions: (1) If the site is an environmentally sensitive area, a sensitive area study that meets the requirements of the SEPA official may be required. The SEPA official may waive any study requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a particular use or application. Environmentally sensitive area studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the geotechnical reports on Class 2 and 3 Landslide, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard areas may be required of the applicant; and will be required in Class 4 Landslide Hazard areas. (2) Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts; (3) Description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preferred course of action. (b) A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. (c) The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination. (d) For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide information as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal. - 38 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act (e) The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: (1) The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or (2) The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. (Ord. 1344 §7, 1985; Ord. 1331 §13, 1984). 21.04.150 Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. (a) The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant. (b) An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely. The request must: (1) Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and (2) Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal. (c) The responsible official's written response to the request for early notice shall: (1) State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and (2) State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and /or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. (d) When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. (1) If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required. (2) If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. (3) The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. (4) Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. (e) Mitigation plans for alterations to wetlands and streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: (1) Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (2) Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should indude a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (3) Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: (A) Maintain or better stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient. (B) Restore or plant native vegetation unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (C) Create an equivalent or better channel bed. (D) Create equivalent or better biofiltration. (E) Replace habitat value unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (F) Replace or lengthen horizontal alignment (meander length). - 39 - August 16, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 ` .- State Environmental Policy Act (4) Detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (5) Monitoring and/or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (6) Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. (e) The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fifteen days after the date of issuance. (f) Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of any license issued. (g) If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigation DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. (h) The city's written response under subsection (c) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 1344 §8, 1985; Ord. 1331 §14, 1984). 21.04.270 SEPA -- Policies. (a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. (b) The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: (1) Zoning Code -TMC Chapter 18:02; (2) Shoreline Master Plan-Ordinance 898; (3) Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan-Ordinance 1246; (4) Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan- Ordinance 1315; (5) Subdivision Ordinance -TMC Chapter 17.04; (6) Comprehensive Sewer Plan- Resolution 904; (7) Comprehensive Water Plan- Resolution 873; (8) Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition -Ordinance 1287; (9) Transportation Improvement Plan - Resolution 917; (10) Annexation Policy Plan- Resolution 626; (11) Sidewalk Ordinance - Ordinance 1233; (12) Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction - Ordinance 1250. (Ord. 1344 §14, 1985; Ord. 1331 §24, 1984). 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. (a) Environmentally sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and/or as defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 or hereinafter amended, designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded areas, the Green/Duwamish River and its shoreline zone as defined by the Tukwila Master Program. For each environmentally sensitive area, the categorical exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for these areas are: WAC 197 -11- 800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6)(a), (14(c), (24)(a) through (g), and (25)(d), (f), (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. - 40 August 16,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 (b) The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (c) Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. (Ord. 1344 §13, 1985; Ord. 1331 §30, 1984). State Environmental Policy Act CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 M E M O R A N D U M PHONE N (206) 433.1800 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick Beeler, Department of Community Development DATE: August 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance - Issues for Consideration Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Per your request at the prior work session the following are issues that staff is raising for your consideration to revise the August 16, 1990 draft SAO. These revisions are technical, procedural and related to policy and are intended to clarify the SAO for ease of understanding and administration. It is not our intent to change the substance or purpose of the draft SAO. Page 6. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. Is this definition clear enough or is the following clearer: " 'Essential right -of -way or utililty' means a necessary utility facililty, utililty system or street right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency and which is the least width and size necessary to accomplish the purpose of the essential right -of -way or utility." Page 7. A definition of "Sensitive Areas Study" should be added. This Study is referenced often in the SAO, but is not defined except on page 38, Section 21.04.140(a)(1). A good definition should be incorporated into a comprehensive definition. (xI6rr a Page 2 Page 10. Paragraph C, top of page. No process is specified for reduction or increase of wetland and watercourse buffers. Implied is that the Department of Community Development makes the decision. Is that satisfactory? Whatever process is preferred should be clearly specified. Page 10. Paragraph E, middle of page (second paragraph). Replacement of vegetation removed from the buffers is triggered when application is made for a permit. The type of permit is not specified. What if no permit is required? Should the requirement be inserted that any removed vegetation must be replaced as approved by the Department of Community Development? Page 11. 18.45.080.1, General, bottom of the page. "Other uses" is very open ended. Is that satisfactory? Wetland biologists argue against any disturbance of the buffer areas by any use. They also argue that this process negates the standard buffers of paragraph 2.A and B, page 10. A "technical study" should be replaced with "Sensitive Areas Study" to be consistent in the SAO. Page 12. Paragraph 2 A and B, top of page. The City Council is not an administrative body. The "City Council" should be removed Page 12. Paragraph 3, fourth paragraph, middle of the page. Mitigation plans under the SAO also fall under the purview of the State Environmental Policy Act. The latter is solely adminstrated by the Director of DCD. Requiring City Council approval of mitigation under the SAO may be interpreted to be in conflict with DCD's approval under SEPA. Do you feel this is a conflict that should be resolved? Page 3 Page 13. Paragraph D.1, top of page. Same as the prior concern of City Council approval when administrative review is already required under SEPA. Page 13. Paragraph D.1(a), bottom of the page. Do you want storm water detention and essential utilities and roads (18.45.080(2)) included in the "Uses permmited "? Page 14. Paragraph E(1), top of the page. Page 15. Paragraph 4.B(2), top of the page. Same concern of City Council verses administrative review and approval. Page 14. Paragraph F(4), bottom of page. Same concern of City Council verses administrative review and approval. Should the first sentence be amended to read: "The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project or other properties is reduced to a level acceptable to the DCD Director that will not decrease stability of the site or other properties ". This will protect adjacent properties as well as the site of the developmemnt. Page 16. Paragraph 8, bottom of the page. Should the last sentence be amended to read: "The requirement for the independent review should be made during the SEPA review process, and may be required for any sensitive area development." Page 4 The need for the "independent review" of a geotechnical engineer's findings and recommendations is not known until staff has reviewed the geotechnical report submitted under the SEPA review process. In some cases applicants begin the SEPA process prior to filing an application. Page 21. 18.45.135.2, top of the page. Should a final sentence be added: "Maintenance requirements are an ongoing obligation of the property owner and are mandatory after the 5 year monitoring period." This resolves the question of what happens after 5 years? Is maintenance no longer required? Or is it an ongoing, perpetual obligation? Page 38. Top of page. A definition of "Sensitive Areas Study" should be added. Page 39. 21.04.150(e), bottom of page. Should the following details be added to the mitigation plan: Timing. Replacement ratios. Qualitative or quantitative. Remedy for failure. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 M E M O R A N D U M PHONE # 1206) 433.1800 TO: Planning Commission Aga FROM: eeler, Department of Community Development DATE: August 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance Revisions The June 27, 1990 draft SAO was slightly revised to the current August 16, 1990 version. The revisions are minor and technical in nature and are summarized below: Gary L. VanDasc", Mayor Page 15. Paragraph B, top of the page, was inserted: "Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a landscaping plan for the site shall be required, including both tree retention and replanting. In addition, live groundcover shall be planted in accordance with erosion control practices." This revision deleted the earlier reference to a "Tree Preservation Ordinance" and replaced it with "erosion control practices." The revision also moved the above paragraph into Paragraph B from the earlier draft paragraph B(3). Old B(3) fit more appropriately in B. Page 32. Paragraph 17.20.020(b), lower middle of the page, was inserted: "A tree retention /removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application." This revision will require submittal of a tree retention /removal plan at the time of application for a preliminary plat. The existing ordinance leaves requirement of such a plan up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. The intent of the SAO is to get this information up front at the time application is made. Page 2 Page 33. Paragraph 17.20.040, top of page, was deleted: "City's Land Altering (Clearing, Grading & Filling) Ordinance." Reinserted was reference to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Page 38. Sections 21.04.020 and 21.04.030, bottom of the page, were deleted. These sections refered to sections of the Washington Administrative Code and are not a necessary part of this ordinance. r ' Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Ms. Moira Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Rntilnvard Tukwila, WA 98188 Section 18.06 Definition's L'. ! I. L. 0- 4.1-111 I h iLL MAR A l 1. OF WAWNC; 11.)N 1)1- 1'ARTMEN 1 OF r( moor h1dil S(OO 11V 11 • (Ey,nl WeghcNttm kbi H711 • put,) 45941000 August 33 ,19 90 Thank you for sending the Department of Ecology a copy of the City of Tukwila's proposed Sensitive Areas legislation. We fully support your efforts to adopt and amend ordinances regulating development in environmentally sensitive areas and are particularly pleased to see Om City take an active role in protecting the values and funntiona of wetlands'. We are also pleased Lo see the inclusion of wetland buffers within the protective provisions of this ordinance. The following specific comments may be helpful to you as you review the draft ordinances during the public hearing to be held on August- 30, 1990. Section 18.45.010 We recommend inclusion of a goal to "achieve no net loss in acreage and functions of Washington's remaining wetland base and the long-term goal to increase the quantity and quality of Washington's wetland resource: Luse". This goal has beau endorsed by Governor Gardner and has been adopted in the Puget Sound Water quality Management Plan. Losses of wetlands le the Puget Sound are continuing at an alarming rate and our ability to recreate wetlueeds that provide that same functions and values as those teat are lost is uncertain. Pg. 2, 185 Constructed Wetlands Pg. 3, 185 Wetland: The definition for "wetlands" established in the code describes marshes, bogs and swamps utilizing the regulatory definition of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Excluded from this definition are open water arc+ua and watercourses. Whilo watercourses have been picked up separately us a sensitive area, open water area's such as those found in Tukwila Pond will nut be covered. Moreover, ponds loon than 20 acres are not protected under the Shoreline Management Act. The city may wish to consider (as did the Washington Wetlands Forum) the addition of ponds less than 20 acres and their aquatic beds to the detinitluen of wetlands protected by this ordinance. Ms. Morin Bradshaw August 30, 1990 Page 2 Section 18 ` 45.040 Li. I i. L-. Lh 11- ''riI1 111-LL In addition, under the "wetland" definition, "constructed wetlands" aro not to be considered regulated wetlands. However, the definition for "constructed wetlands" includes wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas to mitigate irreversible impacts to wetlands. In order to ensure that the functions and acreage of the impacted wetland La retained, these wetlands should be permanently protected. I strongly recommend that the phrase "constructed wetland" be deleted and the assuciatedde£inition be included under the "wetland" definition and that protection of wetland created by mitigation be mandatory. 1.A. Sensitive Area Buffers -- Purpose. This section provides that buffers may be altered for necessary access, supplemental planting and apptuved land uses of 18.45.080. For all of the reasons listed under 1.A.(i) through (iv) buffers provide a critical function. 1 recommend that no alterations be permitted within buffets unless there are no feasible alternatives. Section 18.45.080 This section would allow the city to authorize nee and development in watlanc3nd\ their buffers which is offset by "mitigation ". Based upon the limited studies of restoration, creation and enhancement projects to date, there is_scientific consensus that no wetland can be duplicated . because of the complexity of natural systems. Because of the scientific uncertainty s urruundieig wetlands creation it is important that mitigation be defined according to and folluwing the sequence outlined in the SEPA definition of mitigation. As defined in SEPA, mitigation may include changing project plans, or selecting alternative sites to avoid or reduce adverse impacts, using preferred construction or management practices to reduce on -site and off -site effects, ur compensating for unavoidable wetlands losses. To ensure this, we recommend that Um general provisions be moditied to state "no use or development may uccur in a wetland or watercourse except where such a or development is unavoidable and unavoidable impacts have been companaated through deliberate wetlands creation, restoration or enhancement." f• Because of the uncertain success of wetland restoration, creation and enhancement projects, the ordinance should include standards related to replacement ratios, timing, wetland type, and location that will increase the potential for a quncessful project. a. A minimum of a 1:1 acreage replaceemeeut ratio should be ep.cifiod in order to meet the goal of no net loss of wet.lsi functions and values. Provisions should be included for increasing Use ratio where the success of the project is uncertain, off -situ mitigation is proposed, project losses in wetland functions are anticipated, of there will be a time lag between wetland loss and replacement. Under moat circumstances, a greater than 1 :1 acreage replacement is necessary. WE:dh 1_1;J JU Me. Moira Bradshaw August 30, 1990 Page 3 I I II '1 III I 1 ILL b. Replacement wetlands should replicate Ilea functions of th.. . impacted wetland whenever possible (in -kind preferred over ,,..put - of - kind) compensation). c. The location of the compensation aiiu sahnul d be at or adjacent to the impacted wetland (on-eaite preferred over elf- aitat) . d. Where feasible, wetland compenaallun should be completed . prior to activities that will impact wetlands, and immediately after aetivitieta that. temporarily disturb wetlanda . 2. Subsection A authorizes the use of wetlands and wetland buffors am storwwater detention areas so long as several performance standards aro met. It is important that such authorizations be carefully considered, Water level (changes can greatly modify a wetland. Fluctuating water levels will change" wetland vegetation favoring weedy species and reducing vegetative diversity. These changes alter fish and wildlife populations by eliminating or changing habitat. Stormwater detention facilities should only be authorized in a wetland where it can be shown that there are no feasible alLtu.j and mitigation is provided. Stormwater should be pre- treated prior to entering wetland •ysteae. 3. A and B Essential Utilities, Roads. Construction of utilities and roads should be avoided within wetlands and their buffers and authorized only when there are no practicable or reasonable alternative°. 3. C Public Use and Access. Trails and other public accost' facilities may provide access to wetlands which helps in educating the community about tho importance of wetlands. However, such facilities can have devastating impacts to sensitive wetland systems, especially where there are sensitive plant or wildlife communities. Trails and public access facilities should be avoidod within wetlands and their buffers and authorized only when there are no practicable or reasonable alternatives, I hope these comments are helpful to you in your deliberations. 1 would be happy to provide more detailed comments or suggestions. Please call me at (206) 493- 2681. Sincerely. L g4(.44.t wu -- ` " t cA01 14ar • Wendy Eliot Environmental Planner Shor.lands and'Coaatal Zone Management Program • SERVING: BURIEN SEATAC TUKWILA Southwek Aing County Chamber of Commerce COMMENTS TO CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE - THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1990 PRESENTED BY RON SMITH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHAIRMAN The Tukwila Local Government Committee of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce has followed the progress of this SAO ordinance with great care since it was first introduced last year. Members have attended City Council meetings, participated in the City's workshops, heard presentations from city staff, consultants and the Citizens Advisory Committee. We have also reviewed the numerous drafts as they were developed through this process. We recognize and support Tukwila's need to protect our wetlands, streams, watercourses and wildlife habitats. As Tukwila's corporate citizens, we too believe in protecting the environment. Tukwila is a highly urbanized area. Our community is a combination of residential and business areas and we must not only recognize this, but take it into consideration when dealing with the SAO ordinance. Together, we need to develop realistic regulations that meet the needs of all citizens, not legislation that is based on retaining a non - existant rural character. Based on our observations and understandings, we want to register our concerns about the latest draft of this proposed SAO ordinance, dated August 16, 1990. First, Wetlands and Watercourses have different characteristics and perform different functions. For better clarification, they should be treated seperately in the ordinance. Second, the Buffering provisions are cause for concern. The proposed ordinance requires both buffering and setbacks, which in our view, amount to double- buffering. We feel this approach is much too rigid, lacks the flexibility this issue requires, and may cause added economic hardships on the citizens of Tukwila. Third, a process needs to be created for granting Reasonable Uses of property. Commercial and industrial areas are pooly suited for single family home sites, yet this is the only alternative use identified in the proposed ordinance. Fourth, the Variance provisions are ambiguous. The legislative body granting these variances needs to understand how their decision may impact someone's property, resources, lifestyle and future. We believe that the Planning Commission is a more appropriate arena for variances to be granted than the Board of Adjustment. Fifth, the Appeals process is flawed. As it currently stands, the Planning Commission and the City Council are both removed from the process. Their participation ends with the passage of this ordinance. As both of these bodies have worked with this issue, they are better equipped to understand the exceptions that have been requested and grant a ruling that could eliminate future litigation. Burien: 15030 8th Avenue SW Burien WA 98166 Mailing: P.O. Box 58591 Seattle, WA 98138 (206) 244 -3160 Tukwila: 225 Tukwila Parkway Seafirst Bank @ Southcenter Tukwila, WA 98188 SERVING: BURIEN SEATAC TUKWILA Southweding County Chamber of Commerce CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 1990 SAO HEARING PAGE 2 The Chamber was concerned with the initial draft of this ordinance submitted by staff last year. The Council chartered a Citizens Advisory Committee, as recommended by the Chamber, and has spent a great deal of money on professional consultants to assist them in developing improvements to the staff's version. We were encouraged by the process and results of this exercise. The most recent version is, in our view, a major step backward. All around us other jurisdications are struggling with similar legislation. Tukwila has an opportunity to set a reasonable standard for others to follow by adopting an ordinance that is good for all of Tukwila. The citizens of Tukwila have no idea how they are personally impacted by this proposed ordinance. We urge you to use a complete and accurate inventory that identifies the sensitive areas. We urge you to use the results of the consultants studies, for which you have already paid. We urge you to utilize the improvements that came from those studies and were included in the work of the Citizens Advisory Committee's version. It may not be perfect, but it does recognize the developed character of Tukwila and is, in our view, a healthy, workable compromise that accomplishes the City's objectives. Again, let me reiterate the Chamber's support for the protection of Tukwila's environment, which we feel isn't recognized in the .current draft of this SAO ordinance, nor do we feel that the needs of all of Tukwila's citizens are considered. In closing, thank you for the opportunity for the Chamber to comment on this issue. Burien: 15030 8th Avenue SW Burien WA 98166 Mailing: P.O. Box 58591 Seattle, WA 98138 (206) 244 -3160 Tukwila: 225 Tukwila Parkway Seafirst Bank @ Southcenter Tukwila, WA 98188 August 30, 1990 Tukwila, Wash. Tukwila Planning Commision: We Feel this sensitive Area Legislation Proposal is too restfictive and all encompassing. All agree that the environment needs protecting and pollution of the rivers and streams must be stopped. However, this unwieldly and cumbersome document by Tukwila is bringing about hardships to the citizens and will result in the burden of courtcases, taking up the valuable time of the City Departments and employees. The Tukwila City Council has been against apartment and multifamily developments from before the latest annexations and it appears, this is more of the sane. Setting re;ulations on developments, such as; paint color, number and placement of trees, and the prohibiting of Cul de Sacs, goes way beyond the environmental protection plans of the State and Federal Government guidelines. How long before the city will tell private homes how to paint their houses and plant their yards? Green belts are fine, but it excessive restrictions means making some areas impossible to develop to their full potential, the owners should be compensated for their loss. Respectfully, Norris Saari Mildred Saari 13535 53rd Ave. So. Tukwila , Wash. afili3/ro ia- .TMVa..'.."F3: �1._ + '+ - �;Z ..�°�^YT. .�_^.�.'�'�4Y S. _«; s` s:+ F: �� ',C^.c*Y.?Y.`•- :f`+°?';:E!�•.. ��,'-! �e.'•`_.. MJ ,. ,YN!, ..�`•y }R'= Xt`.'.. � .'. CI 1 J \ i• z t r 11,. Afl '-:\tettNizV C. tz .1 , . t _. 4 rl \i,r.1 li4 ; z _ i'910{2 -1 • a 0 1,0-133-2,ktzt, 4 i' 7/4/t/ e u1 a4A o e:26-ee 44- 07d,-e4 . -6/ j ita.e,t. -z af tr./1/k eid-Leete -( 5:LA 7fle eVar-11-- (OZ- 574A, s. "iiiett);(A 49/ _ _ , _ettAz\A ______________ u ' -~ 8 -24 -90 Planning Commission City of Tukwila Tb: All members Because we will be out of town on you with our concerns as to the S While in general we feel that se feel even more strongly that no be put in a position of loss of because of this ordinance withou mental body responsible for that There are many people in the cit be able to develop or sell for d prived of the income from that p hire an attorney and /or go to co As to clearing, grading etc., we a case by case basis and should If the City is concerned about "' skyline appearance ,etc., and ar should first take a good hard lo great many private residences wi place such things as abatement p issues, grandma apartments to n. of these eyesores which exist. complexes are better kept and ma residences. Yet none of the abov and rat traps that exist. Quest being enforced with the staff we forcing one more piece of regula pay the bill ?? Respectfully. Mr. & Mrs. L.M. Crostick 14406 58th Ave. So. Tukwila, Wa. 98168 cc: All Planning Commission me City Mayor President of City Council • 0 EU 0U [ Auc 29 1994 CITY Or i.JK 'c'a`■LA PLANNING DEPT. Aug.3O, we instead are writing to nsitive Area Ordinance. sitive areas need protection, we e property owner should have to roperty value by sale or lease being compensated by the govern - loss by virtue of an SAO. that own property who will not velopment and should not be de- operty. Nor should they have to rt to prove their case of " "a taking' feel this issue should be handled on of be part of an SAO looking good" ie trees, building colors intent on creating a utopia, you k at the miserable condition of a hin the city limits. There are in ocedures, health warnings, junk car e a few that could eliminate a lot or the most part, the apartment house ntained than a large number of private are used to clean out the shacks on- if present ordinances are not have, how does the City plan on en- ion and in the end, who is going to 'bra eXiNB RICHARD S. WHITE WILLIAM A. HELSELL GARY F LINDEN HAROLD R. ROOKS JOHN E. EDERER THOMAS W. HUBER PHILLIP D. NOBLE DAVID F. JURCA LISH WHITSON LINDA J. COCHRAN RALPH J. BRINDLEY JOHN G. BERGMANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERD W. HENKE KAREN J. VANDERLAAN PAULINE V. SMETKA DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN L. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. KINSTLER FREDRICK D. HUEBNER DOUGLAS N. OWENS MARK F. RISING KEVIN L. STOCK ROBERT G. RUPP MANAGING DIRECTOR LAW OFFICES OF HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98111 1206) 292-1144 TELECOPIER (206) 340-0902 BELLEVUE OFFICE 909 BELLEVUE CORPORATE PLAZA 600 • 108TH AVE. N.E BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 292.1144 TELECOPIER (206) 455-3713 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: John Rabel Properties From: Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson Date: June 7, 1990 Re: NC Machinery Site -- Tukwila, Washington You have asked us to review the authority of a governmental body to regulate or prohibit the development of a man -made wetland. In this case, the City of Tukwila may attempt to apply its wetland development moratorium ordinance or other wetland regulation to the proposed NC Machinery site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of the West Valley Road and South 180th Street. We believe a court would hold the City's ordinance does not extend the City's jurisdiction to the control of a wetland artificially created by the City itself. Accordingly, the moratorium on development of wetlands should not bar construction on the NC Machinery site. When originally developed in the late 1970's, the property was subject to the City of Renton's requirement of the installation on 1 apb/7 PATRICIA E. ANDERSON DIRK A. BARTRAM SCOTT W. CAMPBELL B. JEFFREY CARL SCOTT E. COLLINS ANN G. COPLEY MARK C. DEAN ROBERT N. GELLATLY JANENE E. GORE JACKI L. KIRKLIN OUENTIN M. KNIPE DEBORAH L. MARTIN JOAN L. ROTH McCABE PAUL E. MURRAY LAURA F. PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON LINDA M. ROUBIK ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DODEL PAUL FETTERMAN C. JAMES FRUSH RUSSELL V. HOKANSON LLEWELYN G. PRITCHARD LLOYD SHORETT THOMAS TODD OF COUNSEL RONALD H. MENTELE 11975.19991 GEORGE W. MARTIN 11975.1990) the property of a storm retention and drainage system. The City of Renton is the predecessor to the City of Tukwila. Waters from the retention and drainage system were to drain into a drainage ditch existing along the east side of the property and running north, ultimately to discharge into the Green River system. Prior to the installation of the retention and drainage system, the property did not contain wetland vegetation or other wetland characteristics. However, the City of Renton and its successor, the City of Tukwila, have failed to maintain or have failed to require landowners to maintain the drainage ditch to which the system discharges. As a result of this maintenance failure, waters have backed up and become entrapped on the property, creating the saturated soil conditions necessary to support wetland vegetation. Accordingly, any wetland conditions existing on the property now are not natural, but are manmade. The law recognizes a distinction between a naturally existing wetland and an artificially created one. While the courts have recognized the government's right to regulate naturally occurring wetlands, subject to the just compensation requirements of the Constitution in appropriate case, they have been much more willing either to declare invalid the regulation or to award substantial damages for inverse condemnation when the property at issue contains a manmade rather than a naturally occurring wetland. This willingness is particularly evident when the wetland was created by governmental action in the first place. The case of United States v. Fort Pierre, 747 F. 2d 464 (8th 2 Cir. 1984) involved an attempt by the Army prevent the City of Fort Pierre from const wetland area. While the court conceded the the City attempted to build its roads, the e area had become a wetland as a result of dre by the Corps of Engineers. The court c Engineers had no jurisdiction to regulate th Corps itself had created the wetland as a maintenance. The court stated the intent adopting regulations for wetland developme artificially created wetlands, but to co naturally occurring wetland areas. The cou injustice to the property owner that would were allowed to create the very circumstan regulate without compensating the landowne This case involving the NC Machinery Fort Pierre case. Here, the City of Tu actions and those of its predecessor, the the wetland conditions on the site. It no the site as a wetland. In our view, the Cit a direct physical invasion of the proper compensation or equitable relief to the o City now to regulate the property as a we expand the City's jurisdiction to artific rather than confining to those naturally e injustice to the property owner would warr 3 Corps of Engineers to ucting roads across a rea was a wetland when idence established the ging operations nearby ncluded the Corps of s wetland, because the esult of routine river of the government in t was not to preserve trol the use only of t recognized the gross ccur if the government es it later sought to ite is similar to the wile, through its own ity of Renton, created may seek to regulate I s actions have caused y worthy in itself of er. An attempt by the land would effectively ally created wetlands, isting. The resulting nt a court action to seek the invalidation of the ordinance or the award of damages in compensation for the taking of the property. HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON By Danferd W. Henke 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 -3855 P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue, \VA 98009.9722 206 453 -1600 • FAX: 206 455-4105 September 5, 1990 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Rick: SPIEKER This is a reminder of your offer to supply copies of the Glenn Amster and Seattle Audubon Society letters of July, 1990 to the members of the Planning Commission. In addition, when we supplied the blown up photograph to the Commission at the August 30th hearing, it should have included a caption explaining that it depicts a view over the Pond, looking north, showing that the Target Store is completely obscured by the 25' vegetative buffer. Since the public hearing has been continued, would you kindly attach this explanation to the photograph. Thank you. SPIEKER PARTNERS oel Benoliel Partner JB:db cc: Glenn Amster, Esq. 1.E SEP 61990 CITY UP i 6i0A;tLA PLANNING DEPT. _.,.., txM l e/7 1/ 1.aw 01 fires • H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Ruilding, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 (206) 623 -1745 Facsimile (206) 623 -7789 July 26, 19 } 9.0- 97 , 11 , 7\y/R1 -- _ �7 . 1 l I Mr. Jack Flesher Mr. George Gomez JUL 3 1 1990 Mr. Jim Haggerton 1 - Mr. Jerry Hamilton ( -1 . ! Or- 1' Mr. Richard Kirsop PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Gerald Knudson Mr. George Malina Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation Honorable Commissioners: C Plf On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are writing to provide you with our comments on the proposed sensitive areas legislation (draft dated June 27, 1990). Spieker Partners owns the Tukwila Pond property. Construction of the first phase of the development on the property, Southcenter Plaza, is about to be completed, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is currently being prepared for the City on the proposed development of a small, 150 -room hotel on the west side of the property. The remainder of the property, including the Pond and associated wetlands, would not be altered. The proposed sensitive areas legislation would preclude development of the hotel project by requiring a buffer and setback that would consume a substantial portion of the remaining upland portion of the property. The application of the proposed ordinance to this property, therefore, is of great concern. In a community where the entire inventory of wetlands, particularly significant wetlands, can be easily identified, a generic assessment and standardized buffer system, like that recommended in the May 1990 report by Jones & Stokes Associates, entitled "Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations" ( "Report" herein), does not serve the community interest. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation adopts this strategy for addressing XH'ir is Tukwila Planning Commission July 26, 1990 Page 2 sensitive area issues in the City of Tukwila, thereby failing to achieve the legislative goal of balancing existing private property rights with the public interest. The proposed legislation, therefore, should be modified to provide for individual impact assessments and flexible protection measures before it is forwarded to the City Council. Background Tukwila Pond, deemed to be the most significant wetland in the City of Tukwila, also provides the most glaring example of the shortcomings of the recommendations to date. Prior to 1974, there was no pond at Tukwila Pond. For most of the year the property essentially was dry and used for agricultural purposes. A stormwater drainage channel which ran through a portion of the property moved surface water from the higher elevations on the southwest portion of the property to the northeast, across Andover Park West, and eventually into Gilliam Creek and the Green River by force of gravity. The drainage channel would periodically overflow during high water events and some localized flooding would occur both on the property and over Andover Park West. To prevent these occurrences, the City of Tukwila formed local improvement districts to reconstruct Andover Park West with appropriate stormwater utility facilities. The City's design for the Andover Park West improvements included an outlet to drain the subject site into the City's storm system because the elevated roadway improvements would obstruct the existing drainage channel and eliminate gravity as a means of draining the site. Apparently assuming that the site would be filled to an elevation equal to that of the surrounding properties, the drainage outlet was located at a relatively high elevation (approximately 1.5 feet higher than even the current elevation of Tukwila Pond). Because the site was not immediately graded and filled, and the outlet was designed to function only at a higher elevation, water began to accumulate and, together with the obstruction of the drainage channel, caused the creation of Tukwila Pond as we know it today. Tukwila Pond is a man -made phenomenon -- an impoundment of surface water artificially captured on an undeveloped site lying at an elevation well below that of adjacent properties. It is not physically connected to any active stream or water system. Tukwila Planning Commission July 26, 1990 Page 3 In 1987, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the property to identify the wetlands on the site which would be subject to the Corps permit program if development were to occur. Following this evaluation, the Corps determined that two areas, on the northern and western sides of the Pond, could be developed without invoking the Corps' jurisdiction. In 1988, after several development proposals by others proved unsuccessful, Spieker Partners announced plans to develop a retail shopping center on the northern portion of the site. Portions of the approximately 238,000 square foot project were to be built out on pilings over approximately 12% of the Pond. To mitigate for the loss of this open water, the proposal included the creation of approximately three -acres of pond /marsh area on the western portion of the site. Spieker Partners retained IES Associates to prepare a biological evaluation of the proposal. IES had done previous studies on the Pond, including a study for the City of Tukwila that was included in its draft environmental impact statement for the development of South 168th Street (1987). To provide a complete analysis of the shopping center proposal, IES also evaluated the impacts of an alternative development that was set back from the edge of the Pond, with no over -water development. The biological evaluation concluded, among other things, that the small amount of over -water structure was not expected to affect utilization of the area by wintering waterfowl or .-"otherwise significantly affect the Pond or its habitat functions. The assessment also indicated that the setback alternative would not impact the Pond and therefore did not warrant the creation of additional wetland habitat. Since the habitat to be created through the mitigation proposal would have increased the diversity of habitat on the site, the IES assessment concluded that the - , alternative actually could result in a net loss in habitat value for the entire site. In response to circulation of the biological evaluation and expanded checklist for the proposal, the Washington State Department of Wildlife stated that "[t]he document is well done and does a good job of laying out the expected impacts of this project." While recognizing that the proposal had the potential to produce significant impacts to the Tukwila Pond, the Department Tukwila Planning Commission July 26, 1990 Page 4 of Wildlife recognized that the proposed mitigation plan and habitat enhancement "will reduce and /or compensate for these impacts to the extent that fish, wildlife, and water resources will not be lost." Despite the conclusions of the environmental assessment, the proposal to develop over a portion of the Pond generated controversy. As a result, Spieker Partners modified the proposal to eliminate the over -water construction. The revised proposal included a 25 -foot vegetative buffer between the Pond and any structures. Since habitat replacement was no longer necessary, Spieker indicated that a second phase of development could occur on the 4 -acre, western portion of the site. Following evaluation of the environmental checklist for the first phase, the City of Tukwila issued a mitigated Determination of Non - Significance ( "DNS "), concluding that the proposal as conditioned would not cause a significant impact on the Tukwila Pond wetland or other elements of the environment. The DNS required conditions on water quality, replacement of natural vegetation, design modifications to limit human intrusion on the Pond and its habitat, and other things, to ensure no significant impacts would occur. In June 1989, as construction of the retail center progressed, Spieker submitted an environmental checklist to the City and proposed the second phase of development, a small, 150 - room hotel on the western portion of the site. Consistent with the mitigation required for the 14 -acre, first phase retail center development, the proposal included the same 25 -foot setback between the edge of the Pond and the hotel building. The remaining portions of the Pond and other wetland areas would be left in their natural condition. More than eight months after submittal of this second phase proposal, the City concluded that the hotel project would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (although f an EIS was not required for the significantly larger first phase , f S development) The EIS, which will include an updated biological � ,�,. � , p gical ,''' evaluation, is currently being prepared by the City's consultants. `%,'/In the meantime, the City Council has imposed a moratorium on _'?} development adjacent to sensitive areas and is now considering } g which, A; �• sensitive areas legislation which in its present form, would iv) effectively preclude development of the 4 -acre hotel project. Tukwila Planning Commission July 26, 1990 Page 5 Analysis and Recommendation Based on the history of this site, the environmental assessments which have previously taken place, and the City's own official actions, it is evident that the current, broad - based wetland evaluation and buffer recommendation as applied to Tukwila Pond is unsubstantiated and unwarranted. In a small community like Tukwila, where the entire inventory of wetlands can be easily identified, there is no reason to generalize and every reason to regulate on the basis of site and project specific information. The City of Tukwila is not King County; wetlands, and developments around wetlands, are not too numerous to evaluate on a case -by -case basis. The Jones & Stokes Report acknowledges that it is important to develop a regulatory system that is sensitive to the variability in the City's wetlands (p. 2). However, except for giving greater significance to smaller wetlands, the rating and buffer recommendations would apply equally within a large, rural jurisdiction. The Report recommends buffers which are consistent with those in King County, but the Planning Commission should consider buffers which are applicable in local jurisdictions with characteristics more similar to the City of Tukwila. Even in King County, a site - specific evaluation is part of the development approval process and in most urban settings modification to the recommended buffer is authorized where such relief is deemed appropriate by local officials. The Jones & Stokes Report, unfortunately, rejects the concept of a regulatory program which includes a variable buffer system. This position is somewhat inconsistent with other portions of the recommendation. The Report rejects variable buffers because "reducing or eliminating the buffer in one area cannot be compensated for by increasing its width in another area." (p. 14). On the same page, however, the Report urges the City to adopt an expanded buffer around Tukwila Pond "to compensate for buffer losses in other portions of the wetland." First, if the Tukwila Pond is a "relatively undisturbed system" (p. 2), there is no basis for seeking compensation for past disturbances, particularly when the "past disturbance" -- the first phase development of a project with a 25 -foot natural vegetative buffer -- was legally determined by the City to have no significant effect on the Pond. Secondly, if compensation for potential or actual wetland impacts is inappropriate, the previous suggestion Tukwila Planning Commission July 26, 1990 Page 6 that expanded buffers should be required around Tukwila Pond is not intended to compensate for past losses, but to penalize the second phase development proposal. Under the Report's recommenaation, this penalty would accrue regardless of whether the current owner caused the "past disturbance," and despite the fact that the previous development causing the "disturbance" presumably complied with all of the City's applicable regulations. This attempt to regulate development after the fact is certainly unwise and probably unlawful. The Report goes on to state that "[b]iologically, it does not make sense" to adopt a variable buffer system, that such a system is extremely difficult to enforce, and, again, citing previous activities, that allowing further encroachment "could" lead to severe wetland impacts. These generalizations are inconsistent- with_virtually every__ofher wetland_ regulatory scheme -and should not be incorporated into the City of Tukwila's`wetlarid` policies. If the objective of the City of Tukwila in developing a sensitive areas ordinance is to minimize impacts on natural resource areas with a view towards balancing private property rights, a fact - based, flexible buffer system should be substituted for the standardized approach suggested by the draft legislation. Applications for development proposals within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas could be required to include appropriate environmental assessments. The Planning Director should have the authority, based on a set of specific guidelines established by Ordinance, to impose appropriate mitigation taking into consideration the sensitivity of the site, the significance of the affected areas, the nature of the proposal, and other factors, including the effect and public benefit of proposed mitigation. In some instances, like Spieker's original, over - water proposal, encroachment on wetland areas may be appropriate if better habitat, both qualitatively and quantitatively, can be provided. In other circumstances, a buffer which varies from a standard width may permit development in one area and provide greater protection in another, perhaps more significant area. Tukwila Pond offers a good example of the benefits of this kind of approach. It is clear that additional development could occur on the west side of the Pond with a buffer consistent with that imposed on the north side without significant effects on the Pond or the existing habitat. In consideration for a reduced Tukwila Planning Commission July 26, 1990 Page 7 buffer width, the developer could be required to put permanent covenants in place to protect the remaining 22 -acres of the Pond and associated wetlands. The Report and resulting draft ordinance leave no room for this kind of flexibility and thereby foreclose the potential long -term benefits to the City and its citizens. These are not new or unique concepts. The notion of density credits, which are included in the new ordinance, is one method of providing flexibility. However, it does not take into account or leave room for development of a site which may be consumed in its entirety by a wetland, a buffer, a setback, and other City - imposed requirements. And while the ordinance suggests that buffer width reductions are negotiable (Section 18.45.040(2)(c)), it does not seem to provide any implementation of this policy. We have referred to a number of studies and documents in these comments which are in the City's files and we would ask that they be incorporated into the record of these proceedings. We hope that the Planning Commission will consider the evidence that has been accumulated over many years regarding the Tukwila Pond site, and the findings and decisions pertaining to the development of the non - sensitive areas adjacent to the Pond. We are deeply concerned by the proposed legislation because the Report upon which it is based seemingly ignores this information and proceeds to recommend a wetland buffer system which would deprive Spieker Partners of any reasonable use of its property. We would be happy to work with the City to revise the sensitive areas legislation to provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate the City of Tukwila's unique resources, including Tukwila Pond. In the meantime, we look forward to answering any questions you may have at the forthcoming public hearing. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Ve truly a; Amster cc: Joel Benoliel Rick Beeler, Planning Director/ 302896 09:08'90 1:29 FAX 1206 035 x103 Oc�ule Audubon 3,3ocetg Washinton Nonprofit Corporation , �. 0 • Seattle, WA %Oa • 2061„16-1-6,60S d2.$ -35 'r9acti.C. iect5 $Z3-44$3 July 30, 1990 Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington RP: Proposed Sensitive Areas Regulations 3FIEKER PARTNERS 444 'TUK PUB WORKS L1UO2%OU:s Dear Commissioners: Seattle Audubon Society has reviewed the proposed regulations developed to provide more stringent protection for sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila. We look at this proposal with high regard and we admire the City for finally attempting to institute some kind of defined regulatory control. As you know Seattle Audubon Society has and continues to be concerned with project proposals within the City. We wholeheartedly support the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance, in concept, and therefor request that you consider the comments contained in this letter before finalizing these regulations. We are concerned that the proposed regulations have precluded some level of flexibility that would offer equal or greater long term protection for sensitive areas within the City. For instance there is no provision for flexible wetland buffer standards. This type of flexibility may be justified if certain buffer enhancements were deemed appropriate. Such enhancement Could entail restoration of wetland and buffer functions utilizing such measures as replacement or addition of vegetation. Strict maintenance of water quality and quantity, if this activity could be provided outside of any required buffer area, may also diminish the necessity for large buffer requirements. Although the concepts of buffer enhancement and water quantity /quality protection may not be appropriate in all situations the decision to allow such flexibility would' require that the design be submitted by competent professionals. Further, any offer by a proponent that will offer permanent protection for a large portion of a sensitive area should be considered. Permanent protection could provide long term IM i 09/06/90 ... TAX rIIDZ 433 410f STIZAER P.TFc'INEK ►; ; T�It PEE Wokk5 003 , 1)03 protection that trameends the regulatory scheme whether or not additional regulation changes the use in the future. Ideally a combination of these, or similar, flexible standards should be required in order for a proponent to qualify. Such concepts as vegetative enhancement and strict controls of water quality and quantity must also require that performance standards be imposed so that corrective action can be taken if there are any problems with any accepted design. These comments are intended to be general in nature and we hope they are of some value to you. There is much to consider when developing this kind of land use regulation and Seattle Audubon Society desires to share our experience in participating in a variety of jurisdictional concepts similar to those of the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, Gerry Adams President Honorable Members of the City of Tukwila Planning Commission Ref: Public Hearing Proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation 29 August 1990 15828 SE 24th St Bellevue, WA 98008 I have been in review of the Sensitive Areas Overlay and would like to provide input on a phase of involvement which I believe is missing. It would appear from its writing that legislation assumes that all wetlands or streams are in pristine condition. In fact it is usually the opposite in that the area has been used as a dumping ground or it is land perhaps altered in some manner ultimately becoming vegetated in some mono culture. I believe that it is very important to include a section which allows modification or mitigation. It should allow staff to improve the quality of the specific area through some type of review process. It should allow the staff to be able to negotiate such as improving buffers with planting to achieve the best setting while perhaps altering any set back which might be required. To create an unimproved no -mans land with minimal landscaping may offer little in the way of habitat. It would benefit the wildlife and ultimately the environment more by encouraging wildlife enhancing vegetation in the buffer as a trade for a reduced setback. I believe that it is as important to consider the quality of wildlife habitat as it is to set aside specific areas. Just as people, the basic need for wildlife are food, water, shelter and space. It takes a combination of all to achieve a balanced setting. The wetland edge and the buffer are the most suited to receive the replanting of the native species of vegetation. Original functional values of the wetland and even water courses should be restored. If the quality of the of the wetland has been totally spoiled then perhaps even replacement inkind of a site known to be valuable to the City should be considered. Enhancement should be encouraged when possible. The encouragement to the developer should be something which achieves his goal or perhaps improves the project. To accomplish the task the Planning Staff must have the ability to make trades in values. ag /6 Jr r N Ccv N Q. •._. . . 1• The Washington State Dept of Wildlife offers assistance in the urban habitat restoration and mitigation. They can provide both examples and provide information to achieve habitat improvement. Mr Steve Penland (775 -1311) an urban biologist or Bob Ziegler (753 - 5700) a wetland biologist may be contacte for further data or input. Public Hearing, Planning Commission, August 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Sensitive Areas Ordinance Comments submitted by M. Catherine Harris, 5610 So. 141st St., Tuklala, WA This Planning Commission has been placed in a difficult position in that the Tukwila City Council wants the Planning Commission to process a draft ordinance; yet the Council provided too little time for adequate public hea it s `36 .41,4. - oe C'cqu n e: l can net e,4 t �s 5e1� - Imposed d ‹ 0.0014.10 ;Ain. 44.4 u and Planning Commission time to formulate its recommendations: Tonight, time does not allow any single speaker to address all concerns, inequities and other problems with this draft; however I do invite your attention to some, as follows: A. I take issue with the status of a DRAFT ordinance upon which to base a public hearing. Either we do or do not have an ordinance to address, and it should be submitted to the public as such. The status of "DRAFT" invites changes herein which may not be subject to public review, and result in the public having to attenptttdlreppopdntotunexpentied different versions from meeting to meeting. The proper way to process this is to have a proposed ordinance, and any changes thereto be made by formal amendment in public review. The usage of drafts is usually ,limited to J fi rs- GC, 4.11 s e e k internal processing prior to introduction to the public.loo/' late '."%- r c �t.�e e m5 4 Y . e I,or' 16. B. Regarding Due Process, some comments: There is inadequate time, from August 16, 1990 through September 1990 for the public to assimilate, under- stand, research and respond to this min•'�fboggling array of different, detailed, confusing material. Many areas are vague and ambigious; i.e., Pg , 18.45.1 .5 Appeals - does this mean objects to 6Wing included in the Sensitive Areas Map, or objects to and disagrees with the interpretation of the Dept. of Comm. Dev.? It is Burdensome in that there is too much and different material to reasonably understand, and for a person seeking a building permit to comply with. It is Burdensorfein that it requires too great a cost for developers of small business, apartments, and :Ot's ` r.. { single homes. It would discourage construction, thus achieving the real purpose of no new development, and retain open spaces. Municipal ordinances are supposed to contain one subject; yet what the public sees in this packet are at least three: Title 18 - Zoning; Title 17 - Subdivi- sions and Plats; and Title D∎, Environmental Regulations, the SEPA. On the two public notices I received in the mail ;(copies attached) File No.89 -),- CA Sensitive Areas Overlay District was indicated. There wasn't a clue that these three different subjects are included; in particular the SEPA Ordinance, in that it has no real connection to Zoning. C. Throughout this packet, reference is made to "Designated Sensitive Areas" relating to the existing Zoning Map. The "Designated" classifica- tions and areas were not referred to and processed by the Planning Commis- sion or considered and adopted by the Council as an individual and separate subject. There was no public participation and review of the formulation of what areas and /or things are now considered 'sensitive'. Th compilation of these areas was evaluated and done by others than elected and appointed officials representing the people of Tukwila prior to the introduction of this subject last fall, amd prior to any studies being made. The 'Designated Areas' were displayed on a map last fall, done in broad -brush form with marking pens, and are to a large extent still in that format. If these areas are an overlay map to the existing Zoning Code Map; then the Planning Commission should have had considerable imput in its formulation. To develop an ordinance around a Zoning Code overlay map called "Sensitive Areas Overlay District" without Due Process is questionable procedure. Most alarming, there was and still is, no specific process or opportunity provided whereby a property owner was able to appeal or protest its includion in a designated sensitive area on the overlay zoning map. I challenge the legality of the overlay map to the zoning code map. D. A considerable amount of this packet is based on studies; i.e., Pb 9, Para L Jones & Stokes, May 1990 and Pg 6, GeoEngineers, May 1990, and a third study concerning Hillside Aesthetics. These studies have not been specifically referred to and processed by the Planning Commission, and acted upon by the Council, and formally given status, by adoption, as an official working document of the city. 1Cxxxxxolyxx fxXxn So, what we have is, in lare part, policy and legislation determined by non- elected or appointed members of our government. E. Most of the "Designated Sensitive Areas" are on mostly residentialaareas of varying degrees of zoning on mostly already developed areas. People, residential and business, may have a misconception, or confused impres- sion of how and whether this packet applies to their property. Some may think it does not. However, Pg 8, 18.45.00(1) states: "This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, and portin of which: So, anyone, business or single or multi- family residential can be subject to this packet and prevented from adding on to or remodeling an existing structure, or build a garage, etc. Some business people may think they are not caught in this net because they are on the flat bottomlands, i.e., Southcenter, Andover and other business or industrial parks,sandhnot on slopes or wetlands, but they may be. Pg 4 - Seismic Hazard Areas, identification - potential loose soil and shallow water table - these are found in those areas just cited. Also many small businesses in the newly annexed areas could be in the Sensitive Area Classification F. In January 1990, the project, commonly known as "The Hillside Aesthetics" ordinance was started and developed subsequent to and separately from the SAO as presented to the public last year, and is now incorporated in this packet. The original premise of the project was to have something nice and pretty to look at from other areas, including I -5; i.e., the color of structures and landscaping. In my opinion the color of structures and I ■ landscaping, to include type of plantings, are not within the scope of legislation. To me, that is the province of agreement between buyer and seller via covenants on deeds. I find it suspect that the city council, and whoever else may be involved, would attempt to give shelter to what, in my opinion, may be indefensible by itself in court, to any such requirements by including them in this packet. As a footnote, at the public meeting earlier to explain the consultant's report on the hill- side aesthetics, it was emphasized that colors would be 'recommended'. This packet mandates what colors are acceptable, and sets forth land- scaping requirements. G. Changes in the PDR R -1 would allow '0' lot lines. We have side yard set- backs for reasons. One is safety. Has anyone consulted the Fire Depart- ment on this point? If one of two houses abutting each other is on fire, how can the fire department get between them to combat the fire? Has anyone consulted the insurance industry regarding home - owners insurance for its imput regarding '0' lot lines? People usually don't like being so close together; they feelllack of privacy, for one thing. Also, there probably would be no windows for air and light on the two abutting walls. It seems that the consultants and the Council are willing to eliminate safety in favor of a pretty view and more open space. H. Pg � the summary lists "create clear goal of integration of street system ". This was also part of the Hillside Aesthetics study, but p&resently differently. The idea is not to have separate cul-de-sacs„ but to, in effect, not allow a structure on the ends of abutting cul -de -sac m- lbu because the city may someday want a through street there. buyers like cul -de -sacs because they do provide a measure of quietness, privacy, and more importantly, no through traffic. The City does not now have a future street program. This would seem to be a hit & miss, helter - skelter street developmentsystem. How can we legally prohibit anyone from building something in a certain spot because we might want a street - sometime? I. With respect to the pink sheets, Pg 17, Para 5(3), I pr*ote6tn the imposi- tion of a requirement that the owner /sucessors or assigns be forced to forfeit and waive any claim against the City of Tukwila for issuance of a permit if there is a loss or damamge to people or property on or off the site. I question the legality of a government demanding the signing away of a legal right, particularly the rights of future owners, etc., who had no know- ledge or participation in the original activity. I also protest the provi- sion of Pg Z), 18.45.130 Para 1; in partucular that portion requiring the total submission to the future and unknown amendments of this / packet. /t' ` 1 -CG h-e' ctt 4.0 e et �ItcreL ih }earv►s u p lervi ( /EtCDlydt e'?4ec�5 6:.. Yr� Sci. ` le i 6 14314 J. This packet may include some elements of that of the Citizens Advisory but it bears little resemblence to it. This is considerable) different. Much of the public believed that the Citizens Committee 1 report would be the one considered. After all, what was the purpose of that committee? Did the Council appoint the committee only to appease the public, with no intention of ever submitting its product to the public in the form of an ordinance or the format as developed by the committee? andnciontinuei.oih3..with essentially its own version. Was the Citizens Committee, after all, just a sham on the part of the Council? K. This packet is different than that presented late last year in that it contains considerable new material; i.e., Titles 17 & hillside regulations etc. The Dermination of Non - Significance issued and appealed last year did not address this new material, so how can it still be applicable? A new, or updatid,DNS or EIS has not been issued for the public to review, and to be submitted to the SEPA provess. L. As I seek this packet, it is purely a vehicle for the Council, with the support of some city employees, to do what they are unable to otherwise do legally, or are unwilling to do through bond issue or compensation e � F �l'Q or purchase of development rights. That is to obtain open space We" e can treat our truly sensitive areas with consideration and sensitivity, but not in the manner of this packet at the expense of property owners. PUBLIC NOTICE Ede No. 88 -2-CA: Sensitive Areas Overlay district The Tukwila Planning Commission public hearing previously scheduled for July 25, 1990 for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is rescheduled for Thursday August 30, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. Revisions to the June 27, 1990 draft ordinance include deletion of reference to the proposed Clearing, Grading & pilling Ordinance and Tree Preservation Ordinance. The revised draft may be picked-up at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard,'lkwila, WA. If you have any questions, please call: Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development 431 -1870 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 981 (206) 433.1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON98188 If you have any questions, please call: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR SENSATIVE AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT Rick Beeler, Director Department, of Community Development 431 -3670 PHONE d 1206) 433.1800 Gary 1.. V2101.5 M. Mayot FILE NO. 89 -2 -CA: Sensative Areas Overlay District The Tukwila Planning Commission will te•continuing its public hearings for the Sensative Areas Ordinance. The next public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 6, 1990 at 8 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington. Chapters: cENSITIVE AREA ORDINANA SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 - DRAFT Title 18 ZONING 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions Amend 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established - -Map 18.10 R -A District -- Agricultural 18.12 R -I District -- Single- family Residence 18.14 R -2 District -- Two - family Residential 18.16 R -3 District - -Three and Four Family Dwellings 18.18 R -4 District - -Low Apartments 18.20 RMH District -- Multiple- residence High Density 18.26 P -0 District -- Professional and Office District 18.28 C -I District -- Community Retail Business 18.30 C -2 District -- Regional Retail Business 18.34 C -P District -- Planned Business Center 18.38 C -M District -- Industrial Park 18.40 M -I District - -Light Industry 18.42 M -2 District - -Heavy Industry 18.43 M -2L District - -Heavy Industry /Special Landscaping 18.44 Shoreline Zone Add 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Amend 18.46 PRD -- Planned Residential Development 18.48 PMUD -- Planned Mixed -use Development 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Regulations 18.52 Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements 18.56 Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 18.64 General Conditional Uses 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments 18.84 Requests for Changes in Zoning 18.88 Application Fees 18.90 Appeals 18.92 Public Notice of Hearing 18.96 Administration and Enforcement eP-Il8/T /6, CHAPTER 18.45 18.06 Definitions 18.45.010 Purpose 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation and Applicability 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers 1. Purpose 2. Wetland and Watercourse A. Wetlands B. Watercourses C. Reduction D. Increase E. Maintenance 3. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands and Watercourses 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 5. Abandoned Mine Areas 6. Areas of Important Geological or Archaeological Evidence 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 1. General 2. Density Credits 3. Sensitive areas common tract restrictions 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 18.45.130 Recording 1. Procedure 2. Signage 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility, utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilitiesEIV# defined in the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report by GeoEngineers dated May 1990 on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and includesg the following: cw.q►�... �.: cx3t,iscsay.> Strikeett indicates proposed deletions ZONING CODE Chapter 18.06 Amended. h,a:C(ijg indicates proposed insertions 6 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone • • laa7dsfde oterltial j5 I.oxr :;' 'ici:: :1esa: September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 4 . Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 3. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 45. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. 18.06.185 Constructed Wetlands. Those wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. 18.06.385 "Impervious surface" Those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre- existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving;; driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. The surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. 18.06.650 Performance Standards. s pecific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures. Theyii0i100 may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. Wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instability, abandoned coal mine areas, and important geological or archaeological sites. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. B .ffcr", cans a contiguous to a sensitive area that is required ::t itbiit tc otriii6lr iiiiihdii function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.935 Watercourses. "— ietefeeufses -a ?► course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round. teVV t :r r >r iE t include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. &trikeeat indicates proposed deletions !•1: rfti indicates proposed insertions 7 fr- Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 18.06.938 Wetlands. " W .r. ......,.. ; those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include ro ' ; i /!. bogs, marshes, and simiia n r wetlands r g , swam s p , ponds - afeasl'e€�#�. Co st ucted wetla ds a are not Yl• r} }�.: < i.' {. }: •• .. • s S •7C ': i . •: /. considered feguleted wetlands' for pu tlaes t ;tot However, those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wend area to mitigate conversion of wetlands, WM permitted by the Citys tUrit ri 1dei` fti Strikeout indicates proposed deletions 1 vv li { adth indicates proposed insertions Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 'September 6, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 • The standards are being -set . . environmentally sensitive areas: Strilfeeet indicates proposed deletions ZONING CODE Chapter 18.45 Established ;; r:0:;}; {n;.};n�;:: }4y:•+ :i;i� ••'lnh•} } } {; :yy.; ?: .;.;;iY. :' ::: }i: ;n +:^i:v }:: :• }}'rii }iy :i:^? } }•yi ... +: {•f.'l. {tiyL• A new chapter 18 45, �eft1+ ;ggi'Ix3 .: is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follow 18.45.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Sensitive Area* Overlay Distf+et is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions :004 in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY aadfixr indicates proposed insertions 9 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone to meet the following goals of protecting 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values these areas perform for the community and region. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and watercourses and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the Toss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides whic benefit o" citizcna. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeological sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to. the potential presence of sensitive areas within #! y. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to then development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation e€unde>r this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on a sensitive area study; or B. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includesing the following: • Abandoned coal mines Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class 2, 3, 4 and seismic instability areas. Wetlands Watercourses C. Is a site which contains archaeological remnants of value to the archaeological research community of colleges, universities, or a society of professional archaeologists. September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 2. For sensitive areas which may come into the City through annexation, or to address changes in the ecology of the existing systems, the inventory shall be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original studies 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 1. Purpose: A. T:,T,.X!IM llr;'K,.�I ] �:,. Y,.:]] Yl. �i Yl;! Xi:. �.l:! I{: T�T::l,.. �h}:?:, M,• �r}!!/ �: 1::] ]:�F: {i:•.s::31T.�:•�:T:l:!?Y:• ....:. r..... r. r. n:..........: ] "!.4]]14::: /:::,r,.]:: r.:•:::::::•]]: W:::....... n........ r. . ::::...:]..........::......... r......:... r.. :. •]:•�: ^...:.. r.......... r.... n.:..i:9 seetien— Sensitive area buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize Tong -term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas, and (ii) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development, and (iii) Preserve the edge of the sensitive area for its critical habitat value, or (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. x;: irii+�: • ;].��:F%'i�` : >•:: • : .. µ'ri•' :E::ii2liiTi'� :ar ' ••'.`,:::> ' :.:.. 5�;:: x] :::.S;r:.f].az «t�:ii:cs:;:Ma::; .::•:.... :: ,:.:... r::al iQrt.rustbe .QCa. _._.:....�:.�: Vii: . r .. :...:..... . (iv) Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of rt ? ;t ` < T 18.45.080 are permitted. `�rtit(ceK> >'±etC sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of • i 18.50 and 1 8.52. B. Wetland and Natural Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (iii) Prevent avoidable Toss of or damage to property. (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii) Stabilize banks, and eentaminants rice pt >fr sdreicts (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. C. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provi e(.ark`cQta >attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation ; and Stfikeeut indicates proposed deletions S a tig indicates proposed insertions 10 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 (iv) Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (v) Pretest weeded 2. WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES BUFFERS nn F wc +r�� 1. Type 1 100 foot wide buffer. 2 . Type 2 50 foot wide buffer. Typc 1 Watcrcoursc 70 feet Type 3 Watcrcoursc 15 feet Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone hillsid Strikeout indicates proposed deletions $had indicates proposed insertions 11 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 . . . . . .. ;: •• • •:•:. ! . je t.y • ••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.: 1 . ........ .. dlswrban •••• ... ••••••••••, ••• : .• • ..... : • • •::••• • • . : :••••• • e 60n1ple: :•••: ..... • • ••••• • • ..... • : : : • . : • •••• •••••• Veg na erous a. ation . . . must roptace existing vegetatc spe cimens wh ich vegetatiou lid Se. • re" " • • : : : • • • •• •• • • • •• ••• • • • ••• ..... :::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: • :era :n im SL erse Strikeout indicates proposed deletions a no indicates proposed insertions sgnifc adve • mttated bv ar increas . • .sttr.f ti. ashi t. decr "*-- Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone ropa when iat are appropr • ••:•:••••:;: . . . . . . . . . . . s p ec ies ! . . ,...::....::.:.,:.,,,::::.....:......."......:::::..*::::::, ..„:„...,.:::.,::..:.,. :: .:::....:::::::::::.:::::::::.:.:::::::.:.:::::.:.:::::„.:::,:::::::::.:::. . stirr .::..,.........„:„.. ••• .•••••.• • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i•x•x•' • . • 12 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 18.45.060 PROCEDURES nthei ,. a poli car • Y �.f: eta tk • a► >;. c • #> ramovBd� or 1i caut :: •if �:lti'j T:C;;�7.!!T;T:j?��r! ?7. .7:T:T.!:��r/�:�.i\!!�.1!!:+[:i ��1,1 ::�4!�• {y, :b;:::::: r:::i:? ??.::: •' •,. -. �.4... ,. _.. �f� ?.::Y:i �y:4�.:.J._:•y:G;:::. �:1_•:�• � ;•iy::•i.l �i�1 '' ' 3. BUFFERS FOR AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY A. Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(4). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall then include a mtn buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the reports of the site 'ppid by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply: 1. Pre - application conferenc - - - ... . _ '. -' .. -- - - .* At this conference the applicant and i r ti C ity d •••••••••••••••• •••••••• representatives will discuss the requirements for development in a sensitive area, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and the applicable standards for the proposed development. 2. Sensitive Areas Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this Chapter, ' Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone It is intended that sensitive areas and technical studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 3. Any new subdivision and multiple family residential proposal which includes sensitive areas on site shall apply for i`Planned Residential Development ml and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. 4. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - development conferences prior to any work on the site. 5. Conditioning: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. 6. Denial of Permit: A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that Strikeout indicates proposed deletions at a t tn indicates proposed insertions 13 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS E. B. the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. Proposed developments in wetlands, watercourses, class 4 and seismic geological hazard areas and their buffers are assumed to carry a great potential for damaging the environment. The applicant in those areas must bear the burden of proof in assuring the safety and environmental sensitivity of his or her development. 7. Construction Monitoring: The geotechnical consultant or other specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Other uses may be permitted consistent with the technical study required pursuant to this chapter and the underlying zoning. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities., B. Non - destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space. D. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping as approved by the Director -e# CD. Essential roads, rights -of- way: 2. Administrative Review Required: The following uses may be permitted only after review and approval ti :C < - 4*. A. Stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre- treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland must not be diverted to do so. ssential n feasible alternative exists 3. Wetlands and Watercourses General: No use or development may occur in a wetland, watercourse and /ortheirts buffers except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080.11 and 2). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. For those wetlands and watercourses which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study, alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan `'' " "`` "`'` y y gatlon Ian di:± r' that • eta : <fo.l o � I ': •. . .:; >.• >:.: : ':' . ............................. M.. �! v. n..... he.. alt�ra tiiv�or��1ar��l�r� .u��..t...r.���.:�.r..l�i�.�l� Ni~iich x utilities and roads where no The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a specialist in fisheries, wetland biology or hydrology and approved by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland or watercourse quality would be ifiatiitalfigiftiii improved by the alteration or relocation. Stfikeeut indicates proposed deletions S:fiadf g indicates proposed insertions 14 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetlands or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director . A. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize; or where possible avoid wetland or watercourse disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland, watercourse and theiriii buffers against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands and watercourse§ must be restored to pre- project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. B. Essential Roads. (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and flet v i restricts the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions sssr' . The number of crossings instil limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland, watercourse or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a 9 P 9 an-approved plar%<�ti� by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. C. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland, watercourse or their buffers except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland, watercourse or theifitS buffers must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and Strikeout indicates proposed deletions Sf nil indicates proposed insertions 15 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 Stfikeo.ut indicates proposed deletions St:adng indicates proposed insertions (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. D. Dredging or filling; 1. Dredginggi or filling within a wetland, watercourse and their buffers may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director -end City Council and only for the following purposes: (3) (4) Uses permitted by Sc 1 18.45.080(1) :;'1 Maintenance of an existing wetland or water course; or Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila:; E. Diversion or Rerouting of Watercourses: Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 1Y4 .............fir. R�. Any mitigation plan must : : monitoring and maintenance of the new construction.; ; or 2. Any dredging -er- digging f (Ii shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to deper o m such r'k at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. (1) The existing course for any natural watercourse is highly preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can ��l''t�� .... .............. show that the rerouting int 'r :.`•r.... r)?� >bt� enhances the value of the watercourse +ftoou'yf water treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the diversity of wildlife and p communities. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director-and the -£ ty- Eettneil. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. Any mitigation must have the construction completed before the existing watercourse can be divertedD; tt. 16 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 F. Piping; Strikeout indicates proposed deletions Sh agn indicates proposed insertions S '�'� :f'•if ?12'1:'3t`:e:�1'•:u:;�y . ^� :::: : y: : i::;:l:'_ ._ :::L'1:::�: <:; > _�`a'''•: Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone .;pr. + nr .? r';-; w; w}:;•:r r,.:• ::�;•r:w;�►,.?.►..•tT;:s.;r:::. ......:..: k�rxi�;: �i; o-i;::>::•:'{ F;:.::::.:...:........::::??•: :.::::::.�::::::::: >::•:::::::: If the natural watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species, it shall not be rerouted. Any natural watercourse which does not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds within 1000 feet downstream a salmonid bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. (1) Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if the applicant can show that mechanisms will be put into place as part of the construction process that will address: a. excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event, b. flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. (2) No preees& is 0 that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured. (3) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, flow must be comparable. (4) Piping in a wetland or watercourse °cn°itivc area shall be approved by the DCD Director . 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability A. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirement of a geotechnical study. B. Alterations: Prior to preparation of a proposal involving alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant shall contact the City of Tukwila to discuss the overall feasibility, scope of special studies, and regulatory restrictions. proposals must demonstrate one of the following: Development (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development. (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project is reduced to a level acceptable to the DCD Director. The development proposal should cause no increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation and 17 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 '�Ss'i`i`Fi iii►' fltiAita! ��i•: ftiw�i�►iQ��iti�•,::�iw•'�rw�w;w� C. Pre - application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(1) the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: the requirements of other applicable ordinances; the requirements of this chapter; the soils report to be provided by the applicant; the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; the design of the proposed structure; a proposed construction schedule; and any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City, and shall be documents of record relative to the application, distributed to the attenders and others identified at the meeting. D. Geotechnical Report: Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone should not decrease slope stability. The life span of the proposed development and of the proposed mitigation measures shall be discussed. Any anticipated requirements for maintenance, repair, or replacement of the mitigating measures over the anticipated life span of the project shall be discussed or The owner shall submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in areas identified -es Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the DCD Director for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 ha and area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 and Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site response and figttefae t `. n potential for the proposed development area For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. Stfikeeut indicates proposed deletions Soli indicates proposed insertions 18 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 E. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Developers shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of e+- signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. Reports prepared for development applications shall address comments received from the public and governmental agencies concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The City will require such supplements or amendments to the report as are needed to develop a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the soil conditions on the site. Based on a review of the information contained in the geotechnical report and the site conditions, either the Public Works Director or the DCD Director may require an independent review of any such report on a site in a Class 2, Class; 3, seismic or coal mine hazard area, and shall require such a review of reports regarding proposed development in all Class 4 landslide hazard areas. The independent review shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical consultant selected by the City and paid for by the applicant. The requirement for the independent review should be clearly and explicitly stated in the permit requirements and may be required for any sensitive area development. When required by the City the owner shall submit a complete set of plans and specifications for the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in their judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Strikeeet indicates proposed deletions £ a:± . li7g indicates proposed insertions 19 September 6, 1 990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of Toss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. The applicant and the owner of the site, if the owner is not the applicant, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, andjt prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: (1) The legal description of the Property; (2) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; (3) A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any Toss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (4) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. F. Assurance Devices.. -4 Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in a area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the Department of Community Development Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. G. Construction Monitoring: The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The owner shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and Stfikeeot indicates proposed deletions :Dom indicates proposed insertions 20 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. H. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monito4 during construction; compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the Department of Public Works at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical- related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the ' rct r. 5. Abandoned Mine Areas Strikeeet indicates proposed deletions $h . ti indicates proposed insertions 6. Areas of important geological or archaeological evidence. Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Conditioning and Denial of Permits: The City may impose conditions that address site work problemst-steli--meastifesWO could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. A. Development of a site containing an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when a geotechnical report shows that significant risks associated with the abandoned mine working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval shall be granted from the DCD Director before any building or land altering permit processes begi n. B. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical report. C. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. A. Any specific site or area which is designated as important to save as a record of our area's past by a qualified archaeologist, professional archaeologist or geologist, shall be deemed a sensitive area subject to controls on development. B. Development on a site determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or 21 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 A. 18.45.115 EXCEPTIONS ;N Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone archaeological evidence, shall be prohibited until that evidence has been studied or researched for any valuable information about our history. Removal or salvage of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW 27.53. C. Once the geologic or archaeological evidence or articles have been studied or researched, or the importance of the site is declared to be marginal or not of use to the scientific community, development shall be allowed on the site. The DCD Director shall give the approval for development to begin on such a site. 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS /DENSITY CREDITS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS 1. A. Each owner of a building lot within the development proposal shall own an undivided interest in the common tract and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot. B. In development proposals for planned residential or mixed use developments, short subdivisions, subdivisions, or binding site plans, property owners may elect to establish a sensitive areas common tract. If such a common tract is established, the City of Tukwila may require the lot owners to enter into an agreement with the City to care for and protect the common tract. Alternatively, ownership may be transferred to a responsible entity acceptable to the City. C. Common tract restrictions for wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers shall appear on the face of all PRDs and PMUDs, subdivisions, short plats and binding site plans, and shall be recorded on all documents of title and record for all affected lots. 2. Density Credits are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning. The calculation of density credit is determined by the ratio of non - sensitive areas to sensitive areas including buffers on any particular site. The development factor ratio is intended to provide a basis by which the development credit for the wetland, watercourse and associated buffers portion of the site is transferred to the buildable (non- sensitive area) portion of the site. Development Factor: WETLAND, WATERCOURSES, PERCENT DENSITY AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS ALLOWED ON BUILDABLE AS PERCENTAGE OF SITE PORTION OF SITE 25% or less 100% 26% to 50% 75% 51% to 75% 50% 76% or more 25% Setbacks, height and other site development regulations except parking requirements may be modified to accommodate the allowable density credit. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the BAR, PRD or PMUD review process. The calculation of potential dwelling units in residential development proposals and building size in commercial and industrial development proposals shall be based on a 100% development factor for the wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers on the development proposal site. 1. Conforming uses: All residential, commercial, and industrial development located in Stfikeekt indicates proposed deletions Sh Jjrt indicates proposed insertions 22 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 18.45.125 APPEALS wetlands, natural watercourses and /or their buffers or areas of potential geologic instability and any buffer in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Seetien 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. 2. Modification of Existing Structures in Wetlands, Watercourses and their Buffers: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced provided that the new construction does not further intrude into a sensitive area or the required buffer. ' •••`'`' t jr r 3. Modification of Existing Structures in Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard Areas: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled provided that the new construction does not increase the potential of soil movement or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development. 4. Reasonable Use Exceptions: .: > .:;1 e exet€n� ''he eipliin l�::::Mi��' ly M'�:l'%:`v[ YM:i: k�l�: ^: reaeor::tat I Stfikeett indicates proposed deletions adtrig indicates proposed insertions wet a issiol`>i, • i r:.C:Q.f rrt? :n:dtt > :::sl! t V •: >,. : -.•s. � ..� ......:.....:. :.............................. ::... ......:.:......... X' 4ii�n•:: iTYXT 4 : T. Y•. ,.1•;!I::i;!RM;M;��} .: 11.,M,..�� $0130 �1S WI \.11. ::: i''# . F'► IEI: > ► r ; v� Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone rr • rs 18.45.120 VARIANCES. The Board of Adjustment shall review requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless exempted in $tton 18.45.115. 1. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. 1. Any proponent of a project who objects to or disagrees with an interpretation by the Department of Community Development of the sensitive areas maps as defined by Section 18.45.020, eriyi~DD decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, shall use the appeal process in the Seetien M 1 8.9 > • •: : :. ; : � ejta apea 23 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT CHAPTER 18.45 :.xr:...r.:: : ::: C�M�{ %ti ':` +A`•Y� f.;: i��RM{ �: i1i4�11 .i:i:Mi ?;IM:ii }:716F:M[i:♦.M i:� V+N,.: j; .. : t• ivri•:{ ti;•. a: •:•i. +. ?a:a } } }:a: ?• % ?v } }'n•:LL• •%• }} }:ter }:a:•:t t +r %• } }:•n• }}:::. Y.tR►1* �:i�tsi }�}Ls mow. x •rttt +: ?rt :,v ; y;} :: +;i;,r1.r:>:L..%::::::5 <..� }} rr v �.i'i.�r :w .:e:e►�:a .:�ww •L•aw.t;�.s: 18.45.130 RECORDING REQUIRED 18.45.135 ASSURANCE DEVICE '{••La }, iii:•:; }k: r•lfiY ?.vaYL '�. .1 r. %� i! % xr rr fi %:N :'i •fi:ax %rx . %x •r •:a• + +. ?< ••.YCi .0 .+.:..{: fxY rv. r.L•} Girir�ivY.v:•j}xi Y"r.+rv:}:•;cv nce •••••••••••••••••••,,,••••• : ' L rfia .•.•'•ik� Y.. ii f :k. } 1 :;'� L • } : iai Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone r tar .. • Fr$%ti• } }R; Y »}i>Yr ....4.•rF.x x.Lv Y L••. ..... .. w::: wr: r. w� w.l �r. w'..+ wLLrG w. m... r.�::.�.�:.�r.T. {.w.w.'•. a.. •w.w}1:..w.•I.•.w.�:�.. ....ww.4:r .... ).. {qR.K.� mo , .:t, }.� > }} }:tier } }Y }::�L� }:,;.:Y } }:a } }. }x :... v4};;;aY;v.., }:. M: Y}} xr}} i:; yy} } } } }:x::+x:.v: } }•w titer i• YN" r i %i•.fk�rr'A:LaaX;t� {SLv.::;i kllttii;ri;:;;ii;0: «4:Lint4: 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. On public property, the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any developable land will be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to ;PAG : ti 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City of Tukwila may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to City of Tukwila, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements of this Chapter. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the DCD Director may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies. Stfikeet• indicates proposed deletions indicates proposed insertions 24 September 6, 1990 - DRAFT Sincerel Stuart McLeod cc: City Council f To: City of Tukwila Planning Commission Re: Public hearing Proposed Sensitive Area Legislation COL LECTOR AUCTIONS August 29, 1990 My name is Stuart McLeod and I have property in Tukwila that is affected by the well intended sensitive area Legislation. Soon I will be submitting plans for a Trade & Exhibition Facility to be located on 23 acres just west of Longacres race track. I believe that the preservation of our environment is very important and the new Legislation will be effective in achieving that goal. I have reviewed the current sensitive area Legislation summary and I noticed that there is no provision allowing for mitigation to occur with respect to wetlands and wetland buffers. This omission denies the opportunity for poor quality wetlands to be improved. A well designed mitigation plan can significately improve habitat and hydrologic function. Furthermore, this enhancement of wetlands is fully paid for by the property owner. This mitigation provision can be drafted stipulating that there shall be: 1. No net loss of wetland 2. The mitigation plan shall require improved habitat or hydrologic function. 3. Design and monitoring of improvements by a biologist. 4. Approval of the mitigation plan by the Director of Community Development and /or City Council. To presume that leaving all existing wetlands alone provides the best contribution to our en- vironment is simply not true. It is proven that wetlands can be improved and in doing so pro- vide a significantly better contribution to our environment. Lets not let these privately funded enhancement opportunities be denied. This addition to sensitive area Legislation would be consistent with the over -all goal of the Legislation which states "Create regulations that balance the existing private rights of pro- perty owners with public safety, public needs, and public responsibilities." And "Tukwila must accommodate and plan for increasing use and development and more clearly prioritize the pre- servation of its natural resources." A mitigation plan would go even one step further in the preservation of our environment by allowing wetland enhancement to occur at the welcome expense of private development. Sensitive area enhancement through mitigation has been adopted by City of Bellevue and is being proposed by King County and other Jurisdictions. Further input by biologists and other envir- ornmental experts supporting mitigation is available. Thank you for considering this information in the decision process. McLeod Group, Inc. 213 LAKE STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98033 (2061822 -4I 14 • .X/41t3 !7 c,Q 12_0 0A /04-r- c "ec,„.) 8--‘?"4e1-2 RktIetT M ssiM6f Gentlemen: August 30, 1990 The Members of the Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila, Washington I agree philosophically with the aims of the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. However, we must remember that this will be enacted, if at all, after the majority of open space in Tukwila has already been developed. That means that compliance with the ordinance will fall dis- proportionately upon those property owners who have not yet developed their property. For that reason, I commend the drafters of the ordinance for providing density credits. However, have you considered the idea of tax credits? Another possible way for the City to compensate could be to purchase development rights under some formula, to be worked out in the final form of the ordinance. Thank you for your conscientious efforts on behalf of Tukwila. Sincerely, John C. Strander eThaS/r'o SEE ATTACHED File Number 89 i11 1. 1 UAV 1 I 4r: , DIANN MARTINEZ . O Notice of Public Hearing CONTINUATION O Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [] Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses Name of Project SAO DISTRICT U 1: D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: C , ❑ Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non. significance ❑ Oetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Official Notice Q Other ❑ Other on AUGUST 31.1990 19 . CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TURIVILA. WASHINGTON 98188 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR SENSATIVE AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT If you have any questions, please call: Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development 431 -3670 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, • Mayor FILE 1210. 89 -2 -CA: Sensative Areas Overlay District The Tukwila "Planning Commission will be continuing its public hearings for the Sensative Areas Ordinance. The next public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 6, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington. PUBLIC NOTICE Rle No. 89 -2-CA: Sensitive Areas Overlay District City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor The Tukwila Planning Commission public hearing previously scheduled for July 25, 1990 for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is rescheduled for Thursday August 30, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. Revisions to the June 27, 1990 draft ordinance include deletion of reference to the proposed Clearing, Grading & Filling Ordinance and Tree Preservation Ordinance. The revised draft may be picked -up at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA. If you have any questions, please call: Rick Beeler, Dire ctor Department of Community Development 431 -1870 CITY OF TUKWILA 8200 Southcenter BouIevwd Tukwila, Washington : 1 1ST CLUB Y.i rm r NI. 12N8 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by Jim Haggerton, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Kirsop, Gomez, Knudson, and Malina. Mr. Flesher was excused. Representing the staff was Rick Beeler. 89 -2 -CA: DRAFT PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA Rick Beeler provided the staff report. He reviewed a memo given to the Planning Commission, which outlined changes made to the June, 27, 1990 draft which resulted in this latest draft. These changes were as follows: Page 15. Paragraph B, top of the page, was inserted: "Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a landscaping plan for the site shall be required, including both tree retention and replanting. In addition, live groundcover shall be planted in accordance with erosion control practices." This revision deleted the earlier reference to a "Tree Preservation Ordinance" and replaced it with "erosion control practices." The revision also moved the above paragraph into Paragraph B from the earlier draft paragraph B(3). Old B(3) fit more appropriately in B. Page 32. Paragraph 17.20.020(b), lower middle of the page, was inserted: "A tree retention /removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application." This revision will require submittal of a tree retention /removal plan at the time of aoplication a preliminary plat. The existing ordinance leaves requirement of such a plan up to the discretion of the Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1990 Page 2 Planning Commission. The intent of the SAO is to get this information up front at the time application is made. Page 33. Paragraph 17.20.040, top of page, was deleted: "City's Land Altering (Clearing, Grading & Filling) Ordinance." Reinserted was reference to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Page 38. Sections 21.04.020 and 21.04.030, bottom of the page, were deleted. These sections referred to sections of the Washington Administrative Code and are not a necessary part of this ordinance. Rick then reviewed a second memo which was given to the Planning Commission. This memorandum lists the following issues which the staff is raising to the Planning Commission: Page 6. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. Is this definition clear enough or is the following clearer: " 'Essential right -of -way or utility' means a necessary utility facility, utility system or street right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency and which is the least width and size necessary to accomplish the purpose of the essential right -of -way or utility." Page 7. A definition of "Sensitive Areas Study" should be added. This Study is referenced often in the SAO, but is not defined except on page 38, Section 21.04.140(a)(1). A good definition should be incorporated into a comprehensive definition. Page 10. Paragraph C, top of page. No process is specified for reduction or increase of wetland and watercourse buffers. Implied is that the Department of Community Development makes the decision. Is that satisfactory? Whatever process is preferred should be clearly specified. Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 August 30, 1990 Page 10. Paragraph E, middle of page (second paragraph). Replacement of vegetation removed from the buffers is triggered when application is made for a permit. The type of permit is not specified. What if no permit is required? Should the requirement be inserted that any removed vegetation must be replaced as approved by the Department of Community Development? Page 11. 18.45.080.1, General, bottom of the page. "Other uses" is very open ended. Is that satisfactory? Wetland biologists argue against any disturbance of the buffer areas by any use. They also argue that this process negates the standard buffers of paragraph 2.A and B, page 10. A "technical study" should be replaced with "Sensitive Areas Study" to be consistent in the SAO. Page 12. Paragraph 2 A and B, top of page. The City Council is not an administrative body. The "City Council" should be removed Page 12. Paragraph 3, fourth paragraph, middle of the page. Mitigation plans under the SAO also fall under the purview of the State Environmental Policy Act. The latter is solely administrated by the Director of DCD. Requiring City Council approval of mitigation under the SAO may be interpreted to be in conflict with DCD's approval under SEPA. Do you feel this is a conflict that should be resolved? Page 13. Paragraph D.1, top of page. Same as the prior concern of City Council approval when administrative review is already required under SEPA. Page 13. Paragraph D.1(a), bottom of the page. Do you want storm water detention and essential utilities and roads (18.45.080(2)) included in the "Uses permitted "? Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 August 30, 1990 Page 14. Paragraph E(1), top of the page. Same concern of City Council verses administrative review and approval. Page 14. Paragraph F(4), bottom of page. Same concern of City Council verses administrative review and approval. Page 15. Paragraph 4.B(2), top of the page. Should the first sentence be amended to read: "The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project or other properties is reduced to a level acceptable to the DCD Director that will not decrease stability of the site or other properties ". This will protect adjacent properties as well as the site of the development. Page 16. Paragraph 8, bottom of the page. Should the last sentence be amended to read: "The requirement for the independent review should be made during the SEPA review process, and may be required for any sensitive area development." The need for the "independent review" of a geotechnical engineer's findings and recommendations is not known until staff has reviewed the geotechnical report submitted under the SEPA review process. In some cases applicants begin the SEPA process prior to filing an application. Page 21. 18.45.135.2, top of the page. Should a final sentence be added: "Maintenance requirements are an ongoing obligation of the property owner and are mandatory after the 5 year monitoring period." Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1990 This resolves the question of what happens after 5 years? Is maintenance no longer required? Or is it an ongoing, perpetual obligation? Page 38. Top of page. A definition of "Sensitive Areas Study" should be added. Page 39. 21.04.150(e), bottom of page. Should the following details be added to the mitigation plan: Timing. Replacement ratios. Qualitative or quantitative. Remedy for failure. Rick then reviewed letters from the Department of Ecology, Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce, Norris & Mildred Saari, Marie Gardner, Craig Hittle, and Mr. & Mrs. L.E. Crostick. These letters are attached. Mr. Malina noted he hadn't heard any concerns from the Parks and Recreation Department regarding buffers around wetlands, and the opportunity for the community to go into these areas. He asked if these staff concerns also reflected those of the Parks Dept. Rick stated that it did include the Parks Department's concerns in that one of the functions looked at in the wetlands ordinance is how it relates to other open spaces in the City, and that most often, as the City leaders try and link those with pedestrian walkways, there are occasions where the walkways go into the buffer area or comes close to it. Mr. Haggerton opened the public hearing. Page 5 Ann Griffith, 4529 S. 140th. She asked each Commission member how long they had served on the Planning Commission. Mr. Gomez: Approximately one year; Mr. Kirsop: 20 years; Mr. Haggerton: About 5 years; Mr. Malina: About 3 months; Mr. Knudson: About 9 years; Mr. Hamilton: Approximately 3 years. Mrs. Griffith asked if an E.I.S. was done between the pond and the Target store. She asked who decided that you can't build on a 6% grade and if that was true. She noted that she intended to build on her property at 144th St. and it is more than a 6% Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 August 30, 1990 grade. She also asked why, after all these things have been built, they've decided there's got to be a change about building so that people who have not built yet are penalized. Mr. Haggerton clarified that the 6% grade was incorrect, and that nothing in the draft ordinance is law at this time. Mrs. Griffith then asked who decides which trees are to be cleared, because she passed Foster High School and noticed that the trees had been leveled. She then mentioned that there was an apartment complex which had a roadway that goes in, but none that comes out. One must go in and out the same way, including a fire truck. She wondered who provided the permit to let the developer do that. Mr. Kirsop stated that the Planning Commission does not issue building permits, the Building staff does. He also noted that the apartment complex in question was designed to accommodate a fire truck. He went on to say that the Planning Commissioners serve on a voluntary basis, and ware not hired. Rick Beeler stated that the buffer by the pond and the Target store was 25 feet. John Rabel, 17900 West Valley Rd. My company had developed 5 acres of a 7 acre parcel we own. The City of Renton had us locate a detention pond and control device which was supposed to drain into a drainage ditch, off of our site. This drainage ditch was supposed to be maintained to a bottom elevation of 17'. Over the last 10 years, this has not been maintained. A property to the north of us has been developed and they are draining into this ditch which goes no where and is backing up onto our property to a height between 21 feet, so we have a wetland. We have vacated the property as of January and we have a tenant there who requires additional space. We have applied for a • permit to modify our detention system, Public Works and Planning say there's nothing they can do at this time. (Mr. Rabel left with the Commission a memorandum of law which sites a case in the 8th Circuit Federal Court which says a governmental jurisdiction cannot cause to be managed as a wetland, a water feature that it caused to be created.) Mr. Knudson asked what the original size of the detention pond was. Mr. Rabel stated that it was about 1/2 an acre. Mr. Knudson asked if the total volume required for this detention device was 1/2 an acre. Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1990 Mr. Rabel clarified that was determined when our engineer checked with the City of Tukwila. We have designed and modified a detention system which will allow, what we think is an appropriate use of that property, and that is now sized to City of Tukwila requirements. We cannot, however, under current moratorium ordinance, modify our detention system in any way because it is currently defined as a wetland because there is no distinction between a constructive wetland and a true wetland. Jeff Schaeffer, 4437 S. 156th, Tukwila: I read the draft ordinance put together by the Citizen's Advisory Committee, it seemed pretty good. I don't know who wrote this revised draft, but they took away some of the protection for citizens. Regarding the definitions for the three classes of potential geological instability; classes Two, Three and Four, they are given the adjectives of Moderate, High and Very high. These are subjective terms and can be alarmist. This current draft states that the beauty of Tukwila's hill sides is a community resource. If I own a hillside with trees on it, that's my resource, so please don't prevent me from cutting down a tree or two. In the PRD section, there's mention about planting a tree in every front yard. I think that we have enough common sense that when we landscape our houses, we're going to put up a tree or two; please don't legislate it. There's another spot that refers to colors. Let's not try and turn Tukwila into something that it's not already. If one wants to live in a planned community, then so long. Please don't tell me what color to paint my house. Alot of the things we read in here sound like an open spaces kind of thing. I'm not sure who's intention that was, but if it's an open spaces ordinance in disguise, wrong, we should not be doing that. If the City Council wants open spaces in the City, they have ways of doing that other than simply legislating away development rights on property. In summary, I really liked what the Citizen's Advisory Committee had done, I just don't want the City Council or anyone else to botch it up, and turn it into something it was not intended to be. Louise Strander, P.O. Box 88636, Tukwila: I'm here to protest the discrimination against our property as shown by this proposed legislation. Our home and upper property share a hilltop, with a City street to the north, a City trail to the south and the City water reservoir site to the west. Every single restriction in this SAO was violated by the City during the construction of the water reservoir. The real purpose of this SAO is absolute public control of private property, not the "public safety" issue which was sited over and over again as the sole reason for inclusion of slope property. What ever controls are not included in this ordinance are coming in the future. Type of architecture, plant varieties, exterior colors and other restrictions are in the legislation being drafted and due for reproduction once this is safely passed. Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 August 30, 1990 These cannot even remotely pass for safety measures. I have here the plans for three Tukwila trails, they are dated June of 1990. They involve a drainage of a small stream close to this particular building. All of the trails are on slopes, none meet the requirements demanded of the private owners of similar development, and yet the City of Tukwila is specifically, by law, charged with public safety. Where has the City of Tukwila demonstrated that those of us affected by this legislation have been adhering to such poor standards on our own property? The Tukwila City Council members rant on about "greedy outside developers" and pointless scorn to various buildings which displease them. Why are we being punished? I sincerely urge the Tukwila Planning Commission to study this proposed legislation and the obvious ramifications of it very carefully. Myrtle Roberson, 14859 51st Ave. S.: My husband and I cannot support any positive decision you might make in regards to this SAO. We agree the preservation of trees and streams is necessary, but to deny development without compensation is unreasonable and will only create more legal battles which are costly to everyone. We do not see this ordinance as a whole package as it should be. To delete the references to leveling & grading and tree preservation only delays what the City Council has in mind. We heard a Council member state that these other ordinances would have public hearings, but would not necessarily follow the same processes as this SAO, and yet they would be restrictive to development. How can these issues be separated? They're tied together. We see no reason to require any building to be painted in a particular color that appeals to a given few. Will there be any report of the staggering amount of money spent by the City to implement this restrictive ordinance? It seems untimely to earmark these so called sensitive areas immediately following the annexations. Are we being targeted to off -set the development mistakes of the past? It appears that way to us as newly annexed people. This is restrictive beyond reason and we would ask that you not support an incomplete SAO. Mr. Haggerton asked Mrs. Roberson's view of the City Council's intent with this SAO? Mrs. Roberson replied that she saw their intent as an attempt to stop development one way or another. Philip Hemenway, 4036 S. 128th, Tukwila: I procured a copy of the proposed ordinance Monday of last week. I was overwhelmed by the 41 pages I would have to study to make comments. Those 41 pages are not the whole picture, many references are made to other sources of information which one would have to look up in Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 August 30, 1990 order to properly understand what is being proposed. I tried to find, in these 41 pages, where just compensation is discussed, I don't believe there is any. Until the subject of just compensation is written into this ordinance, I believe the approval of this ordinance should be tabled. Just compensation would pay those home owners who have suffered losses because their property cannot be used as they had planned. I believe this meeting should be continued in November. Mr. Haggerton asked why he chose the month of November. Mr. Hemenway noted that date was arbitrarily chosen. Hazel Ketchersid, 14637 51st Ave. S.: We're retired and we own property which we've lived on for fifty years. That was supposed to be our retirement income. We were down -zoned when we were annexed and a sizeable value of our property was taken away. Now we deal with these additional restrictions, which we feel would restrict development on our property because we have slopes and so on. I agree with the idea that if we're going to be restricted from doing anything with our property, then there should be compensation. Mr. Haggerton asked how much property she was referring to. Mrs. Ketchersid said there was approximately three acres. Mr. Haggerton asked what restrictions would the draft ordinance impose on her property. Mrs. Ketchersid replied that there were trees and slopes on her property. Mr. Haggerton asked what degree the slopes were. Mrs. Ketchersid said they were in the 15 degree area. Mr. Knudson asked what the zoning was before annexation. Mr. Ketchersid stated that it was RM2400 in King County. Now it's R3. Ken Raedeke, 5711 N.E. 63rd St., Seattle: I have a Phd. in Wildlife Biology from the University of Washington, 20 years of experience as a practicing biologist, and I'm also a professor with the University of Washington. On page 9 of the "rainbow" packet, it refers to buffers. Not all wetlands require a buffer. Tukwila being a highly urbanized area, a 100' buffer may not be appropriate. The SAO talks about Type 1, 2, and 3 wetlands and gives the buffers for them, but the types are never defined. The Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 August 30, 1990 Jones & Stokes report talks about low, medium and high value wetlands, I assume those are the same sorts of things. In the ordinance it states that the buffer requirements are going to be based on the method of determination in the Jones & Stokes report, but there is no method, just a statement of fact and their opinion, not really saying what this means. Uniform buffers in a situation like this are probably unnecessary. Each wetland could be looked at individually. These uniform buffers don't allow for site - specific conditions, management by objectives, and incentives for landowners to maintain these buffers. On page 10, section 2.2 where it states that if State rare and sensitive or monitored species are present, you may have to increase the amount of buffer. Those species have been proposed rare, sensitive or monitored, since 1979. They have no standing and are subject to change without any hearings or process. They are added and taken off at will by staff from Olympia. The inclusion of a "monitored" species is misleading. The purpose of a monitored species is to give you an indication of the health of the environment by its presence or absence. On Page 14, E.1, it states that the existing course for any natural water course is highly preferable to re- routing. I don't think Tukwila has a natural water course. It gives the impression that anything one might do to them would be negative, which is not necessarily true. On Page 14, 2., it notes that you cannot alter a stream if it has critical wildlife use. I wonder what critical wildlife use means. Those terms are very vague. On that same page it says that one cannot re -route if there is the presence of a threatened or endangered species. It may well be that the original degradation channeling may be the cause or a contributing factor to the threatened or endangered area. In most cases, we can do a better job in these systems with enhancing and modifying that habitat. You should base these regulations more on the circumstances in these systems, rather than coming out with blanket statements. With regard to the letter from the Dept. of Ecology, there is the notion that you cannot create wetlands, therefore, you shouldn't do anything to the ones we have because they are wonderful. Indeed, wetlands can be created, I suspect you could find a number of created wetlands in Tukwila. Also, they said you need in -kind, in -place replacement of wetlands. That is a concept that is rapidly losing favor. Another point made was that fluctuating water levels will affect plant communities and this will change them to weedy species. That is inconsistent with recent research. What was found with fluctuating water levels is that no affect could be measured because there are alot of other factors driving this. This area is accustomed to fluctuating water levels, the plants that are there are ones that adapt to that. The D.O.E. also states that one does not want to put trails in these wetlands and not to do anything with them. The reason we want to save wetlands because they're valuable for society, for bio- filtration, for storm water control, for recreation, and for Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 August 30, 1990 aesthetics, but yet the SAO turns around and says you can't use them for any of those things. The idea is to save them for the values they have. We need to look at using them in a wise way. Mr. Haggerton asked what size buffer he would recommend for Tukwila Pond. Mr. Raedeke noted that it depended on what you wanted Tukwila Pond to do. The buffer may not be the same size around the entire width of the pond. The buffer doesn't necessarily create something good there. Mr. Malina asked if he was totally opposed to arbitrary buffers. Mr. Raedeke noted he would instead recommend that buffer size be based on a site -by -site basis. Mr. Malina asked him how he felt about the functions and values between a constructed wetland and a natural wetland. Mr. Raedeke responded that in many cases you can have nicer created wetlands than natural wetlands. Mr. Malina asked why there is a need for double buffering, and its importance in protecting a water or stream. Mr. Raedeke said that buffers are created to provide space for construction activities so as not to impact the wetland. There are many cases where you can build without having any impact at all. Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners in Bellevue: My partners and I are the owners of Tukwila Pond. I think there are only 5 Class 1 wetlands in Tukwila, and yet we have a blanket 100' buffer that would be applied by this ordinance. (Mr. Benoliel referred to two letters; one dated July 26, 1990 from his attorney and the other dated July 30, 1990 from the Seattle Autobon Society). Mr. Benoliel submitted a photograph of Tukwila Pond which was taken from the south looking north. The property originally consisted of approximately 40 acres. Phase One, which included the Target store, took 14 of those 40 acres. There is an upland portion to the west boundary of the property which is approximately 200 feet from the property line, to the water in depth (4 acres). This leaves approximately 22 acres that's under water and in associated wetlands in the southeast corner, of which no proposal has been made for alteration. There is a proposal which was submitted quite a while before this sensitive area ordinance was proposed, where we applied to the City for review of a plan to construct a 150 room hotel on that property. We proposed that the same 25' buffer that was used and required by the City in Phase One, be applied to Phase Two as well. During Phase One, we Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 August 30, 1990 were required to conduct an environmental study to determine what size buffer would be required to avoid impacts to the pond. Nobody was ever clear as to what values we were trying to protect. Twenty five feet was legally established by this City after all of that environmental investigation. A Mitigated Declaration of Non - Significance under SEPA was issued. We had to bring the buildings up 13' above the pond, so you not only have a horizontal buffer, but also a vertical buffer due to flood control legislation. During the proposal for Phase Two, the City required an EIS for the 4 acres which was not required for the 14 acre Target project. More studies were conducted and it was determined that there were no adverse environmental impacts with using a 25' buffer in Phase One. Therefore, SEPA is looking at this particular 4 acre piece of property, while Jones & Stokes did not analyze this particular site and determined that a 100' foot buffer was required with no scientific basis. If the 100' buffer is added to the 15' setback, plus the 36' for a street, plus the 15' for landscaping, then 166' of the 200' is taken and the project is dead. It's a senseless approach. The Autobon Society has submitted a letter which states that the regulations in the SAO are inflexible. We urge that the staff have flexibility in working with the competent professionals, and do the right thing for a particular site. Mr. Haggerton asked if the costs associated with the exploratory work done for both projects were absorbed by their firm. Mr. Benoliel said that 100% of the costs were paid by Spieker Partners. They are also paying consultants to do an EIS for SEPA for Phase Two. They have to pay $50,000 - $75,000 to prepare a document, have no scientific disagreement with it, and then have someone else tell the City Council it ought to be something else, without even studying it. Bill Arthur, 18010 Southcenter Pkwy.: During the latter part of 1989 and the early part of 1990 I served as one of the co- chairs of the Tukwila Citizen's Advisory Committee that was charged with the responsibility of developing a draft for the Sensative Areas Ordinance. The Committee completed that draft and sent it to the Planning Commission and City Council in late March, 1990. I'm appearing before you on behalf of those Committee members that believe the Citizen's Committee draft represents the best alternative of all the various drafts which have been presented to the Planning Commission and the citizens of Tukwila. Although some of the more recent drafts (Jun 27, 1990 and August 16, 1990) are said to have been drawn from the Citizen's version or based on the Citizen's version, they are in fact more similar to the City's version of October 25, 1989, than they are to the Citizen's draft. The latest City version is considerably different from the Citizen's version both in concept and in detail, and I believe contains some significant flaws. The Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 August 30, 1990 approach for establishing sensitive area buffers is, in this August 16, 1990 version, the same as the approach they used in the October 25, 1989 version; the use of an arbitrary buffer width for different types of wetlands. Those widths as presented in the City's draft are not based on scientific data. Diane Shelton, a wetlands specialist from the firm of Jones & Stokes, stated that "in the City of Tukwila, to require a 100' buffer right now is ludicrous because most of your wetlands have not seen 100'buffers for a decade and you don't want to look silly ". The Citizen's Committee spent 100 hours a piece in meetings and we spent at least that much time outside committee meetings, reading reports, listening to consultants tapes and coming up with what we thought was a good balance between protecting the environmentally sensitive areas in the City, and protecting the individual property rights of owners. I urge the Planning Commission to consider the Citizen Committee's approach to buffers, which is to recognize that each watercourse and each . wetland within the City has its own individual buffering needs. It should also be noted that the Citizen's version recognized that wetlands and watercourses are similar, but not identical. Therefore, they should be treated differently in other ways besides buffering. It is not clear from our reading of the current SAO if it recognizes that there are differences between them. One of our major areas of concern was making sure that a property owner didn't lose the use of their property. It was not our intent as a Citizen's Committee to develop an open space ordinance. It is suggested that the Planning Commission take note of the reasonable use exceptions provided in Section 18.45.115 in the Citizen's draft. The City's version of that same paragraph could limit a person's use of their property to a single family residence, which by most people's standards, would not be a resonable use in the middle of a fully developed, commercial or industrial zone. The Citizen's Committee did not get into the issues of the coloring of buildings, controlling vegetation on hillsides or determining where roads should go. That was not within our scope of work. We touched on some other issues, which I notice are no longer in the Sensitive Areas legislative package, such as the tree preservation ordinance and the grading & clearing ordinance. The Planning Commission agreed to continue the public hearing regarding the Sensitive Areas ordinance on September 6, 1990 at 8:00 P.M. Notices of this public hearing will be sent to the citizens who signed up to speak. The meeting was adjourned. EXHIBIT A SA REPORT & ATTACHMENTS B HONG LETTER C DOE LETTER D SRO LETTER & ATTACHMENTS E SLOPE DISTRURBANCE CHART F SEATTLE AUDUBON G METRO LETTER H LEVINSON LETTERS & ADMIN. RULING I STRANDER LETTER J SOLLY SITE (MAP) K TUKWILA II SITE PLAN (MAP) L. KING COUNTY LETTER, DATED 12/5/89 SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 30, 1990-= :PUBLIC':HEARING. CiCj of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433.1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor I CALL TO ORDER ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 26,1989 IV NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER REQUEST: V DIRECTOR'S REPORT VI ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, November 9 1989 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall AGENDA 89 -2-CA The City of Tukwila proposes the adoption of a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code, and amending the subdivision and environmental codes to reflect the proposal. Regulation will: 1. Designate as sensitive: a. watercourses, b. wetlands, c. slopes of 15% and greater, and d. abandoned coal mines. 2. Establish vegetative buffers for sensitive areas. 3. Create development standards for sensitive areas. Explanation of proposed moratorium on Sensitive Areas. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 26, 1989 Chairman Haggerton called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Members present were Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Kirsop, Knudson, Gomez, and Flesher. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw, Vernon Umetsu and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. CAGLE MOVED MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AS PRESENTED. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. SENSITIVE AREA DRAFT ORDINANCE comments received from the public at held on Wednesday, October 25, 1989. for adopting the Ordinance. AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A SEPTEMBER 28, 1989 MEETING - Moira Bradshaw reviewed the informational workshop She reviewed the process General discussion ensued on the merits of the ordinance. A portion of the November, 1989 Planning Commission meeting is to be devoted to a work session on the ordinance. MULTI FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS - Vernon Umetsu reviewed the concepts contemplated for the changes to design review process which include more specific standards, design review criteria, and design guidelines. A brief discussion ensued on these concepts. A Planning Commission workshop is scheduled as well as a public hearing in December. STATE FARM - Vernon Umetsu discussed the conditions of approval placed on the design review of this project on May 12, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Condition 6 stated that the building facade /colors are to be specified by applicant and approved by the Board. Mr. Michael Glanz, architect for State Farm, 16212 Bothell Way, Suite F -146, Mill Creek, WA introduced samples of brick and glass to be used in the design of this project. He pointed out five combinations to be considered. Planning Commission October 26, 1989 Page 2 The merits of each were discussed. MR. FLESHER MOVED AND KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE COLORS. OF THE BRICK COMBINATION BE REDONDO GRAY, WITH MAUNA LOA BROWN AS ACCENT; AND WITH DELORIAN GRAY AS THE MORTAR COLOR. -MOTION PASSED WITH KNUDSON, HAMILTON, GOMEZ, FLESHER, CAGLE, AND KIRSOP VOTING YES AND MR. HAGGERTON VOTING NO. Vernon briefed the Commission on Southcenter Retail Building project presented by Bob Schofield. He clarified the decision that was made on the design review of the project. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Jack Pace reviewed the changes to the Burger King development at Tukwila Pond. Mr. Gomez reported on a recent seminar he attended, distributing material he obtained at the seminar. .ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10 :31p. Respectfully Submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary SUBDIVISION CODE ZONING CODE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE The draft SAO modifies the subdivision and environmental ordinances and creates a new section in the zoning code. In brief, the effect of the SAO is: Unsuitable and - Property shall not be divided unless the proposed lots meet SAO requirements. Trees - In new subdivision or short plats, where trees are removed, there shall be a 1 for 1 replacement. Definitions - Adds new language to the Zoning Code defining the sensitive areas and inducting new concepts of lot coverage and essential rights -of -way . and utilities. Sensitive Areas include the following: • Abandoned Mines • Landslide Hazard Areas • Slopes 15 percent and greater • Wetlands • Watercourses Buffers - No alteration or structure will be allowed within buffer areas. For each sensitive area there will be the following minimums: Wetlands: 40 feet for major wetlands 25 feet for minor wetlands Watercourses: 25 feet if adjacent land slopes less than 15% 40 feet if adjacent land slopes 15% or greater Steep slope (40% and greater): Historic or potential mass slide area: 50 feet from top of slope 75 feet from toe of slope Uses - Only the following uses shall be allowed within subject sensitive area: Wetlands and Watercourses: • essential utilities • essential roads • public use and access Sensitive Slopes: Between 15 and 39 percent - underlying uses of zoning district (i.e., R-1, R-3, P-O) 40 percent and greater - • minor landscaping alterations • pedestrian trails and picnic areas • public and private utility corridors ENVIRONMENTAL CODE Funding may be required of the applicant for the City to hire a qualified professional to review applicant's study. Page 2 Exceptions - • Existing development shall not be considered nonconforming with respect to the sensitive area overlay • Existing residential development will be allowed to apply for one variance to expand into the sensitive area or its buffer not to exceed 20 percent increase in square footage. • Existing lots of record, if denied a reasonable use, will be allowed a single family dwelling subject to standards of overlay zone. • Minor wetlands and watercourses may be altered and relocated subject to performance standards • Slopes exceeding 40 percent may be developed if variance is approved through the Board of Adjustment. Recording - • Site plans delineating sensitive areas and buffers shall be recorded with King County Records upon development of property • Signs shall be posted identifying the sensitive areas when a sensitive site is developed. Assurance Devise - Performance or maintenance devises may be required when a sensitive site is developed or when a sensitive site or buffer are approved for alteration. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be the areas defined by the Zoning Code Sensitive . Area Overlay Zone Special Studies are necessary for review of developments in sensitive areas but exempts single family dwellings from study requirements where sufficient technical information exists DI FT SENSITIVE AREAS ORD :ANCE Whereas the Tukwila City Council finds that an ordinance is necessary to implement the objectives and policies addressing development impacts to water resources and areas of natural hazards identified in the Natural Environment, Open Space, and Utilities Elements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Whereas the Tukwila City Council finds that procedures and standards are necessary: a. To protect sensitive areas by regulating their development b. To minimize the impacts of development on the natural function and values these areas perform for the community and region. c. To protect the quantity and quality of water resources. d. To minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and to maintain wildlife habitat. e. To provide for the protection of trees and woodlands located in sensitive areas and in their buffers and for the revegetation of these areas when developed. f. To protect the public against avoidable losses and damages from: (1) Landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. (2) Maintenance and replacement of public facilities. (3) Property damage. (4) Subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts. (5) Cost for public emergency rescue and relief operations. g. To alert appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers and lessees of the natural limitations of the physical environment. Pt ireski6 h. To provide city officials with information t dition or deny public or private projects in order to protect sensitive areas; and expedite governmental review processes. i. To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as revised in 1984. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SUBDIVISION CODE Section 1. Chapter 17.20.020 Amended Chapter 17.20.020 Environmental Considerations of the Subdivision Ordinance, TMC 17, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to flooding and poor drainage based on a review by the Public Works Department, the administrators of the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Area Overlay zone, TMC 18.45 and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. Land shall not be platted unless the proposed lots can be shown to meet the requirements of both ordinances. 2. Trees. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and if removed, replaced at a 1:1 ratio with specimen deciduous and coniferous trees in significant stands. A tree removal /retention / revegetation plan shall be submitted at the time of preliminary plat application and shall be subject to Planning Commission and City Council preliminary plat approval. The plan shall show at two foot contour intervals, the existing ground elevations and proposed elevations for planned improvements. The approved plan shall be a part of the grading permit application for installation of plat improvements. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 ATTACHMENT A ZONING CODE Section 2. Chapter 18.06 Amended. DRAFT SEI :TIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 2 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility, utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Landslide hazard areas. "Landslide hazard areas" means those areas subject to a severe risk of landslide due to: 1. A combination of the following factors: a. slopes greater than fifteen percent; and b. impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel); and c. springs or ground water seepage during the wet season (November to February). 2. The location of a landslide feature which has historical movement. 18.06.455 Lol Coverage. "Lot Coverage "means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surfac other than outdoor pools, which will not allow for the percolation of water into e underlying soi s buildings, compacted gravel, asphalt and concrete. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas "means wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas and abandoned coal mine areas. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer"means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.775 Steep Slopes. "Steep Slopes "means the ground that rises ten feet or more for every twenty -five feet of horizontal distance, thus having a slope of 40% or steeper, that has an elevation change of more than 10 feet and square footage of greater than 500 square feet. 18.06.855 Tree. "Tree "means any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greaterc a multi- stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. 18.06.935 Watercourses. "Watercourses "means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. "Wetlands "means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. They are further categorized as follows: 1. Major wetlands shall be those that rated a 1 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory 2. Minor wetlands shall be those that rated a 2 or 3 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory or are less than an acre and have two or fewer wetland subclasses. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 ZONING CODE Section 3. Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION The purpose of this overlay district is to establish special standards for use and development of land based on known hazards, and to minimize the disturbance of development to the natural character of the City's wooded hillsides and to preserve and enhance the quantity and quality of water in Tukwila's watercourses and wetlands. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: a. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps or b. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following: • Abandoned coal mines • Landslide hazard areas • Slopes of 15% and steeper • Wetlands • Watercourses The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on or adjacent to a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. 2. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 3. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. DRAFT SErtTIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 3 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER DESIGNATION 1. Minimum Buffers a. General: Any structure and any land alteration must be setback out of the buffer areas as required by this section; Buffers in general are required in order to: (1) Minimize long -term impacts of development adjacent to Sensitive Areas, and (2) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, and b. Watercourse and Wetland Buffers are specifically required to: (1) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and room for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (2) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 c. DRAFT SEN „ fIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 4 (3). Stabilize banks, and (4) Intercept fine sediments, and (5) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (6) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. Steep Slope Buffers are specifically required to: (1) Protect slope stability, and (2) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control, and (3) Screen hillside development. d. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are permitted. e. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. 2. Wetlands Buffer a. Major Wetlands: 40 feet from the wetland edge. b. Minor Wetlands: 25 feet from the wetland edge. 3. Watercourse Buffer a. Watercourses which are located adjacent to land which slopes less than 15% or which have intermittent water flows shall have a 25 foot buffer from the top of each bank. b. Watercourses which are located adjacent to land and which slopes 15% or greater shall have a 40 -foot horizontal buffer from the top of each bank. 4. The buffers for wetlands and watercourses may be required to be increased by Tukwila when the area is particularly sensitive to disturbance or the development poses unusual impacts as identified in the special study. The standards listed above will be the criteria for expansion of the watercourse and wetlands minimums. Examples include: a. The development proposal involves the production, use storage or sale of hazardous materials or is a use which has significant environmental impacts. b. The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington; c. Special study identifies the presence of salmonids within the watercourse and or adjacent land which is a landslide hazard area or subject to severe erosion. d. The adjacent soils are subject to severe erosion such Slopes a. Top of Slope: 50 feet from top and sides of 40% slopes and landslide hazard areas and having a grade difference from top to bottom of at least ten feet. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 18.45.060 PROCEDURES b. Sites where historic or potential mass slope movement occurs shall have a 75- foot buffer from toe of slope. c. Slope Buffer Modification: The Director of DCD and the Director of Public Works may waive or modify the slope buffer if the applicant demonstrates that: (1) The proposed construction method will, as demonstrated in the required geotechnical analysis, improve or not adversely impact the stability of the slope and reduce erosion potential, and (2) The proposal uses construction techniques which minimize disruption of the existing topography and vegetation, and (3) The proposal adequately addresses, without long term monitoring, the existing geological constraints of the site including soils and hydrology. 1. When an applicant submits an application for any development, subdivision, short plat or land use review which approves future construction or use it shall indicate whether any sensitive areas or their buffers are located on or adjacent to the site. If a sensitive area is identified and sufficient information to evaluate the proposal is not provided with the application, the applicant will be required to provide special studies as part of the SEPA process and per the specifications of 21.04.140. It is intended that sensitive area studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be completed prior to the design of a proposal. 2. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: Only the following uses may be located within a Sensitive Area or its buffer. Each permitted use is subject to the applicable standards of this Section. 2. Wetlands and Watercourses b. Essential Utilities DRAFT SEllf TIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 5 a. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland or watercourse except as specifically allowed by this section or through approved enhancement or mitigation plans. Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. (1) Essential public utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland and watercourse disturbance by laterally drilling at a depth of at least four feet; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and the watercourse against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, aesthetic loss, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential public utilities, wetlands and watercourses must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SEr( 'FIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 6 (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. c. Essential Roads (1) Roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the aesthetic and hydrologic quality of the wetland and any interrelated watercourse habitat. Where feasible, crossings must be by bridging the wetland and watercourse and must allow for combination with other essential public utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. d. Public Use and Access (1) Public access must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Parks and Open Space Plan trail linkage program: and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or watercourse or their buffers required by Section 18.45.040 except as required for necessary maintenance or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive facility developed in a wetland and /or watercourse must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Consolidated area for nesting, breeding, and rearing must be preserved in the wetland and /or watercourse area and their buffer required by Section 18.45.080 to protect sensitive plant and wildlife species; and (8) Dredging or filling within a wetland and or watercourse may occur only for the following purposes: (a). Maintenance of an existing water body or water corridor, or (b) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in sensitive area study or (c) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City, or DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 (d) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila. 3. Sensitive Slope Conditions a. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites with slopes exceeding 15 %, except for those portions of a site where slopes exceed 40% and portions that are landslide hazard areas. The standards of this section and the geotechnical recommendations of the required special study apply to each use or development in these areas. b. Limited Exemption: Slopes 40% and steeper with a vertical elevation change of up to 20 feet may be exempted from the provisions of this section based on Tukwila review of a soils report that demonstrates that no adverse impact will result from the exemption. (Slopes of less than 10 feet in elevation change need no soils report.) c. Restricted Uses: For those portions of sites or sites that are unbuildable due to this section the following uses may be permitted subject to the procedures and standards of this chapter: (1) minor landscaping alterations (2) pedestrian trails and picnic areas (3) public and private utility corridors d. Disturbance Limitations f. Location: DRAFT SE?( TIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 7 (1) Basic Requirement: Development on property including a slope equal to or greater than 15% must (a) Consolidate all areas of disturbance on the areas of least slope, preserving areas of significant environmental features, such as but not limited to an area of vegetation valuable for habitat or aesthetic reasons, a ridgeline which constitutes an area -wide visual amenity, and (b) Minimize changes in grade, cleared area to areas of proposed impervious surface, and volume of cut or fill on the site. (c) Consolidate development to produce the least amount of coverage by buildings and other impervious surfaces. e. Revegetation: Where any portion of a sensitive slope is cleared for development, it shall be replanted with an equal mix of specimen evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater of vine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. (1) Development must be located to minimize disturbance and removal of vegetation; and (2) Structures must be clustered to retain as much open space as possible and the natural topographic character of the slope; and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 g. DRAFT SEl1 .TINE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 8 (4) Development must be located so as to preserve the most sensitive portion of the site and its natural landform or to protect vistas from public spaces. (3) Structures must conform to the natural contour of the slope. The foundation must be tiered to conform to the existing topography of the site; and Design (1) Development must minimize the footprint of buildings and other disturbed areas. The least number of buildings is desirable in order to consolidate the development; and (2) Development must retain consolidated areas of natural vegetation; and (3) Development must be designed with a foundation type that is compatible with existing slope conditions and that minimizes topographic modification. Where feasible, earth retention measures should be incorporated into the structure; and (4) Standard prepared building pads; i.e., slab on grade, resulting in grading more than ten feet outside the building footprint area are prohibited: and (5) Development must be designed to minimize the amount of impervious surface; and (6) Use of common access drives and utility corridors is required where feasible; and (7) Development must be designed to minimize lot coverage and must, with the exception of detached single family structures, incorporate understructure parking and multi-level structures where permitted; and (8) Roads, walkways and parking areas must be designed parallel to contours with consideration to maintaining consolidated areas of natural topography and vegetation. Access must be located in the least sensitive area feasible; and (9) Use of retaining walls which allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas is preferred over graded artificial slopes. (10) Change in grade, cleared area and volume of cut or fill on the site must be minimized; and h. Construction Types (1) Use of foundation walls as retaining walls is preferable to rock or concrete walls built separately and away from the building. Freestanding retaining devices are only permitted when they cannot be designed as structural elements of the building foundation; and (2) For slopes exceeding 40% use of pole -type construction which conforms to the existing topography is required where feasible. All structures must be tiered to conform to the existing topography and to minimize topographic modification; and (3) Piled deck support structures are preferred for parking or garages over fill - based construction types. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 4. Abandoned Mine Areas a. Development of a site containing or a may be permitted when all significan working have been eliminated or miti b. Any building setback or land alteratio engineering special study. 18.45.120 EXCEPTIONS It is the applicant's burden to: a. Demonstrate compliance with all ap Chapter, and b. Provide a geotechnical and stability c. Provide other information necessary d. Provide an engineering solution that e. The City may require the applicant t retained by the Department of Publi DRAFT NO. 1 indicates engineering design accepta of Public Works, and not normally performed in building DRAFT SEA fIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Pa : e 9 jacent to an abandoned coal mine area risks associated with the abandoned mine ated so that the site is safe. shall be based on the geotechnical 1. Provisions for existing development: a. General: All residential and commer ' al development located in wetlands, watercourses and /or their corridors o on steep slopes and in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. (1) Residential Development: A res be expanded into a Sensitive Ar procedure outlined in 18.72. 0 procedure will be allowed and t increase of total square footage. 2. Provisions for existing legal lots of record a. Development of a single family dwell ng shall be allowed, if application of this chapter denies all use of property pro ided construction shall occur subject to the procedures and standards of 18.45. b. Minor wetlands and watercourses th t prevent all use of existing property, may be altered and relocated if special stu y demonstrates that alteration/ relocation can meet the performance standards f 21.04.104(a)(4). 3. Provisions for variances: The Board of A justment shall review requests for variance from the standards of this chapter unless empted by 18.45.120(2) or unless specifically waived elsewhere within this apter. The use restriction on steep slopes shall use criteria of this paragraph as well s the criteria and procedures of 18.72. i dential development described above may a or its buffer through the variance l y one expansion through the variance at expansion will be limited to a 20 percent licable standards and criteria of this alysis as required by the City which e to the City, and or the analysis as required by the Director does not rely on life of project maintenance and site maintenance. fund a qualified professional, selected and Works, to review the analysis and design. October 25,1989 f. If the Directors of Public Works and DCD determine that the applicant complies with the above, Protected Area status no longer apply to the subject sensitive area; however the standards for development shall be applied. 4. Provisions for emergencies that threaten the public health, safety, and welfare. The restrictions and related requirements of sensitive area use shall be exempted by Tukwila provided due diligence is used to minimize damage. 5. Hold Harmless: Property owners who submit development applications to the City for expansion or reconstruction or construction in a Sensitive Area or its buffer, shall execute a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney which releases the City from liability for any damage arising from the location of improvements within the Sensitive Area or its buffer. 18.45.160 RECORDING REOUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this Chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, steep slope, landslide hazard area or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by Section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provisions of this Chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. The boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and the adjacent developable land must be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.180 ASSURANCE DEVICE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE Section 4. 21.04.030 Amended. DRAFT SE1( HVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 10 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City may require a performance or maintenance assurance device in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter and adequate protection of a Sensitive Area and its buffer for up to two years after construction completion. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the director of DCD may require an assurance devise, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies that do not appear until after the monitoring program has ended. Section 21.04.030 is hereby amended to delete WAC 197 -11 -748 Environmentally sensitive area. Section 5. Section 21.04.040 Amended. Section 21.04.040 is hereby amended to add: (6) "Sensitive area" means wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15%, landslide hazard areas and abandoned coal mine areas as shown on the adopted zoning maps and as defined in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.06. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 Section 6. Section 21.04.130 Amended. DRAFT SEK JIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 11 Section 21.04.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Special studies as described in 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. Section 7. Section 21.04.140 Amended. Section 21.04.140(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) If the site is a sensitive area, then the following special study will be required. The DCD Director and Public Works Director may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a use or application. The following exceptions shall generally apply: • Single - family residential permits for lots created by subdivision after 1985. • No alteration of a sensitive area or its buffer is proposed. Special studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. All studies shall contain the following information unless it is already available in the permit application: (a) Map of the project at a 1:50 or larger scale, including: i. reference streets and property lines. ii. existing and proposed easements, rights -of -way, and structures. iii. contour intervals not to exceed 5 feet; 2 feet may be required for sites with varied topography. iv. hydrology — show surface water features both on and adjacent to the site; show any water movement into, through, and off of the project area; show stream and wetlands; show seeps, springs, saturated zones. (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) v. field location of tops and toes of 40% slopes and embankments (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) vi. location of buffer, proposed building(s) location, and other paved areas. vii. location of trees and description of vegetation on site. (b) Written report detailing i. how, when, and by whom the study was performed (including methodology and techniques). ii. description of the project site and its existing condition and artificial features such as utilities, paving, cuts and fills. iii. the total acreage of the site in sensitive areas and their associated buffers. iv. the proposed action and potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to the sensitive area features (see definitions). v. the mitigation measures proposed to avoid or lessen the projects' impacts during construction and permanently. When alterations to the sensitive area or its buffer are proposed, include a mitigation plan. vi. weather conditions during and prior to study if relevant to conclusions and recommendations, including seasonal factors which could reduce stability of site before, during or after construction. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SE1� TIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 12 (2) Sensitive Area Study - Wetlands: In addition, for wetland studies, include the following: (a) On the map i. the edge of the wetland as flagged and surveyed in the field using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. January 10, 1989 ii. the edge of the 100 -year flood plain. iii. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. iv. when alteration of wetland is proposed, the vegetation of the wetland according to the Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior (b) In the report i. description of the wetland and the general condition of the wetland using the Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System. ii. determination of actual use of the wetland by any endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species of plants or wildlife as listed by the federal government or the State of Washington using both scientific and common names and their relative abundance. iii. a list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observations. iv. description of the soil types within the wetland using the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. v. description of the proposed buffers. (3) Sensitive Area Study - Watercourses. In addition, for watercourse studies, include the following information: (a) On the map i. the location of the ordinary high water mark and the top of channel bank. ii. the toe of any slope 15% or greater within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark. iii. the location of any proposed stream crossing, utility easements, or trails. iv. the edge of the existing 100 -year flood plain. (b) In the report i. characterization of watercourse (riparian) vegetation ii. description of the soil types adjacent to and underlying the stream, using the Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. iii. determination of the presence or absence of salmonids. Reference sources including the State Department of Fisheries Catalog of Streams and Salmon Utilizations, Metro Stream Resource Inventories, or State Wildlife Department Game Fish Distribution in Selected Streams. Electrofishing on site or the equivalent may be necessary if no existing documentation is available. iv. When a stream alteration is proposed, include existing stream width and flow, stability of the channel, type of substratum, estimate of infiltration capacity and biofiltration function, presence of hydrologically linked wetlands, and analysis of fish and wildlife habitat, and proposed flood plain limits. (4) Mitigation Plans for Alternations to Wetlands and Streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SEIM,.. TIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 13 (a) Baseline information: This is quantitive data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. i. For wetlands, the information should define habitat values (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures), functional values (e.g., wetland value assessment procedures of Adams and Stockwell, 1983), or document pertinent resource characteristics such as habitat area or species counts or density (e.g., mean number of eelgrass shoots per square meter). ii. For streams, habitat value, functional value and habitat evaluation are also necessary. At a minimum the following levels of analysis should be included: • Reconnaissance and evaluation - information required for the special studies, additional visual survey of the stream system and /or other pertinent information. • Habitat Trend Analysis - in some cases a more detailed analysis may be required. For this type of analysis current reference is Platts, W.S. et. al. 1987, Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management, General Technical Report INT -221, U.S.F.S., Intermountain Research Stations. • Extended monitoring - in an abnormal rainfall year pre - development monitoring may be necessary to provide adequate baseline data. (b) Environmental Goals and Objectives: These are written goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (c) Performance Standards: These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: i. maintain stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient; ii. restore native vegetation unless expressly waived by DCD; iii. create an equivalent channel bed; iv. create equivalent biofiltration; v. replace habitat value unless expressly waived by DCD; vi. replace horizontal alignment (meander length). (d) Detailed Construction Plan: These are the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (e) Monitoring and /or Evaluation Program: This component outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. It also describes the experimental and control site survey or sampling methods. A protocol shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (f) Contingency Plan: This section identifies potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 (g) Performance and Maintenance Bonds: Monetary agreements per Section 18.45.160 to ensure fulfillment of the mitigation project, the monitoring program, and 1 determine during the review and contingency measures. (5) Sensitive Area Study - Steep / Unstable Slopes DRAFT SE1 AREAS ORDINANCE Page 14 (a) On the map: i. subsurface exploration locations. ii. the drainage plans for discharge of storm water runoff from developed areas iii. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. iv. the location of soil borings and cross- section locations at intervals to be determined by the Director of Public Works. (b) On the cross - section: i. existing and proposed grades at 2 -foot intervals. ii. structural elevations. iii. profiles should extend beyond property lines where necessary to evaluate conditions impacting the risk of instability on the site or adjacent sites. iv. known and inferred subsurface conditions. (c) In the report: i. discussion of any evidence of past or existing instability, significant erosion or seepage on the slope and on any information that could affect the future stability of the site; ii. a discussion of the nature and extent of any colluvium (heterogeneous mass of rock detritus or soil material emplaced primarily by gravitational process on or at the foot of slopes) or slope debris near the toe of slope in the vicinity of any proposed development; and iii. review of available literature regarding site and surrounding area. iv. a geologic description of site (exploration logs identified on the site plan) indicating the soils and stratigraphy of the site v. recommendations for foundation, site grading and earthwork. vi. recommendations for management of surface and subsurface drainage, induding analysis of groundwater activity for various times of the year, and indude in stability analysis. vii. recommendations for appropriate building setbacks, grading restrictions, vegetation management and erosion control for any proposed development in the vicinity of the steep slopes. (6) Sensitive Area Study - Abandoned Coal Mine: The study shall be prepared by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer who has demonstrated experience in evaluating hazards associated with abandoned coal mine workings. (a) on the map: i. obtain the best available mine maps, reference the date and source and show; ii. the extent and depth of all subsurface mine workings iii. the location of all mapped entrances, air shafts or other surface openings (b) based on an evaluation of the site in its present condition, show i. the location of any observed surface openings ii. the location of any observed pits, swales, depressions which could indicate subsidence or collapse iii. the location and nature of any mine related debris on the surface iv. the location and character of any spoils or tailings. v. the character and stratigraphic orientation of any bedrock exposures DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 C DRAFT SEI&..TTIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 15 (c) in the report: i. discuss the geologic setting of the site inducting the depth of Pleistocene overburden, the nature and orientation of the bedrock units and the location and thickness of all coal seams. Include at least one cross- section . showing the geologic setting, extent of workings and proposed development: ii. discuss the potential for discharge of noxious gases in the vicinity of the subject site. iii. discuss the potential for sudden collapse, void openings, or other threats to health or safety associated with development. iv. recommendations for any development setback restrictions based on an engineering evaluation of potential hazard from subsidence over large areas as well as localized collapse. v. recommendations for mitigation where possible to support with study data and engineering design. Section 8. Section 21.04.270 Amended Section 21.04.270 (1) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Zoning Code - TMC Chapter 18 Section 9. Section 21.04.300 Amended Section 21.04.115 Environmentally Sensitive Areas is hereby renumbered and amended to read as follows: (a) Sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 or hereinafter amended designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. The Categorical Exemptions within Part Nine, WAC 197 -11- 800(1); (2) a through g; (3); (6) a and b; (14) a, c, and d; (24) a through grand (25) d, f, h, and i are inapplicable within sensitive areas. Mayor's Message VOL. 10 NO.2 The City of Tukwila continues to be committed to the concept of "Excellence in Action" in the provision of services to our citizens. The citizen - whether pri- vate or corporate - is our customer and must be treated as such. We work for you, the taxpayer, and we will provide the best quality service that is at our dis- posal. You are well aware that the City is different than it was at the beginning of the year. Four annexations have taken place and the City has grown substan- tially in size, population, and number and complexity of issues that face the City. The annexations have caused some "growing pains" for all departments. The Administration and Council have expe- rienced a tremendous increase in their workloads, and we sometimes need to find new ways to deal with problems that face us. We may "stumble" or make some mistakes as we deliver services to our citizens. As your Mayor, I can only ask for your consideration and patience when this happens. It is important that you keep me informed when you have difficulty - or even a good experience - so that I may give appropriate direction or reinforcement to the staff. I ask every citizen to be more inter- ested and to participate in the City. A prime opportunity exists with the up- coming Council elections. You have excellent candidates running for office, and they will be making policy on your behalf that will chart the future of our city. Several issues are currently being brought forth for debate or considera- tion: Open Space and Parks, Sensitive Area (slopes, wetland and view corri- dors), Human Services, Capital Improve- ments, and Future Annexations to name a few. I am particularly concerned with the fiscal aspects of our future City policies. We can afford to provide basic services (police, fire, public works, etc.) and do some of the things that improve our quality of life. I caution everyone that we can't do everything. Our ability to finance projects and meet service demands are finite. Your involvement in helping to make these critical decisions is strongly and sincerely urged. Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA, WA Of four City Council seats to be filled this year, only two will appear on the November 7 general election ballot. Joe Duffle and Alan Ekberg al- ready have won their respective seats, running unopposed this year. Ekberg is new to the Council. It will be Duffle's third four -year term. The decision of Councilmembers Ed Bauch, Marilyn Stoknes and Mae Harris to not seek another term opened the door for three new faces on the Council come January. George Malina and John "Wally" Rantz will compete for Position #4 and As we're heading toward Fall, the City Council continues to work hard to make sure Tukwila stays a place we're all proud of. Trying to balance the needs of the "old" and "new" Tukwila, the resi- dential and business communities, and the growth or preservation of areas has kept us busy up until now and promises to keep our meetings lively into the fu- ture. Already planned for the next few months are issues as diverse as acting to protect wetlands, steep slopes and ero- sion areas; changing the Multi- Family Design Standards in the zoning code; approving pre- annexation zoning for the { HA7.EI.91iIIT SEPTEMBER, 1989 Tukwila Mayor Gary VanDusen welcomes citizens to the City. The new welcome signs, designed by City staffers, are being posted at 22 entrances into the City. City Council elections set for Nov. 7 Steve Lawrence and Scott Nangle will battle it out for Position #2. The Council job pays $400 per month during the four -year term. Many important policies will be determined during their term as the City adjusts to its recent growth. This is the second time in three years that three new people will sit on the Councll. It means that six of the seven Councilmembers will have two or fewer years of Council experience. Voting will take place all day on November 7, at the regular polling places. Learn as much as you can about the candidates and make an informed choice. Message from the Council Cascade View annexation; and starting a Surface Water Utility to clean up the Green River and Puget Sound. We welcome your coming to our meetings any time. Even with the recent annexations Tukwila's still a small enough town that you can reach any of us or come to any meeting with an issue you feel needs the City's attention. Remember, you're ourbosses. Until citizens let us know what you want, we on the Council will assume we're headed in the right direction. Let us hear from you, Marilyn Stoknes, Council President Cascade View Annexation Under Study The Fire District #1, Riverton, Fos- ter and Thorndyke annexations have now have been completed and the areas absorbed Into Tukwila. Together, these annexations have increased City popu- lation from 6,198 to 10,793 and area from 4,255 to 5,143 acres. The City is now processing Cas- cade View as the last of this original quintet ofannexation requests from area residents during Summer /Fall, 1988. The Cascade View annexation was pro- posed as a logical extension of the City in order to fully encompass the South Central School District. JointCity/school district boundaries are anticipated to in- crease the sense ofTukwila as a commu- nity. Cascade View is located between Military Road on the West, Highway 99/ Tukwila city limits on the east, S 116th St on the north, and S 152nd St on the south. The area contains 581 acres with a population of about 3,061. Develop- ment is characterized by a mix of com- mercial and multi- family uses in the south and along Highway 99, strong central and northern single- family ar- eas, and Riverton Hospital in the center. The annexation seems to be strongly supported by residents in the central area, with a group of northern area residents actively opposing annexa- tion. The City's analysis of service needs and fiscal obligations for the Cascade View area anticipates revenues of $738,000 and costs in a range of $650,000 to $895,000. The City Council will soon be for- warding the annexation to the King County Boundary Review Board, and holding public hearings in September and October to establish zoning and other annexation terms and conditions. A vote on the annexation is anticipated on February 6, 1990. Vote required to keep 911 service Emergency lire, police and medical service provided by calling 911 requires voter approval every six years. This service is due to expire in August, 1990, unless it receives voter approval at the November 7 election. The life- saving emergency services are provided throughout King County at a cost of about 30* per month, per telephone line, and is collected as part of your phone bill. This cost is expected to increase to 35* in 1990 -1991. The ballot measure will request the authority to raise the monthly charge to 45* to cover potential increases during the next six years. Riverton !1(?SP S - 154th -St.= CASCADE VIEW d r a S 128th . =-SEA S S t 33rd TACT:: S - 148th St- __ _S = 150th_St. Riv Ai St LIMN MEL S 144 th.St. - S. 146th St :-.- 11 ■ Some of the Puget Sound area's finest musicians and entertainers will perform free concerts in the City Council Chambers at City Hall on the third Tuesday of each month. Enjoy classical piano and violin soloists, wind quintets, string quartets, classical trios, and a marimba duet. There even is a play that celebrates Washington's history this year in honor of the state's Centennial celebration. The programs begin at 7:00 pm and last an hour. You can talk with the performers after the concerts and enjoy complimentary juice and cookies. The free concerts are sponsored by Tuk 1 1 r Lr Fo ate 0th St Tukwila City Limits ��.�. Sea Tic City Limits 405: October 17 November 21 December 19 January 16 February 13 March 20 April 17 May 15 homdxice I CI LEGEND NO SCALE 1- Proposed Cascade View Annexation 1 1 I I 1 "Third Tuesdays" begin at City Hall the Tukwila Arts Commission and the Parks and Recreation department. Mark these dates on your calen- dar and join us for some great music. Geisa Dutra - classical pianist Washington Portraits - a Centennial play. Northwoods Wind Quintet Chun Leung To Johann Strauss Trio Collier and Dean Olympic Marimba Duo Salted String Quartet Ticket to Tukwila Community at the Crossroads Ticket to Tukwila - Community at the Cross- roads is the history of Tukwila from the days when the Duwamish people lived on the land, through pioneer settlement, to the present. The history of the newly annexed areas will be included. The book will be based on original research including archival documents, oral histories, business and family memorabilia, photographs and maps. Following high stan- dards of historical scholarship to assure sub- stantial and accurate history, the book will be a pleasure to read and will be lavishly illus- trated with maps, drawing and photographs. Ticket to Tukwila is the story of a special Puget Sound community. The Tukwila History Book is being created as a grassroots community participation endeavor in this year of the state centennial celebrations. You can participate and leave a lasting legacy to future generations by: • Sharing your historical materials by loaning them to the Research Center for study. Land, business and legal records, documents, written memoirs, family diaries, old letters, pictures, and other memorabilia are needed. All loaned materials will be safeguarded at the Research Center and returned to the owner. • Contributing your time and talent and energy by assisting with historical research. A wide variety of skills are needed. Research work can be done at home as well as in the field. No experience is needed. Project Director will provide training for all special skills required by the work. • Donating Tukwila historical memorabilia to the permanent Tukwila History Archive being established to preserve community history materials for all to see and enjoy. To get involved in this landmark Tukwila project, call Dr. Kay F. Reinartz, the Project Director, at the Research Center, 241 -7144 or leave a message at 433 -1800. Park Department listens to what citizens want The Parks and Recreation Department is seeking citizen comments about recreation services. Each quarter of the year a recreation brochure containing current programs and services is sent to all residents. If you would like to have a class or workshop for youth or adults offered, please call Lynn Devoir at 243- 5198. Also, specialized youth and adult sports, preschool and senior programs maybe offered. Let us know what you would like. Design work continues on Crystal Springs Phase II, with construction starting next Spring. Two foot trails will be completed this Fall. Foster Golf Links will have a new 16th tee and green by November. A new area is being planned next to Foster Park. Tukwila Days committee is meeting to plan next year's an- nual community festival. If you would like to join the committee call, Lynn Devoir at 243- 5198. Ticket to Tukwila - Community at the Crossroads Centennial Community History Book Sponsored by the City of Tukwila, WA Book Order Form Tukwila home owners thinking of repairing, weatherizing or improving their home may have low or no interest loans available to them. In 1989, and for 1990, the City has contributed part of its annual share of federal funds, known as Community Devel- opment Block Grants, towards several special home loan programs operated through King County's Housing Authority. If you want to make needed home repairs, or certain types of improvements, or weatherize your home and are a qualified home owner, you may apply for funding. Name: Street: City: State Zip: # of Books Amount Ordered Enclosed Total Enclosed Pre- Publication Prices Hardcover $30 Softcover $15 Tax @ 8.1% Mailing $3.50 per book Books will be sold for $35.00 for hardcover, $18.00 for softcover after publication. Order now and save almost 20 %. Pre- publication prices valid through Jan. 31,1990. Mail order form and check to: Ticket to Tukwila, c/o Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcen- ter Blvd., Tukwila, WA, 98188. Books may be picked up at Tukwila City Hall after publication or mailed upon request. L Block grants available for home repairs J Please contact the King CountyHous- ing Authority at their "Housing Hotline," 296 -7640, for current information. To obtain information concerning weatheri- zation loans, please call 244 -7750. 1, CABLE TELEVISION SURVEY Residents of the City of Tukwila who have unresolved disputes with TCI have a means to get their problems solved. The City of Tukwila uses the services of 3 -1-1 Cable Communications Consultants to work with Tukwila citizens in taking care of unresolved disputes. 3 -H keeps track of complaints received involving TCI and reports to the City so that the City may effectively monitor whether or not the cable company is keeping its franchise agreement with the City. Lon Hurd, vice president and director of 3 -H, urges anyone who has such a dispute to contact his office at 935 -9040. Additionally, the City will soon be starting negotiations with TCI of Washington, Inc., for an extension of their cable television franchise. 3 -H will be assisting the City in the preparation of negotiations. In doing so they will be looking at the satisfac- tion of subscribers with TCI customer service. It would be very beneficial if you would take a few moments to fill out the following questionnaire and send it to the address listed below. GENERAL INFORMATION Do you now subscribe to cable television? ❑ Yes ❑ No How many hours a day do you watch television? ❑ 0-2 ❑ 3-5 ❑ 5+ Most of my television watching is between the hours of: ❑ 8 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ❑ 5 p.m. - midnight ❑ Midnight - 8 a.m. SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION If you now subscribe to cable television, please rate the following categories. GOOD FAIR POOR Picture quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Telephone answering ❑ ❑ ❑ Response to complaints ❑ ❑ ❑ Billing practices ❑ ❑ ❑ Overall service ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: OPTIONAL INFORMATION Name: Phone: Address: RETURN TO: 3 -H CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 4517 California Avenue S.W., Suite "B" Seattle, Washington 98116 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 3 -H CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 4517 California Avenue S.W. Suite . "B" Seattle, Washington 98116 PLACE STAMP HERE "Keep Tukwila small," says survey The 1989 Tukwila Citizen's Survey shows that most people returning sur- veys want to maintain a "small town" feel even with the new annexations. Nine areas of City services were included in the survey this year including: budget priorities, parks and open space, library, public safety/fire, annexations, general services, and community involvement Nearly a third of the responses came from the Tukwila hill, with the rest equally spread throughout the newly annexed areas. Budget priorities There appears to be considerable interest in enforcing zoning codes. The extensive task force debates for pre- annexation zoning and the adult enter- tainment controversy seems to be re- flected heavily from survey respondents. More than 52% of the respondents rated this as Very Important. Most residents preferred putting the City's money into services rather than capital projects. Police /Fire Nearly one -third of the respondents have needed police services this past year. Of those, more than 80% ex- pressed satisfaction with the service. The respondents identified Burglary and Drugs as the top two categories for police attention. Control of gang activity also figured significantly In the preferences. Of less critical importance were vandal- ism, prostitution, and traffic. The fire and emergency services also received high praise from local residents. They favored spending money to maintain high quality services, particularly aid and fire staffing. Annexations Only 26% of the respondents fa- vored continued annexation, and 70% had no suggestions for how the City should accommodate demands for serv- ice in these areas. Services More than 62%said the City should continue to fund street improvements from the general fund. Any improve- ments in business district streets should be paid for by Local Improvement Dis- tricts (LIDs). History book project stirs emotions The City is sponsoring a Tukwila Much of this work can be done at home history book as part of the Washington or with a group of people and does not State Centennial celebration. The book require any special tralning or expert- will be the first -ever compilation of local ence. history from the days of Indian tribes She is looking for local residents along the Duwainish River to the most with public works or engineering back - recent annexations. grounds to help piece together the high - Many citizens are working on this way /street construction. Retired farm - very exciting project, gathering stories, ers and dairymen are needed to recount photographs, letters and drawings from the days when agriculture preceeded long -time residents. The City hired a shopping malls and office parks. Any - professional historian, Dr, Kay Reinartz, one with some interest or training in to assemble the information into a book. tracking down the Mystery Mayors and The book will be generously illus- early pioneer families are encouraged to trated with maps, drawings and photos, join in, too. and will be available in both hardcover, The book is more than a collection "collector edition" quality, and softcover of facts and statistics. It will include editions. Pre- publication orders are now personal histories, thoughts and feel - being taken at 20% off the post- publica- ings about why this area is so special to tion prices so many people. This is a true community activity. If you would like to help with the We urge all of you to share your memo- project, contact Darlene Crostick, the ries, documents, pictures and other volunteer coordinator, or Dr. Kay Re- memorabilia with the committee. Any Martz, at the Research Center in the object loaned for this project will be Tukwila Community Center, 241 -7144. returned after the book is completed if To order a book at pre - publication you so desire. prices, send $16.22 for the softcover, Dr. Reinartz is looking for more $32.43 for the "collector's edition" to volunteers to help with telephone calls, Ticket to Tukwila, c/o City Hall, 6200 reviewing land plats, typing, inventory- SouthcenterBlvd.,Tukwlla,98188. Add ing, cataloging, tabulating early census $3.50 ifyou want the book mailed to you. information, and researching early Books may be picked up at City Hall churches, schools farms and dairies. after publication early next year. Local citizens take the "hands on" approach to recycling at Tukwila Days. City expands recycling plan Tukwila produces more than 21 tons of solid waste every year. Fortu- nately, many Tukwila residents already recycle glass, cans and other materials around their homes even though dispos- ing of this material is inconvenient for them right now. The City of Tukwila is planning a city-wide recycling program under a grant from King County. The City will spend the rest of 1989 studying the extent of the problem in the City, where the solid waste comes from, what it consists of and how best it might be recycled. Six pilot projects in residen- tial and commercial areas and a City employees program are already under- way. The Solid Waste Management Re- port will be used to design a program that permits homeowners, apartment dwellers, and the business district to recycle the waste more efficiently. It also examines the costs and potential reve- nues from reselling recycled materials. Three- quarters of Tukwila's waste comes from the business community and their 44,000 employees. Many businesses are already recycling at least one item, but the amount of material they could recycle is much greater. City employees have been recy- cling paper, aluminum cans, glass, yard waste, oil, tires, and metal scraps since May. Six business and apartment com- plexes have been participating in an effort that allowed considerable com- ingling of recyclables during the sum- mer. No specific program has been out- lined yet. The Mayor and staff will begin drafting a program for the City Council's consideration throughout the Fall. The City will conduct public hearings to let citizens help shape this very important policy. A city-wide plan is hoped to begin early in 1990. Published by the City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 The Tukwila library was once used as a City Hall and an early grade school. Important land use changes "Sensitive Areas" City planners are drafting a new section for the Comprehensive Plan that establishes City policies on development of sensitive areas like wetlands, water- courses and slopes greater than 15 and 40 %. The Planning Commission and City Council will hold Public Hearings on this policy in order to pass an ordi- nance this Fall. It is not too early to let us know what you think the City should be doing. At issue is the preservation of environmentally and aesthetically valu- able land. It also includes development on sites that are potentially dangerous. The Department of Community Devel- opment is preparing the background for the new ordinance. Wetlands are marshes, swamps and transition areas between land and water environments. Water is usually at or near the surface or shallow water covers the ground for all or part of the year, producing habitats fordistinct plant or animal life. Preserving wetlands provides op- portunities to enhance the visual land- scape" of the City, while affording us all with possible recreational opportunities like boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, and observation of wildlife. It also aids in flood control by storing or slowing flood Tukwila library made landmark Recently, Puget Power presented the City with a plaque honoring the building now housing the Tukwila 11- brary as part of their State Centennial landmark project. The historic structure was built in 1920 as a two -room schoolhouse for about 40 children in grades 1 -6. In 1946, the three elementary schools were consolidated at Showalter, and the City bought the schoolhouse to serve as the City Hall. The other two grade schools have been torn down. It became home for the Tukwila library in 1978. being defined waters and filtering out sediments, ex- cess nutrients, and toxic chemicals be- fore entering watercourses. Watercourses are channels where water runs perennially or intermittently that consist of a bed, lower and upper banks, and include vegetation which provides food, shelter, breeding and rearing areas forbinds and animals (called riparian zones). This includes rivers. streams, and creeks. Some 86% of all wildlife animals occupy these riparian areas during all or part of their lives, according to the US Forest Service. Hillsides and ravines and other slopes where large masses of soil are moving, or have moved in the past or may move in the future, will be included in this ordinance. Development would be restricted on slopes greater than 40% with highly erodible soil. In the past these hillsides have been cut to produce a level building area, destroying the hill- side, and leaving the properties below in danger from falling materials and in- creased surface water runoff. The "Sensitive Areas Ordinance," as It is being called, will provide an important part of the zoning ordinances for the expanded City of Tukwila, and will contribute to a more attractive and livable City for us all. 7 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID TUKWILA, WA PERMIT NO. 12698 Work begins on North Hill reservoir The Public Works Department is especially busy these days with three major projects underway. The City is building a 2 million gallon reservoir to maintain its own emergency water supply and eliminate peak flow charges from the City of Se- attle. The project evolved from a 1982 Comprehensive Water Plan analysis and subsequent bond levy in 1986 when citizens voted to fund the protect. The Council recently approved the low bid for the project submitted by Skaar /Seabord. The final costs are expected to raise water bills 7% begin- ning in 1990. Other projects currently in prog- ress: a road overlay project along Tukwila Parkway from the S-line bridge to An- dover Park West and the Interurban Avenue improvement project in front of the Foster Golf Links. METRO announced it will increase its sewerage treatment charges that appear on residential waterbWs to $11.60 /mo beginning January, 1990. 1990 budget talks start in October The City Council will take its first look at the 1990 proposed budget at the end of September. It will be the first time the Council will see the impacts of the recent annexations over a 12 -month period. Finance Director Alan Doerschel will submit a budget that includes the newly approved policemen and firemen hired to protect the expanded City. He also will show what projects and pro- grams might be dropped or delayed with these new priorities. The Council will discuss the im- pacts of the proposed budget during committee meetings over the following several weeks (the public is always wel- come to attend and comment at commit- tee meetings) before formal discussion and public hearings are held this Fall. The budget is usually adopted at the first regular meeting in December. This brochure is sent to you to make you aware of an upcoming ordinance being considered for adoption by the City of Tukwila. It is called the "Sensitive Areas Ordinance ". This information is to help you become informed about the ordinance and express your views about it. New regulations are being designed to protect natural features that are sensitive to development and to give property owners standards and consistency in the development process. The intent of the regulations are to protect people and property from the adverse consequences of development on areas prone to landslides, erosion, and abandoned coal mines and to protect streams and wetlands. What is a sensitive area? Do we have any wetlands besides Tukwila Pond? Tukwila Pond is the largest wetland in the City, but there are numerous others. The majority Any site which contains an abandoned coal mine, wetlands, watercourses and hillsides with slopes that are fifteen percent or greater and land which buffers these areas. f are within railroad and highway rights - of -way but there are others within the neighborhoods and parks of the City such as Fort Dent and Minkler Ponds, undeveloped Crystal Springs Park, and several residential areas on Tukwila Hill. What is a watercourse? A watercourse is a channel with a bed and bank through which water flows continuously or occasionally. It does not include artificial channels but includes streams and creeks. There are at least three stream systems and tributaries in the City — Gilliam, Southgate and Mill. These watercourses act as drainage channels for Tukwila. All our water flows to the Green/Duwamish River. What will be the effect of the new regulations, if I want to use my land? The regulations create a Sensitive Area Overlay District. It is similar to other zoning districts, such as R -1 single family and C -2 commercial zones, used by communities to protect uses and create standards for development. Similar to current practice, knowledge of the zoning and procedures for use and development of land must be checked at City Hall. The City has mapped the sensitive areas identified through aerial photographs and field inventory and marked the zoning map to show the approximate location of these sensitive areas. The three major elements of the new sensitive overlay district are to: 1. Require a study of the property to determine the boundaries and characteristics of the sensitive feature; 2. Establish protected areas and setbacks from the feature; and 3. Provide exceptions for existing and new uses to allow everyone reasonable use of their property. Why is 15% chosen as a steep slope? For safety reasons, fifteen percent is the maximum slope allowed for roads and driveways in the City. Any greater slope has a history of slides and will require reconfiguration of the hill's natural form. HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL 6:1 4:1 2.5:1 1 :1 ERCENT SLOPE How can 1 use my land if some of it is designated a sensitive area? You are allowed the underlying use of your land, such as a single family home or office, except on the portions of your property in the protected areas and their buffers. There are also a limited number of permitted and conditional uses such as horticulture, agriculture and recreational camps. 0 &14e* T How may 1 comment on the proposal? 1. Come by City Hall, review the proposal and map, and speak with Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner, in the Department of Community Development. 2. Mail written comments to: Dept. of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Planner. Attend a public workshop at City Hall to review materials and ask questions of City staff. Wednesday, October 25, 1989 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Public Hearing Before Planning Commission Date: Thursday, November 9, 1989 Time: 8:00 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington After receipt of all testimony, the Planning Commission deliberates and makes a recommendation to the City Council. Further review and hearings will occur before the Tukwila City Council prior to - ordinance adoption. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. Tukwila, Washington 98188 1' City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To: Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: December 7, 1989 Subject: Sense i.ve Area Ordinance November 9 and r, 1989 Public Hearing Testimony 1 The following is a summary of the objective input received from the public regarding the SAO. The City Council has passed an ordinance establishing a moratorium effective until May 13, 1990 and a resolution (Attachment Al which establishes a Citizens Advisory Committee to address siz issues (listed below) and to complete their findings by 12 February 1990. Many of the issues raised by the public are the issues slated for this Committee. Preference for a performance instead of a prescriptive approach was proffered by the professionals. Others felt that the draft SAO left too much to discretion and that there ought to be specific rules; else there would be endless argument. (ie. Exhibit D, SRO letter, which cites numerous vagaries in the draft SAO.) Conditions are no longer "natural," virtually all of the landscape is in an altered state. Break down the ordinance into a sensitive areas section and a hazardous areas section. There is concern about the requirement, page 12, for applicant to fund a qualified, professional selected and retained by Tukwila to review special studies. Testimony states that this process is unnecessary and would be used only when staff disagrees with applicant's conclusions. In addition, a definition of qualified professional was requested. No technical basis for excluding development on slopes exceeding 40 percent. Slope setbacks should be set by a geotechnical professional. A definition of top of slope will be needed for ordinance implementation. Enclosed is a recent article regarding slope regulation in the Puget Sound region. (Attachment B) DOE felt it would be more appropriate to label wetlands with something other than major and minor which indicates value and to include open water features in our definition of wetland. Wet land less than an acre is not a wetland according to Federal Regulations. (This is not an accurate statement however, developments impacting less than an one acre of a wetland may be exempt from Federal permits but are still defined as wetlands.) Lot coverage and tree definitions needs editing. References are made to vegetation trimming or removal however there is no regulatory attempt to regulate vegetation clearing in the SAO overlay. There is the proposal to require a ratio a tree replanting in new subdivision. City Council designated Citizen Advisory Committee issues and relevant public hearing testimony: * Watercourse definition * Buffer width, use and management for steep /unstable slopes, wetlands and watercourses. * Wetland Mitigation * Wetland and Watercourse enhancement * Exception of single family zoned lots and developed single family homes from SAO DOE had some general suggestions regarding mitigation as submitted in their letter, Exhibit C. Specific watercourses mapped are not natural systems but a result of storm water diversions. Buffer width and value has more to do with amount of vegetation in buffer than width of buffer. However, the Audubon Society pointed out that because trails are allowed in buffers the amount of space left for any wildlife would be minuscule. They also felt minimum standards are necessary. Several agencies, DOE, King County and the Audubon Society testify that the standards in the Draft SAO are insufficient. The exception process of 18.45.120 defeats the intent of the ordinance to preserve wetlands or watercourses. Other comments on the exception process were that a single family home may not be a reasonable use of sensitive property if surrounding land uses were multi - family, commercial or industrial. There was testimony that there is no appeal process; however, since this proposal is a zoning code chapter it would be subject to the appeal section TMC.18.90. CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. ��2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUIKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND REVIEWING TECHNICAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SENSITIVE AREAS LAND USE ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has directed the development and implementation of a Sensitive Areas Land Use Ordinance, and WHEREAS, until the Sensitive Areas Ordinance can be formally adopted, the City Council has initiated a moratorium on development of any property which meets the preliminary criteria as defined in the draft ordinance, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that an opportunity for further balanced and objective public review and comment be provided for m the development of the final draft of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An advisory committee shall be appointed by the Mayor and City Council President consisting of the following. A. One (1) representative from the Tukwila Planning Commission to be selected by the Planning Commission. B. One (1) representative from the. Tukwila City Council to be sel ected by the City Council. C. Three (3) at -large representatives of the Tukwila residential citizenry. D. Two (2) representatives of the Tukwila business community. Section & The committee shall be tasked with the responsibility to consider the following issues related to the institution of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance: the appeals process; definition of itgatittiostbuffers for different uses; wetlands mitigation; definition of watercourses; enhancement actions for wetlands and watercourses; and considerations for single lot/single family home exceptions to the ordinance. Section 3, Due to the importance of determining these issues within the time limits created by the duration of the moratorium, the committee shall be constituted and convene as soon as ible, with a directive to provide findings and recommendations not later than February 11990. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, THIS et tMAY OF No iiwbar,1989. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: • ATTACHMENT : A, AMERICAN BOARD OF PSYCHIATRY & NCUROLOOY October 27, 1989 City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6200 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Proposal for greenbelt for slopped area Gentlemen: Thank you very much for the public hearing that is being scheduled soon for the proposal for formation of the greenbelt area on the slopped area and where there is some sort of a natural stream in some part of the season. I am not certain as to whether my property applies to this or not, I suspect it may, but I am very much against this proposal. On the slopped area, the apartment can be built to prevent further erosion. There is a tremendous need for increased housing in the King County area. This would be tantamount to potential confiscation of the land. In addition, I am very concerned about the down - zoning to a single residential from Rfl 900, in my case, and I have been quite unhappy, but without any recourse sofar. King County's attempt to greenbelt area has been defeated or at least postponed. In fact, I think there should be a judicious increase in the land utilization in the higher density areas, if the single residential area has been deteriorating. In short, thank you very much for my receiving of the strong opposition for formation of the greenbelt area of the slope, as well as the inclined area with the seasonal c9, streams. Oiedv 4 b'y Qt) , 1 aAA 1540. 1? C UIPi,A ?efk tnk rNIV S \ k ( Sincerely, . David " `Hong 1. DAVID HONG, M. D. CABRINI TOWERS, SUITE 707 901 BOREN AVE. SEATTLE, WA. 98104 TEL. (206) 5B7 -5747 PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: STATE OF WASHINGTON November 8, 1989 Draft Ordinance Page 2, 18.06.938. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1929 '. Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 4 59 -6000 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance and the proposed sensitive areas overlay zone within the zoning code. The labels "major" and "minor" wetlands describe a wetland in a manner that may not be appropriate in all circumstances. Minor wetlands may be considered insignificant, inconsequen- tial or small. In fact, one minor wetland in Tukwila's in- ventory is greater than 10 acres and has three habitat types. Value laden labels sometimes make it difficult to justify protection of lower value wetlands to the public and to the courts. Based on the experience of other local jurisdictions who have used value laden labels and switched, we recommend more general labels such as Category A, B, and C. (See fur- ther comments on wetlands definition below.) Draft Ordinance Page 3, 18.45.010(1)(b). The definition for "wetlands" established earlier in the or- dinance describes marshes, bogs and swamps utilizing the regulatory definition of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Excluded from this definition are open water areas and water courses. While water courses have been picked up separately as a sensitive area, open water areas such as those found in the "major wetland ", Tukwila Pond, will not be covered. We recommend either substituting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's' definition of wetlands which covers open water areas to six feet in depth, or defining ponds as sensitive areas. Draft Ordinance Page 4, 18.45.040(2). The proposed wetlands and water course buffer widths are too small to carry out the objectives in (1)(b). Most of the literature related to water quality impacts on aquatic sites illustrates that adverse impacts occur at distances less than 100 feet. Depending on the sensitivity of the wetland, �uHiBI�G Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 2 adverse impacts may also occur at greater distances. The literature related to wildlife habitat likewise indicates that greater distances may be necessary to protect the habitat needs of certain species. The departments of Wild - life and Fisheries should be consulted for accurate sessment. A 100 foot buffer should be the minimum that is required ad- jacent to major wetlands in Tukwila, which may be adjusted upward based on the criteria outlined in part 4. The 25 foot buffer for minor wetlands should be adjusted upward, at least for those with a rating of 2. Twenty -five feet is inadequate to accomplish much more than a visual separation between a development and a wetland, and should be reserved only for those isolated wetlands with ordinary habitat value. Draft Ordinance Page 5, 18.45.080(2)(a). The proposed ordinance language will allow the city to autho- rize use and development in wetlands which is offset by "en- hancement" or "mitigation ". Based upon the limited studies of restoration and creation projects to date, there is scien- tific consensus that no wetland can be duplicated or repli- cated exactly because of the complexity of natural systems. From a scientific perspective, much is still unknown about how wetlands function, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Even less is known about how to restore or recreate certain wetland types and functions. Careful monitoring of wetland restoration /creation projects is rare, resulting in little data to base specific cause and effect relationships. Conse- quently, those designing wetlands and those evaluating plans are operating with very limited technical guidance. Because of the uncertainty surrounding wetlands creation, it is important that mitigation be defined according to and fol- low the sequence outlined in the State Environmental Policy Act SEPA Rules definition of mitigation. As defined in the SEPA Rules, mi ga ay inc ude c ariginzq project plans or selecting alternative sites to avoid or reduce adverse im- pacts, using preferred construction or management practices to reduce on -site and off -site effects, or compensating for unavoidable wetlands losses. To ensure this, we recommend that the general provisions be modified to state: "No use or development may occur in a wetland or watercourse except where such use or development is unavoidable and unavoidable impacts have been compensated through deliberate wetlands creation, restoration, or enhancement.!! Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 3 The following definitions are recommended: "Mitigation" includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wetland impacts. This includes: - Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; - Minimizing unavoidable impacts by limiting the magni- tude of the action; and - Compensating for unavoidable, minimized impacts by re- placing or providing substitute wetland resources or en- vironments. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project induced wetland losses, and includes, but is not limited to, the fol- lowing: "Restoration" - Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by: a. Past alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland, or b. Recent permitted alternations or activities where restoration is a condition of the permit. "Creation" - Actions performed to intentionally estab- lish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly occur. "Enhancement" - Actions performed to improve the condi- tion of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. Finally, it is important that you establish clear standards for adequate mitigation that address location, timing, kind, and acreage. If you feel that it is more appropriate to as- sess mitigation on a site -by -site basis, the ordinance must express a clear goal for all mitigation proposals. We strongly recommend that you adopt a goal of achieving no overall net loss of wetlands, as defined by acreage and func- tion, and in the long -term, to increase the quantity and quality of the city's wetlands. This goal has been endorsed by Governor Gardner and has been adopted in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page4 If you have any questions, please call Mr. Bill Leonard of the Wetlands Section at (206) 438- 7161. BJR : cc: Bill Leonard Sincerely, Barbara J. ' Ritchie Environmental Review Section c Dear Mr. Haggerton: STERLING RECREATION ORGANIZATION 777 108W hi.. Bellevue, Wfs. 5ec•.uity Pacific Plaza, Suite 1600 Mail To' 00. Ur:•_ 91 r ?', t,olievdc., WA. 98009-1725 (200) x.55 8100 Planning Commission Mr. Haggerton, Chairman City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Draft Sensitive Areas November 9, 1989 I appreciate the opportunity to Areas Ordinance and to participate regulations. As you may know, SRO area recently annexed to Tukwila inclusion within the City. Ordinance comment on the draft Sensitive in the development of these has property interests in the and we worked actively for We understand the need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and want to work cooperatively with the City to develop a workable ordinance that balances environmental protection and needs of property owners. We also think it important that the City identifies clearly the significant issues and to focus on those rather than applying the same standards to all properties. My comments are primarily addressed to the potential effect of the sensitive areas ordinance on a property owned by SRO. However, there are also a number of questions concerning vague definitions, unclear procedures, discretionary decisions, lack of standards and other issues. A more detailed listing of those issues is attached to this letter. Two specific concerns merit comment, however. One is the lack of any appeal process for a determination that a site is within a sensitive area and that a special study is required. It is also unclear as to whether there is any appeal process available regarding the actions or conditions which result from the special studies. The second concern is the availability of staff to review and analyze the environmental reports which are required as part of the I D Theatre_, Spor Broadcasting Video 065A0049 Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 2 special studies. The draft ordinance provides that the City may require the applicant to pay for professionals to review the studies for which the applicant has already had to prepare. It may not be possible at this point to know how frequently this method will be used, but it raises some serious questions about cost, efficiency and timing. In our experience, qualified professionals who work in engineering and environmental sciences are indeed professionals and prepare competent, objective analyses. Duplication of these services is a costly exercise with little benefit. The property that I want to discuss in detail is approximately 7.5 acres in size and is located near the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 518 and Pacific Highway South. The property has no significant vegetation, and preliminary site investigations indicate that some of the property has been filled in the past. The current topography is partially a result of that fill. The adjacent land use reflects the high degree of urbanization in the vicinity. A major traffic arterial, SR 518, borders the northern boundary of the property. The northwestern portion is developed as a parking lot which serves the Lewis and Clark Cinema Complex on the adjacent property. South 158th borders the property on the south. The area to the east is developed multifamily. The property immediately to the south is vacant. It is, however, zoned for commercial uses and is also owned by SRO. WATERCOURSES A small storm water drainage system runs through the site in a northerly direction. A preliminary site investigation by Raedeke Associates indicates that this on -site drainage forms at the outlet of a 36" concrete culvert located under the driveway entrance for the SRO parking lot. This culvert collects the storm drainage from a loop system of pipes running under the theater complex as well as from existing parking lots and surrounding streets. There is also a short section of pipe extending southward toward South 158th which collects storm water drainage from properties to the south. We should not be penalized for the transportation of our neighbors' storm water. From the outlet of the culvert on the SRO site, the water enters a confined swale resulting from the filling for the parking lots and fill on the eastern portion of the property. The channel runs north through the undeveloped portion of the site, and exits 065A0049 Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 3 the property at the boundary with SR 518, where it becomes a ditch along SR 518, collecting the storm water runoff from the highway. The condition of the drainage feature has been substantially altered over time, and portions of the system have been created during the process of urbanization of the basin. For example, the USGS topographic mapping of the area, and pre - development aerial photographs (from 1961 and 1965) show no distinct stream channel in the area of the SRO site, but do show construction of the ditch system along SR 518 during the highway construction in 1965. It is possible that before development of the upper portions of the basin there were no surface flows% as most precipitation would have percolated into the ground water. The Department of Natural Resource has not mapped any portion of the drainage system as a stream course. The different map sources used by the City show highly conflicting information regarding the existence of a drainage feature on the SRO property. 1. Sensitive Areas Map. This shows a watercourse originating at approximately the point of the culvert under the parking lot drive and extending northward to SR 518, then following the southern edge of SR 518. (Exhibit 1.) 2. Hydrology (dated 1975). This map, which depicts drainage basins in the Tukwila Planning Area, indicates a pipe originating west of Highway 99; then under Highway 99 to the southern boundary of the SRO site where the drainage is shown as existing above ground. A pipe then continues under SR 518. A series of open and piped segments convey the water eastward, eventually to the Green River. (Exhibit 2.) 3. Gilliam Basin Drainage Study (Kramer, Chin and Mayo, for the City of Tukwila, Exhibit 3). No ditch or drainage is mapped on the SRO property. A culvert is indicated on the north side of SR 518 with some inflow to that culvert from sub -basin 14. Sub - basin 14 which is shown on Exhibit 4 extends southward from SR 518 to approximately South 168th Street and includes lands west of Highway 99. In a recent conversation with Greg Gaasland, a consultant with Kramer, Chin and Mayo who worked on the Gilliam Basin Drainage Study, he stated that although the neighborhood around the Lewis and Clark facility is pocked with springs, the water that is channelled through the culvert on the SRO property is storm water drainage only. There are no streams which feed into the SRO storm 065A0049 AP Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 4 water drainage system. In comparison, there is year -round flowing water on the north side of SR 518. The differences in the maps demonstrates uncertainty by the City as to whether a watercourse or drainage exists on the SRO property. The draft ordinance, Section 18.45.020 recognizes that the existing mapping is not sufficiently accurate to determine the location of sensitive areas. In addition, the drainage on the SRO property is consistent with the definition of Section 18.06.935 "Watercourses" which excludes irrigation ditches, storm water runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses from regulation. The water thich originates from the culvert is part of a storm water run -off device and therefore should not be subject to regulation under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It should be noted that there is no indication of a wetland designation on this property by the City's Sensitive Areas Maps or by the wetlands inventory prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates for the City in October, 1989. The most recent field data, which is that of Raedeke Associates, is that any flowing water on the undeveloped portion of SRO property is the result of storm water drainage from the surrounding property. Therefore, the Sensitive Areas Map should be modified to delete any indication of a watercourse on the SRO property. STEEP SLOPES There are some areas of moderate slope on the property. However, this property has been significantly modified by development over the years. The topographic features on the site appear to be partially the result of past fill and glaciation'. The site has been compressed by 3,000 feet of glacial ice. If it were not stable, the land would not have its present contours. There is no evidence of soils instability. The slopes are relatively slight and are principally concentrated in western portions of the property where they form a small depression or gully which contains the drainage channel. There are a few non - specimen deciduous trees clustered at the northern end of the gully. The remainder of the site is covered with weeds and grasses. The gully area is frequently used by the neighborhood as a convenient location to dump refuse and garbage. There are no aesthetic values associated with any of the slope areas on this property as is clearly demonstrated by the photographs attached. A preliminary soils 065A0049 Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 5 analysis indicates that the site is normal and standard engineering solutions are available for any foreseeable construction. In our opinion, the small size of the area affected by minor slope conditions, the altered nature of the site, and the lack of any hazardous conditions, indicate that the property should not be classified as a sensitive area. This is reinforced by the fact that this is a small, isolated parcel of land, partially developed with a commercial use, and surrounded by a major highway, large commercial uses and multi - family development. No significant environmental or community values would be detrimentally impacted by the exclusion of this site. A final comment concerns Section 18.45.120.2, which allows development of a single family dwelling if application of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance denies all other use of the property. It is obvious that there are many properties on which a single family home is completely inappropriate. Our property is an excellent example. A site which is surrounded by major commercial uses, freeways, and multi - family uses cannot reasonably be considered as an appropriate location for single family. Such a decision would not serve the City's nor the public's interests. Single family homes should be located in residential neighborhoods where schools, parks and other community facilities are provided. The City should consider modifying the draft ordinance to provide for exceptions when the application of the ordinance would prevent reasonable use of the property. Such exceptions would be granted if there was no increased off -site environmental effect and that site alterations would be minimal. By such a provision, the City could ensure land uses that are appropriate to the zoning and surrounding uses. CONCLUSION While we are supportive of the City's intent to 'improve the quality of environmental protection and to preserve the valuable natural characteristics of the community, we think it essential that these regulations be carefully drawn and the effects on the entire community carefully evaluated. Most of the land within our community has been altered and changed by the process of urbanization. Carefully planned development can often serve to improve protection of the environment and aesthetics. Broad regulations which result in isolated pockets of undeveloped land do not provide the best solution, either environmentally or economically, an idea that was firmly supported by the City of Tukwila during the recent annexation process. 065A0049 Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 6 Sinc=£ely, Cher ► Brown, Property Manager Ste•! ng Recreation Organization Co. We have pointed out numerous reasons why our particular property should not be subject to this ordinance if it is adopted. There is clear evidence no stream exists on the property, and although some areas of slope do exist, these are minor and present no environmental hazard. We are also of the opinion that in its present form, much of the ordinance is vaguely written, with inadequate standards, and deficient procedures. We would be happy to work further with the City toward an improved ordinance. c. Disturbance Limitations DRAFT SZNSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 7 (1) Basic Requirement Development on property including a slope equal to or greater than 15% must (a) Consolidate all areas of disturbance on the areas of least slope, and (b) Minimize changes in grade, cleared area and volume of cut or fill on the site, and (c) Comply with a limitation on disturbance of the subject property calculated as set forth in the following charts. SLOPE CATEGORIES PQtCENT DISTURBANCE ALLOWED 40% and greater 30% 25 - 39% 45% 15 - 24% 60% SLOPE DISTURBANCE ALLOWED - DISTURBANCE CHART (sq. ft. of site 0-10 % 'slope) x 100% (sq. ft. of site 10-24% slope) x 60% (sq. ft. of site 25 -39% slope) x 45% + (sq. ft. of site 40% plus slope) x 30% = Total amount of disturbance on site allowed d. Alternative Review: The applicant may propose a development plan which does not comply with the basic requirement of Paragraph c.(1). The DCD Director and the Director of Public Works may approve such a plan if — (1) The increase in disturbance on a specific slope is necessary to preserve a significant environmental feature of the site, such as but not limited to an area of vegetation valuable for habitat or aesthetic reasons, a ridgeline which constitutes an area -wide visual amenity and (2) The development is consolidated resulting in the least amount of coverage by buildings and other impervious surface feasible, and (3) The increased disturbance or cut and fill will not result in greater erosion than that which would otherwise occur and proposed erosion control measures are practically and readily maintainable. e. Revegetation: Where any portion of a sensitive slope is cleared for development, it shall be replanted with an equal mix of specimen evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater of vine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. f. Location: (1) Development must be located to minimize disturbance and removal of vegetation; and (2) Structures must be clustered to retain as much open space as possible and the natural topographic character of the slope; and (3) Structures must conform to the natural contour of the slope. The foundation must be tiered to conform to the existing topography of the site; and (4) Development must be located so as to preserve the most sensitive portion of the site and its natural landform or to protect vistas from public spaces. minimized; and 4. Abandoned Mine Areas DRAFT SET 'SITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 8 g. Design (1) Development must minimize the footprint of buildings and other disturbed areas. The least number of buildings is desirable in order to consolidate the development; and (2) Development must retain consolidated areas of natural vegetation; and (3) Development must be designed with a foundation type that is compatible with existing slope conditions and that minimizes topographic modification. Where feasible, earth retention measures should be incorporated into the structure; and (4) Standard prepared building pads; i.e., slab on grade, resulting in grading more than ten feet outside the building footprint area are prohibited: and (5) Development must be designed to minimize the amount of impervious surface; and (6) Use of common access drives and utility corridors is required where feasible; and (7) Development must be designed to minimize lot coverage and must, with the exception of detached single family structures, incorporate understructure parking and multi-level structures where permitted; and (8) Roads, walkways and parking areas must be designed parallel to contours with consideration to maintaining consolidated areas of natural topography and vegetation. Access must be located in the least sensitive area feasible; and (9) Use of retaining walls which allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas is preferred over graded artificial slopes. (10) Change in grade, cleared area and volume of cut or fill on the site must be h. Construction Types (1) Use of foundation walls as retaining walls is preferable to rock or concrete walls built separately and away from the building. Freestanding retaining devices are only permitted when they cannot be designed as structural elements of the building foundation; and (2) Use pole -type construction which conforms to the existing topography is required where feasible. The structure must be tiered to conform to the existing topography and to minimize topographic modification; and (3) Piled deck support structures are preferred for parking or garages over fill- based construction types. a. Development of a site containing or adjacent to an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when all significant risks associated with the abandoned mine working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. b. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical engineering special" study. 33ea 2kualubern &veep Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshua 206m22-6695 November 9, 1989 Moria Carr Bradshaw, Project Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila WA 98188 RE: Draft Sensitve Area Ordinance. Dear Ms. Bradshaw, The Seattle Audubon Society is comprised of over 4,900 members, many of which live within the City of Tukwila. Our Society is incorporated as a non-profit organization under the laws of the State of Washington and is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and enjoyment of wildlife and their supporting habitats. For many years we have conducted field trips to the remaining natural areas within the City of Tukwila, and have participated in the environmental review of several proposed developments within the City. Our Conservation Committee has reviewed the Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) and concurs with the intent, purpose, and goals of the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan of the City (page 25.) by "promoting the retention and preservation of certain highly suitable areas for wildlife habitat and natural areas" and "striving to retain wooded hillsides, ...wetlands, streams,... for wildlife habitat" (Natural Environment Element Goal 3, Objective 2 & 3). In the past, numerous and expensive debates and appeals have resulted from the absence of specific rules for development around sensitive areas. The present wording of the Comprehensive Land Use and Policy Plan is too general to implement a consistent land use policy for proposed development around sensitive areas. The proposed SAO ensures more consistent compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use and Policy Plan by establishing the specific rules for development around sensitive areas. GA:JM With respect to the Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance, we offer the following recommendations: 1. Zoning Code Section 3. 18.45"040 - Sensitive Area Buffer Designation: 2. Wetland Buffers. We recommend that the buffer adjacent to Major and Minor Wetlands be increased to 100 feet and 50 feet respectively. The proposed buffers of 40 and 25 feet are too narrow to adequately preserve the value of the habitat and to protect the wetland from human and domestic animal distrubance. Zoning Code Section 3. 18.45.120 - Exceptions: 1. Provisions for existing development. We recommend that paragraph "(1) Residential Development:" be deleted from the ordinance. To allow an existing subdivision to expand into a Sensitive Area through a variance procedure is completely inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use and Policy Plan and circumvents the entire purpose of the ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance. We are hopeful that the items raised in this letter will be specifically addressed in the final ordinance. The Seattle Audubon Society continues to be sincerely concerned about the potential impact future development may have on the remaining sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila, and looks forward to participating in the continuing review of the ordinance. Please contact our office if you have any specific questions. Sincerely, Gerry Adams Vice President ' METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 November 13, 1989 Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6299 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Determination of Nonsignificance File No.: EPIC -22 -89 Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro staff has reviewed the draft Sensitive Areas ordinance and supports and encourages its adoption by the City Council. We agree that such an ordinance is necessary to protect water resources and minimize impacts to wetlands and other water bodies. We do advocate the ordinance address existing public utilities by including a reference to these facilities under Section 18.45.120, Exemptions (1.a. General). Maintenance repairs and rehabilitation of existing public facilities should be permitted under the sensitive areas ordinace. Thank you for the opportunity to reviev and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, 'Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:jmg3142 November 10, 1989 Mr. J. Haggerton Chairman, Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Sincerely, EAR SUI. ANTS, INC. S. Levinson, P.E. President RSL /sar Earth Consult tsllnc. ( •I )114 loth ;itfii;giro•rrti.c I;i win 'nit u ii i1l i.t'. I will be available to work with the planning staff, providing input to facilitate the creation of a workable Sensitive Area Ordinance. 1805. 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 101, Tacoma, Washington 98411.9998 Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464.1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206) 272.6608 E -4717 Dear Mr. Haggerton: Last night I spoke at the Commission hearing regarding the Sensitive Area Ordinance. During my talk, I mentioned the City of Seattle's Director Rule 2 -87. This rule was adopted after almost• a year of meetings held between the City staff and local geotechnical engineers. It has worked well in the City of Seattle, which has much more serious slope stability problems than Tukwila. What I like about this rule is that it is a performance -type of ordinance, one that does not set out slope gradients nor buffers, but leaves in the hands of experienced engineers :o solve whatever problems are manifest to that particular site. It would be nice if this type of performance criteria is established in the Sensitive Area Ordinance. eyifikr Applicant CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND LAND USE Page of 1 7 Supersedes 7 -84 Publication 01 -02 -87 Effective Sept. 30, 1987 Code and Section Reference SBC 2905 SMC 22.804 Subject REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING CONSTRUCTION IN POTENTIAL SLIDE AREAS Type of Rule Code Interpretation Ordinance Authority Seattle Building Code: Grading /Drainage Ordinance Index BUILDING /LAND USE - TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS Approved Date 14 77; 9 -30-S? Director's Rule 2 -87 PURPOSE The purpose of this rule is to establish procedures and guidelines for securing permits for development in potential slide areas and to reduce the risk of injury to people and \ of property loss. DEFINITIONS "Architect" means a person licensed to practice architecture by the state of Washington. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Construction and Land Use. As in this rule, the term includes authorized representatives of the Director of the Department of Construction and Land Use. "Geologist" means a person who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of post - graduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years work in applied geology and landslide evaluation, in close association with qualified practicing geologists or geotechnical /civil engineers. " Geotechnical Engineer" means a practicing, geotechnical /civil engineer licensed as a professional Civil Engineer in the State of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge,' including experience with landslide evaluation. "Land Surveyor" means a person who holds a Washington State Land Surveyor's License. "Site" means the entire area within the boundaries, as described in the legal description of the property that is to be developed. Department of Construction end Land Use • City of Seattle • Holly Miller, Director • Charles Royer. Mayor 400 Municipal Building. Seattle, WA. 98104 "Slide Areas" mean those areas in Seattle that are identified as having a history of earth movement including those identified on: 1) The Seattle Engineering Department's slide potential map; or 2) Plate 1 of Information Circular No. 52 of the State Department of Natural Resources (Donald Tubbs map); or 3) the environmentally sensitive area maps; or 4) those areas with slopes greater than 15 percent exhibiting geologic characteristics of earth movement. These maps are available for examination at the Department of Construction and Land Use. "Structural Engineer" means a person licensed to practice structural engineering by the State of Washington. PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE A. Pre - Application Conference Whenever a Master Use Permit or any other land use approval including, but not limited to, subdivision and short subdivision approvals, lot boundary adjustments, variances, administrative and council conditional uses, rezones, and environmental review, is required prior to or in conjunction with a grading or building permit in a slide area, then the applicant or owner, before submitting the application, shall schedule an appointment for a pre- application conference with a Department Land Use Specialist. If a grading or building permit for work in a slide area is the first application to be filed, then the applicant, prior to submitting an application, shall schedule an appointment for a pre- application conference with the Department Quality Control Section. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and a Department representative, will discuss: the requirements of the Drainage and Grading Ordinance; the requirements of this Rule; the slide history and the slide potential of the site; the City and applicant's potential liability; the soils report to be provided by the applicant; the applicant's financing for the project and contingencies related to potential soils problems; the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; the design of the proposed structure; a proposed construction schedule; and any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the Department, and shall be documents of record relative to the application, distributed to the attendees and others identified at the meeting. B. Required Application Submissions The owner shall provide a vicinity map suitable for locating the site, a topographic map, a geotechnical report, declarations, detailed plans and specifications, including review by the Geotechnical Engineer, bonds, letters of credit, and /or public liability insurance as described below. 1. Topographic Map. The topographic map shall be prepared prior to studies and evaluations by the Geotechnical Engineer by a licensed land surveyor and shall show: 1) north arrow and scale; 2) existing contour lines, two -foot to five -foot intervals as needed to show significant topographic features with City of Seattle datum properly noted; 3) property lines; 4) existing physical features including all existing structures; 5) approximate distances between existing structures on the site and existing structures on adjacent sites; 6) lower floor and footing elevations of existing structures on the property and on adjacent properties to the extent that such information is reasonably available; 7) the location of existing sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, septic tanks, drain fields, and other sewer /drainage facility components on and adjacent to the site to the extent that such information is reasonably available; and 8) the location of all existing underground utilities on and adjacent to the site including but not limited to telephone, cable television, gas, electric and water utilities, vaults, fire hydrants and any other cables, wires, meters, and pipes to the extent such information is available. Proposed contours shall be added to the topographic map by the Architect or Structural Engineer. 2. Geotechnical Report. The owner shall be responsible to submit a Geotechnical Report. The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a report and evaluation of the subsurface soils conditions on the site. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the Director. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall discuss all the items listed in the Site Evaluation Checklist attached hereto and shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the report shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. It shall be the responsibility of the geotechnical consultant to assure that the Geologist meets the above qualifications listed in the definition section. Reports prepared for Master Use Permit applications shall address comments received from the public and governmental agencies concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The Director will require such supplements or amendments to the report as are needed to develop a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the soil conditions on the site. 3 Further recommendations signed and sealed by the provided should there be additions or exceptions recommendations based on the plans, site conditi If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the pla the same engineer who prepared the Geotechnical in a letter to the Director accompanying the pla his or her agreement or disagreement with the re Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and or her recommendations. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submi plans and specifications, a letter or notation o time of permit application stating that he or sh Report, understands its recommendations, has exp the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the into the design the recommendations of the Repor reduce the potential risk of injury or damage th movement predicted in the Report. The applicant and the owner of the site, if the shall submit a letter to the Director, with the stating that he or she.understands and accepts t area with potential unstable soils and that he o any prospective purchasers of the site, or any structures or portions of a structure on the sit the area. 4 3. Disclosures, Declarations, Covenants, and Waivers. When required by the Director, the owner shall submit a complete set of plans and specifications fo.. the proposed development. When required by the 'irector, it shall be the responsibility of the owner to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specificatio s shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepar =d the Geotechnical Report stating that in their judgment, the plans and sp= cifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and t at the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in t e report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for oil movement. Geotechnical Engineer shall be to the original ns, or other supporting data. s and specifications is not eport, the new engineer shall, s and specifications, express ommendations in the specifications conform to his to the Director, with the the design drawings at the has reviewed the Geotechnical ained or has had explained to site, and has incorporated and established measures to - t might be caused by any earth wner is not the applicant, lans and specifications, e risk of developing in an she will advise, in writing, rospective purchasers of , of the slide potential of The owner shall execute a covenant, in a form provided by the Director. The Director will file the completed covenant with t e King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the appl cant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner This shall be a covenant running with the land, which shall include: a. The legal description of the property; b. A statement explaining that the site is in potential slide area; of the risks associated with development on the si e, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any fea ures in this design which will require maintenance or modification to addr -ss anticipated soil changes; c. A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Seattle for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; d. Requirements for continuous insurance as required by the permit authorizing the development (if any). c. The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. 4. Bonds and Public Liability Insurance. Whenever the Director determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in a potential slide area without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, this section shall apply. The Director may require any or all of the following: A surety bond, in an amount to be determined by the Director, executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Washington, shall be posted by the applicant to assure the restoration of any areas on the site or in the surrounding area disturbed or damaged by slides occuring during construction, and to assure completion of the work authorized by the permit, or, if the work is not completed, to assure that the site will be restored to a safe condition. The bond will be exonerated one year from the date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, or final approval of the building permit by the building inspector. In lieu of surety bond, the owner may elect to file a cash deposit or instrument of credit with the Director in an amount equal to that which would be required in the surety bond, and similarly conditioned. The owner's contractor shall carry general public liability insurance against personal injury, death, property damage and /or loss from earth movement in an amount which the Director determines to be appropriate, which shall name the City as an additional insured. The owner shall also maintain a policy of general public liability insurance, naming the City as an additional insured, against personal injury, death, property damage and /or loss from earth movement in an amount which the Director determines to be appropriate for a period of not more than ten years from the date of final approval of the project. A certificate evidencing such insurance shall be filed with the Director before final approval of the project. Any insurance policy required by this rule shall provide that the City will be notified of cancellation of the policy thirty days prior to cancelation. Said notice shall be sent to the DCLU Quality Control Section with the insured's name and the property address. If a property owner's insurance is cancelled and not replaced, the Certificate of Occupancy may be revoked. PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCES Pre- construction conferences with the applicant, the Geotechnical Engineer, the Lead Design Professional, the Contractor, and Department representatives will be required - 5 - when, in the Director's opinion, a conference is needed to reduce the risk of slides during construction. The owner shall not begin construction until after the pre- construction conference is held. Such conferences shall include discussions of: excavation plans, phasing of work, monitoring requirements, geotechnical recommendations, instability risks, weather considerations, disposal of excavation soils, surface and groundwater conditions, fill materials, and any other matters the Director deems relevant. CONSTRUCTION OR USE OF ACCESS ROADS The applicant or contractor must secure the Director's approval before going onto the site with equipment to grade to create access. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The owner shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the Director stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor during construction compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the Director, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the Director at such timely intervals as shall be specified by the Director. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the Director. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical - related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Director. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS The following requirements must be satisfied before a permit will be issued: 1. A geotechnical report acceptable to the Director has been submitted; 2. Plans and specifications are submitted incorporating the recommendations of the geotechnical report; 6 3. The required declarations, disclosures, covenants and waivers have been submitted; 4. Required bonds, insurance or other financial arrangements required have been secured. CONDITIONING AND DENIAL OF PERMITS The Director may impose conditions that address site work problems; such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties. /jvb DR12 /sr.1 -7 870930 DCLU Project Number: Address: Applicant's Name: Geotechnical Consultant's Name: Address: Telephone number: SITE EVALUATION CHECKLIST The following are general report guidelines. These guidelines are not intended to be all inclusive. It is the responsibility of the Geotechnical Consultant to address all factors which in their opinion are relevant to the site. The checklist shall be completed and included as part of the Geotechnical Report. All items listed below must be addressed in the geotechnical report. Those items which are not relevant to the specific site shall still be addressed with sufficient information given to demonstrate why the items are not applicable. Report /Page or Figure I. Project Description A. Description of proposed structure and utilities. B. Floor and foundation grades /excavation levels. II. Site Features A. Vicinity Map suitable for locating the site. B. Site Plan(s) showing location of structure, north arrow, scale, property lines, test boring or test pit locations, and existing contour lines including any adjacent street right -of -ways if included in excavation. C. Surface conditions; description of site including surrounding properties, structures and street right of way. Notice to be made, if excavation encroaches into prolongation of a 1H:1V slope line from the edge of the right -of -way, that a SED per- mit will be required. D. Description of existing sewer and drainage facili- ties on or adjacent to the site. E. Descriptions and plans of existing and new subsur- face utilities needed to serve the site including but not limited to telephone, cable TV, electric, gas and water systems and their related appur- tenance. Utility requirements for the site shall be determined by the utilities involved. If this information is unavailable, impacts, considerations and concerns regarding existing and new subsurface utilities needed to serve the site as noted pre- viously shall be discussed. F. Exploration logs. G. Laboratory test results. H. Description of subsurface conditions including geology, soil /bedrock stratigraphy, groundwater conditions, and engineering characteristics. I. Ground surface profile(s), indicating original, construction, and proposed grades, shall be pre- sented. Such profile(s) shall be estimated beyond property lines where necessary to evaluate con- ditions which may affect the site or adjacent sites. J. Subsurface conditions shall be indicated on the profile(s) to the extent known. K. Landslide history, including review of City files. III. Opinions, Conclusions, and Recommendations Regarding: A. The present stability of the site, the stability during construction, and the stability of the site after the proposed development is completed, including a statement of the relative risks at each stage and the slide potential relating to abutting land. B. Grading and earthwork, including compaction and fill material requirements, use of site soils as fill or backfill, imported fill / backfill require- ments, height and inclination of slopes. C. Shoring requirements. jvb • DR7 /sr1.3 D. Foundation types, such as shallow or deep foun- dations, including bearing layer(s), allowable capacities, minimum widths, minimum depths, esti- mated settlements (total and differential) and other pertinent recommendations. E. Lateral resistance of structure (passive resistance and coefficient of sliding friction). F. Lateral earth pressure for design of walls. G. Lateral earth pressure on piles and required depth of piles to resist lateral pressure. H. Surface and subsurface drainage requirements including drainage material requirements, erosion control, and wet weather construction con- siderations and /or limitations. I. Other measures recommended to reduce the risk of slope instability. J. Geotechnical considerations on and off site for utility construction necessary for the site. This shall include but is not limited to Geotechnical items considered in II: F, G, H, I, J, K. K. Construction and post- construction monitoring and observations related to geotechnical considerations such as survey stakes, inclinometers and piezome- ters, to monitor slopes during and after construc- tion. L. Design of retaining systems and such protection features as rockeries, crib walls, and ecology "block walls. 870403 870511 Gentlemen: 415 West Merceri. .;rest #703 Seattle, Washington 98119 November 14, 1989 Members of the Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila, Washington RE: Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance Tukwila is to be commended for taking a close look at the physical limi- tations of human development in the city, particularly as that relates to any areas it may regard as possessing crucial aesthetic, natural or riparian value. I'm confident that the overwhelming majority of us, property owners and others interested in Tukwila, desire that future development be geotechnically intelligent and appropriate to the natural limitations and scenic integrity of the area. However, as a property owner in Tukwila, I have several concerns over the manner in which the proposed Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance might realistically address those issues. 1. Implementation of this ordinance might become inflexible. Suppose that commercial development of an undeveloped property, or a property not developed to its highest zoned use, were contemplated. Also sup- pose that the property contains several features, some of which are labeled "sensitive." The interaction of those features might or might not be "sensitive." In such a situation, the opinion of a geotech- nical expert would be crucial in the approval process. However, 18.45.060, paragraph 2, in the Ordinance restricts the geotechnical expertise allowed on any project to "a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City..." (emphasis mine). If the City has its own ideas about which natural features of a particular property possess characteristics which cannot be altered regardless of their function within the overall ecosystem, how objective would that "professional" be? 2. Implementation of this ordinance might become confiscation. When we consider raw land or land that has not yet been developed to its highest zoned use that contains "sensitive areas," it is conceivable that application of this ordinance would render existing zoning of some of those properties meaningless. In those cases, the land would be unusable. It is argued that the Ordinance allows single - family residential development in such cases. But we must remember that zoning of any property is usually a reflection of the whole context of what has happened and is happening around it. If a piece of raw land is located next to a new convenience store, a new factory, or new apartments, its zoning will probably be similar to the zoning allow- ing those uses or a conscious transition. Would a house be appro- priate there? Although the Sensitive Area Report %makes a general reference to a procedure for compensation, I don't find it spelled out in the Ordinance. Members of the Tukwea Planning Commissio November 14, 1 Q - Page 2 The practical effect of Section 18.45.120 (Exceptions) is unclear to me. What are "vested development rights" (paragraph 1)? Also, if a piece of property is rendered useless, does paragraph 3 deny Board of Adjustment appeal because paragraph 2 would automatically apply? 3. Implementation of this ordinance might be relatively ineffective. The ordinance applies higher standards to development of remaining sensitive areas, but can it undo mistakes made in past development? Will it apply equally to public projects? If we're going to change the rules of development at this late stage in Tukwila's urbanization, let's be sure to put in place a mechanism for monetarily compensating those owners of useful but sensitive land who have invested in King County and Tukwila in good faith over the and yet now find themselves being asked to shoulder an unexpected burden of preserving certain environmentally sensitive areas for the benefit of the entire community. The ordinance also addresses the issue of preservation and replacement of trees (17.20.020, paragraph 2). I am unclear as to whether this paragraph would allow property owners to control the growth of undesirable trees and weeds that could block sunlight needed by nearby already- planted ornamental trees and shrubs, fruit- bearing trees and bushes, and other food crops. Sincerely, ohn C. Strander v�- IT v Ji6Y/% f SQUARE G°3C TAOL SK© 200 LOADING ZONE afr For: W tD - �1 100' x � x 0 m 1- z —1 z m .m c--I z. 0 -n . ›{.2 z i S�ieker Partners g 118th AVENUE. S.E. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005 CONSTRUCT 250 L.F. CONC. \\ CXOSTONG COON MARCHE WAREHOUSE MSC No. Date By I T EX. 20'x20' E DEPRESSED CURB ALONG FRONTAGE OF EXISTING BON MARCHE TRUCK DOCK AREA ASEMENT 11- 07 -89. BW RA RA REVISED PER 10 -24 -89 MEETING W /CITY OF TUKWILA 10 - 23 -89 G.D.F. R.A. l R.A. REVISED PER 10 -10 -89 MEETING WI CITY OF TUKWILA Ckd. Appr. Revision L EXIST. RAILROAD TRACKS Title Preliminary Channelization Plan S. 168th St. & 58th Place S. SOUTHCENTER PLAZA PHASE II „.. King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith lower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296-8650 5 December 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler Director, Planning and Building Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Tukwila's Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance Dear Mr. Beeler, Buffers DEC -61989 I In preparing King County's position on the proposed Cascade View annexation to the City of Tukwila, the Resource Planning Section of the County's Division of Planning and Community Development reviewed the City's Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance for consistency with both existing and proposed measures in King County for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Based on this review, we have the following comments. Proposed buffer sizes are substantially smaller than comparable buffers within the County, particularly for streams and wetlands. In most cases the proposed sizes are less than one half of those applied by the County. The small size of the buffers makes it unlikely that they can perform the valuable functions listed in Section 18.45.040, and in some cases makes it doubtful that the buffers are large enough to continue as viable plant communities. The integrity of the proposed buffers is also of concern. The County requires that the buffers remain undisturbed except for trails and other minor alterations. The proposed Tukwila ordinance does not clarify what happens to vegetation within the buffer, requiring only that there be no structures or land alteration. Conceivably, a landowner could remove all vegetation within the buffer and still be in compliance with the proposed ordinance. Lacking a definition of structure, alteration, or development, it is not possible to determine what would actually be prohibited within the buffer. For example, the buffer could be used for a patio, which is not a structure, but would nevertheless destroy many of the buffer's functions. L Mr. Rick Beeler December 4, 1989 page 2 Wetland Ratings The County is moving away from the notion that there are wetlands of low concern, due to the variety of important functions performed by virtually all wetlands. We are concerned that by combining number two wetlands with number three wetlands, Tukwila will fail to adequately protect the more complex areas (i.e., the number two wetlands). The largest group of wetlands in the County, by both number and area, is number two and consigning them to a minor classification with correspondingly smaller buffers could create significant problems in protecting their valuable functions. Alterations and Mitigation The large number of variances and exemptions to the proposed rules is another area of concern. Wording for utility, road, and access right of way variances seems destined to result in frequent and extensive alteration of both buffers and sensitive areas for the construction of both roads and utilities. The prohibition on structures and alterations within sensitive areas and their buffers mentioned only in Section 18.45.040 appears weak and unenforceable considering the extensive set of design standards and construction types listed in Section 18.45.080, and the generous exceptions for single family residential development in Section 18.45.120 and utility construction in Section 18.45.120. Items of concern include provisions for dredging of wetlands, expansion of existing uses into previously undisturbed buffers and wetlands, and allowances for fill. Several sections allow for extensive alteration of sensitive areas, providing that functions can be maintained or enhanced. Lacking a definition of mitigation or procedures for evaluation, it is unclear how sections calling for the maintenance of existing sensitive area functions can be implemented. Revegetation requirements in several places fail to identify any requirements for types of vegetation replanted, and on slopes specify an equal mix of evergreens and deciduous trees. Lack of specificity could result in extensive conversion of native vegetation to ornamental and horticultural species with little wildlife value. In conclusion, I have serious questions about the environmental impacts of the Cascade View annexation and request the Boundary Review Board ensure that the County's concerns are met prior to annexation. The staff of the County's Resource Planning Section are available to discuss these issues with the City's planning staff. Mr. Rick Beeler December 4, 1989 page 3 If you have any questions or would like to arrange a meeting with our staff, please contact me at 296 -8650. Thank you very much. Sincerely, LS:RP Lois Schwennesen, - "'Manager cc: Alda Wilkinson, Executive Secretary, Boundary Review Board Tim Hill, King County Executive Greg. Nickels, King County Councilmember, District 8 James C. Tracy, Acting Director, Parks Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Derek Poon, Chief, Resource Planning Section Riley Atkins, Resource Planner Craig Larsen, Chief, Community Planning Nancy Ousley, Project Manager, Intergovernmental Planning K a t h 1 a P n H n n ve r ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he /she is the Chief Clerk of the Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition xx , Renton Edition XX , Auburn Edition XX , (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a p» h 1 ic Notice (Planning Commission Workshop) 4499 was published on August 19 , 1990 The full a i9unj 3 f the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ . Subscribed and sworn before me this 28th day ofRuaust 1qo VDN 487 Revised 4/89 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition W atatb.) 0-60-efro-ct- Notary Public for the State of Washin ton residing at urn, King County, Washington Published in the Valley Daily NeWti Aupud 19,.1900 4499.. PUBUC NOTICE Planning Commission Workshop 'August 23, 1990 !00 Saudiointar :Boulevard 'Suitzi 100 •' : — Conference Room File Number: 892 -CA: Sensitive Areal The Planning omission will hold a wak4 Zone shop to review the August 13, 1990 dralkoi proposed amendments. to Zoning, Subdvi{ sion and Environmental Codes to male a; sensitive areas overlay none. If you have any questions regarding'.this workshop please cal i . Rick Beeler, Direplor Department of Cor munity Dove{op 431.3S7Q 53210 DIANN MARTINEZ . AI I. 1 U A V I l Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was 4 b ED to each of the following addresses HIGHLINE TIMES FAX # 241 -2788 VALLEY DAILY NEWS FAX # 854 -1006 Name of Project SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT Signatu e File Number 89 - 2.CA F U 1 S f It I E3 U T I O N hereby declare that: ❑ Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Official Notice ❑ Other ❑ Other on_ _ Al , ST 15. 1990 PUBLIC NOTICE Ale No. 89 -2-Ck Sensitive Areas Overlay District The Tukwila Planning Commission public hearing previously scheduled for July 25, 1990 for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is rescheduled for Thursday August 30, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. Revisions to the June 27, 1990 draft ordinance include deletion of reference to the proposed Clearing, Grading & Filling Ordinance and Tree Preservation Ordinance. The revised draft may be picked -up at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard,Tukwila, WA. If you have any questions, please call: Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development 431 -1870 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor ' I. DIANN MARTINEZ . A: f 1 U A W 1 ® Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [( Board of Appeals Agenda Packet ❑ Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit U f hereby declare that: was mailed to each of the following addresses on SEE ATTACHED IMP Name of Project SENSITIVE A REAS OVERLAY DISTRICT Signs File Number 89 - - CA UI :1 [] Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non. significance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice (] Notice of Action ❑ Official Notice ❑ Other ❑ Other AUGUST 19, 1990 19 . City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PUBLIC NOTICE Planning Commission Workshop August 23, 1990 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100, Conference Room File Number:89 -2 -CA: Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone The Planning Commission will hold a workshop to review the August 13, 1990 draft of proposed amendments to Zoning, Subdivsion and Environmental Codes to create a sensitive areas overlay zone. If you have any questions regarding this workshop please call: Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development 431 -3670 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Jim Haggerton FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 3 August 1990 Subject: Sensitive Areas Ordinance Alternatives As we discussed last evening with Council President, Joan Hernandez, there are several alternative public processes that the Planning Commission can consider. I have provided some additional information, beyond what was discussed to provide a framework for Commission decision - making. Clearing and Grading Ordinance BACKGROUND The City currently has an Excavation and Grading Ordinance it administers as part of the Uniform Building Code (Tukwila Municipal Code, TMC 16) The Public Works Department, as part of its efforts to implement a Storm and Surface Water Management Program, have drafted and will implement the more comprehensive ordinance, the proposed Clearing and Grading Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance will include the requirements of the UBC and the control of erosion and sedimentation and its affects on public and private property. The public process that the Public Works Department has outlined for the proposed ordinance includes a public hearing before the City Council. The Clearing and Grading Ordinance, which under the current draft is referred to as the Land Altering Ordinance, was issued by the Public Works Department to other City Departments on 25 July 1990. It is being reviewed by DCD and the Mayor's Office at this time, and is in the SEPA process. The final staff draft will be presented to the Council of the Whole who will review and possibly modify prior to public hearing. It is estimated that a draft for public review will be available the last week in September, 1990. Tree Preservation Ordinance A draft ordinance had been prepared by the City Council Legislative Coordinator; however, upon further investigation, it was agreed that additional planning and research on the proposed legislation was necessary. As is the practice of the City Council on all legislation, a public hearing would be held prior to ordinance adoption. Tentative timetable for the proposal is six months before availability of a public draft. Neither of these ordinances have been drafted as amendments to the Zoning or Subdivision Codes and therefore do not require Planning Commission hearing or recommendation. The Clearing and Grading and Tree Preservation ordinances have been planned as separate ordinances that will effect every property owner in the City not just sensitive areas. ALTERNATIVES 1. Delete any reference to proposed ordinances and hold a public hearing on SAO. First potential hearing date August 30, 1990. 2. Request the City Council to refer the Land Altering Ordinance to the Planning Commission for simultaneous hearing with SAO. First potential hearing date 18 October 1990. See Attachments A & B. 3. Request the City Council to refer a Tree Preservation Ordinance and the Land Altering Ordinance to the Planning Commission for simultaneous hearing with the SAO. First potential hearing date February 1991. CC: Mayor Van Dusen Council President Hernandez Rick Beeler Joan Hernandez, Council President Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Ground Cover Preservation /Clearing /Grading /Filling Ordinance Dear Joan: At the Planning Commission's April meeting, we received testimony from several members of the community who felt that the Ground Cover Preservation /Clearing /Grading /Filling Ordinance should be heard and reviewed in conjunction with the SAO. We understand that the Council has received a draft of the ordinance and is contemplating how to package and organize review of the Hillside Design, Sensitive Areas and Clearing /Grading legislation. Our understanding of the scope and intent of the proposed ordinance is that it is comparable with the scope and intent of the proposed Sensitive Areas Overlay District. They both intend to preserve existing surface water drainage patterns, control flooding and prevent erosion. One strives to preserve the integrity and enhance the natural systems of the City and the other regulates development adjacent to these areas through a permit procedure. The sensitive areas legislation depends on the successful adoption and administration of the subject ordinance. For these reasons and to enable the community to comprehensively respond to the proposals of the City, we feel that he City Council should assemble the Clearing /Grading proposal with the Sensitive Areas legislation, and forward as one package to the Planning Commission for hearing and recommendation. The Planning Commission made a motion to the above effect and directed me to represent them on this request. I would be happy to meet and discuss this with you at a mutually convenient time. Respectfully, im Hagge'tt`on, Chairman Tukwila Planning Commission April 30, 1990 HAND DELIVERED ATTACHMENT A City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 City Council 433 -1800 Mr. Jim Haggerton, Chairman Tukwila Planning Commission 15820 43rd Ave. South Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear M ` Haggerton: June 15, 1990 I apologize for the delay in formally notifying you of the City Council's position on the Clearing and Grading Ordinance. A copy of your letter regarding the Ordinance was distributed to the whole Council for discussion at last Monday's Committee of the Whole meeting. We discussed the timeline and process for incorporating various ordinances into the SAO package. Since the Council did not want to lengthen the timeline of the SAO process, we are forwarding the Clearing and Grading Ordinance to you for your review as background for the SAO with the understanding it is still in draft format. Planning Commisssion comments on the draft will be very welcome. The Council directed that the Clearing and Grading Ordinance be sent to you for your review without recommending a public hearing be held at this time. The Clearing and Grading Ordinance deals with all land in the city and not just land in sensitive areas. Consequently it is viewed as an adjunct to but not an integral part of the SAO. The Council will hold the public hearings on the Clearing and Grading Ordinance after we have had the opportunity to review it and make our final recommendations. Sincerely, oan Hernandez Council President ATTACHMENT B Mr. Jim Haggerton, Chairman Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Hall CITY ()F T1'A117L.4 1 nit F. 1 E "r: ,1 'i.h:t "tki'. TI Kti 9 1'Hu.\1.2 - July 26, 1990 Dear Mr. 4'gerton: The City Co!ncil was very disappointed to learn of your decision to cancel the Public Hearings on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance scheduled to commence Wednesday, July 25, 1990. Without your cooperation in adhering to the time schedule we had set, it may not be possible to pass a Sensitive Areas Ordinance in time to lift the October 8, 1990 moratorium as we had hoped to be able to do. The Council has agreed to forward draft versions'of both the Clearing and Grading Ordinance and the Tree Preservation Ordinance to the Planning Commission far your 'review as background information to the SAO. However, they are not perfected to the point of being able to hold Public Hearings on them at this time as we had been concentrating our efforts on the SAO. As stated in our June 15, 1990 letter, it was our intention to adopt the SAO before the moratorium expired and work on the Clearing and Grading Ordinance and Tree Preservation Ordinance later. If you prefer, it is possible all references to the Clearing and Grading Ordinance and the Tree Preservation Ordinance could be deleted from the SAO at this time. It will be several months before either the Clearing and Grading Ordinance or the Tree Preservation Ordinance is ready to be adopted. The Council is very reluctant to extend the moratorium that long. If the Planning Commission and the Council both perform their functions, we should be able to proceed with Public Hearing and passage of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance by October 8, 1990. I hope you will proceed as any further delay adversely impacts many citizens, both residential and corporate. I am willing to meet with you personally to try to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Please let me know what I can do to help us reach a consensus. cc.Planning Commission Mayor Sincerely, oan Hernandez Council President. ',Iwo- afar 0 Notice of Public Hearing �5 [] Notice of Public Meeting AFFIDAVIT Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet f 3 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit past oW was 4 - to — each of the following addresses on 5jci1y r / • Name of Project gg File Number Y/ %as O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: (l Determination of Nonsignificance ( J Mitigated Determination of Non- significance [] Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [I Notice of Action Q Official Notice ❑ Other • Other Signature 1990. • File No. 89 -2-CA: Sensitive Areas Overlay District The Tukwila Planning Commission SAO PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for 800 pm. July 25, 1990 has been postponed indefinitely. Written public notice will be mailed to all taxpayers prior to any future meeting. • A F F I D A V I T I, DIANN.MARTINEZ hereby Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on JIM HAGGERTON P.O. BOX 88067 TUKWILA, WA. 98188 JACK FLESHER 3609 HOMPTON WAY KENT, WA. 98032 GEORGE GOMEZ 4504 SOUTH 124TH STREET SEATTLE, WA. 98178 GEORGE MALINA 15617 -47TH S. TUKWILA, WA. 98188 RICHARD KIRSOP 16816 -53RD AVENUE S. TUKWILA, WA. 98188 Name of Project File Number IN -- — c OF DISTRIBUTION declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice (] Notice of Action Q Official Notice © Other _ELANNING cplimissioN LETTER O Other ignature .1111Y 23. 1990 JERRY HAMILTON 5624 S. 147TH ST. TUKWILA, WA. 98168 GERALD KNUDSON 6421 SOUTH 143RD PLACE TUKWILA, WA. 98168 , 19 . CITY OF T UIi WILA 6200 SOL TNCE.VTER HOULE TURI IL.I. WASHINGTON 98l 8 July 23, 1990 Tukwila City Council Tukwila, WA Re: Sensitive Areas Ordinance PlIONl 41206)433.180o Gary L. VunDusen..Uayor Dear Members of the City Council: The Planning Commission held a work session on July 17, 1990 to become more familiar with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It became clear to us that missing from the Ordinance package were the Clearing and Grading Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, Streams analysis and Archeology analysis. Your instructions to us were to not hear these missing pieces now but to hear them later when they became available. Unanimously the Commissioners want to hear the total Ordinance package that includes all of the pieces. This is the only way that we and the public can fully understand the Ordinance and the ramifications of the individual pieces. Reviewing the total package at one time is the fair and appropriate public process for this significant legislation. Therefore, the Commission unanimously decided to not hold the July 25, 1990 public hearing on the incomplete Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Commission will hold the hearing when the complete Ordinance package is ready for public review. We also will meet as often as it takes to get a recommendation to the Council as quickly as prudent and fair to the public. This decision was not arrived at lightly. We understand the pressure the moratorium is putting on the Council. We do not want to needlessly add to that pressure. The sole purpose in our decision is to give the Planning Commission and the public a complete Ordinance package to review. This is only fair to the Commission and the public, who will be spending hours in public hearings and deliberations. This is a much more reasonable process rather than a series of disjointed hearings on pieces of the Ordinance package, which we are concerned would confuse and even mislead the taxpayers who support Tukwila. Page 2 Sincerely, Jim Haggerton, Chairman Planning Commission cc: Mayor Planning Commission CONSULTANTS SENSITIVE AREAS LEGISLATION AMOUNT OP CONTRACT PRODUCT Jones & Stokes Associates $6,500 Wetlands Inventory ($5,156.27 spent) $19,800 Wetland & Watercourse Classification and Buffer Study Johnson :Architecture /Planning $14,000 Tukwila Hillside Design and Development Study HartCrowser $4,515 Abandoned Mine Assessment Geoengineers $7,500 Geologic Hazard Maps and Report S.A.O. Ad Hoc June 6, 1990 Present: Dennis Robertson, Wally Rants, Clarence Moriwaki, Ross Earnst, Moira Bradshaw, Rick Beeler, Lucy Lauterbach, John Walsh After discussing various elements in new draft ordinances which Moira had brought to the meeting, the committee proceeded to go through the entire Hillside Design consultant report, pulling out recommendations from each page. Those recommendations were as follows, with preliminary placement noted in parenthesis: Require escrowed replacement reserves for vegetation in Tree Preservation Ordinance (TPO). Encourage through streets that improve circulation, and do not result in more road space or dead ends. Allow streets on hillsides to be 18% maximum grade for no more than 200' and with no driveway accesses on the grade when approved by the Director of Public Works. Require PRDs for all residences, and PMUDs for all commercial developments on significant hillsides. Allow increased building heights where it can be shown that will reduce the overall visual impact of buildings. (PRD & PMUD) Allow lesser setbacks if greater planting densities are put in and if it doesn't increase the visual impact of buildings.(PRD & PMUD) When deciding on the visual impact of a building, perspectives should be given from several viewpoints, depending on each case. (Administrative procedure) Sloped roofs should be required on building for variety and interest. Allowing eves into setback areas without penalties was okayed.(PRD) 50% of the parking stalls can be marked compact, and 2 spaces per unit will be both the minimum and maximum (Multi - family code). Encourage understory parking in multi - family developments. Require boulevards where access roads are built; and require environmentally sounds road designs. Roadside plantings may be substituted. (Administrative discretion) Credit trails and visual corridors as a tradeoff for recreation spaces. (PRD) • Require a maximum of 50% impervious surface for multi - family developments, and 33% for single family plats and subdivisions. (PRD, subdivision code) Require on -site treatment of surface water for multi - family and commercial sites. (PMUD & PRD) Require greater retention of trees during development. (Tree Preservation Ordinance - -TPO) Reference inventories of significant vegetation. (TPO) Require planting standards of 40% coverage of a lot by trees and open space. (TPO) Require 25% of any building or structure over 7' to be screened by vegetation at time of occupancy, and 50% screened in ten years.(PRD) Require front yards on rights of way.(Subdivision code) Require common drives with flag lots to reduce roads in plats.(Plats and subdivisions) Allow 0 -lot lines with one interior side attached and one wide side yard for R- 1.(PRD) Maintain vegetation even if cut and fill are required on roads.(Administrative discretion) Require buffers between abutting rear yards on downslopes.(PRD & Subdivision) Link significant stands of vegetation and buffers together to create the look of bigger open space.(Park and Open Space Plan) Either require or request color use be restrained to certain colors that blend with the hillsides.(PRD & Subdivision) A F F I D. V I T O F 0 DIANN MARTINEZ hereby decl al Notice of Public Hearing POSTPONEMENT [] Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit SEE ATTACHED Name of Project SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY a-krfi: File Number —Ef4t= -90 9 _ - Cfr was mailed to each of the following addresses on I S T R 18 lc I 0 N are that: Determination of Nonsignificance Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Oetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other JULY 20, 1990 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor City of Tukwila PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila, Planning Commission is postponing indefinitely the public hearing scheduled for July 25 1990, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: The Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Ordinance. File Number 89 -2 -CA. The Planning Commission will be meeting at 6:30 p.m. on July 25, 1990 for a field tour of Sensitive Areas within the City. Any questions may be directed to: Moira Bradshaw Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 431 -3670 Published: Valley Daily News - July 22, 1990 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, File AFFIDAVIT /P�onca_ p Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE TAKEN TO THE PAPER BY MOIRA Name of Project 09 File Number__ _ , 4 OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: C1 Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Other [� Other (ft . 19%3. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor The Tukwila Planning Commission will be meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 1990 for a workshop on the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. CASE. NUMBER: 89 -2 -CA: Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone LOCATION: TIME: 7:00 p.m. Conference Room Suite 100 Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 206 - 431 -3680 1 , 0 D AFFIDAVIT o Notice of Public Nearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet J Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit MOM Name of Project. AO File Number eV o --e OF OISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: was mailed to each of the following addresses on Cp J4 (� Notice of Action [l Official Notice [i Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non. significance [] Oetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Other C1 Other , 1996 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor To: Tukwila Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 6 July 1990 Subject: SAO Workshop Tuesday, July 17 7:00 p.m. Conference Room, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard (one building east of city hall) Purpose: Familiarization with proposal / Question and Answer. Enclosed is an SAO package that has been separated into different colors for ease of reference. CITY OF TUKWILA SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE ZONING CODE Section 2. Chapter 18.06 Amended. 18.06 Definition 18.45.010 Purpose and Definition 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation and Applicability 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers 1. General 2. Wetland Buffers a. Modification of Buffers b. Increase or decrease in buffers c. Disturbance of buffers 3. Natural Watercourse Buffers a. Modification of Buffers b. Increase or decrease in buffers c. Disturbance of buffers 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands 4. Natural Watercourses 5. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 6. Abandoned Mine Areas 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 1. General 2. Density Credits 3. Sensitive areas common tract restrictions 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 1. Definition 2. Considerations 18.45.130 Recording 1. Procedure 2. Signage 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of- way or utility" means a utility facility,utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instability. 1. Class I areas, where landslide potential is low, which slope less than 15 percent. (No geotechnical report required) 065A0106 1 3/22/90 2. Class II areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by well- drained soils. (Geotechnical report may be required based on site analysis and /or soils test) 3. Class III areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and underlain by poorly- drained soils, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. (Geotechnical report will be required) 4. Class IV areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with significant ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslides. (Geotechnical report will be required) 5. Areas of potential seismic instability. (Geotechnical report will be required) 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. "Lot Coverage" means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface other than outdoor pools, which will not allow for the percolation of water into the underlying soils such as buildings, compacted gravel, asphalt and concrete. 18.06.650 Performance Standards: These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instability and abandoned coal mine areas. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.855 Tree. "Tree" means any self - supporting woody plant with its root system growing upon the earth usually with one trunk of at least four (4) inch caliper at a height of four and one half (4 1/2) feet above the ground, or a multi - stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. 18.06.935 Watercourses. "Watercourses" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to 065A0106 2 3/22/90 16.6G.738 ' do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined shales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas Mated to mitigata e6 Ve1'aion of wetlands, if permitted by the county or city." convey pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include bogs, swamps, ponds and lakes. ousetr --- t See Addendum A, "Scope of Work, Wetlands and Watercourses." ZONING CODE Section 3. Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION. The purpose of the Sensitive Area Overlay District is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: a. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation of this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on technical studies; or b. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following:. • Abandoned coal mines • Areas of Potential Geologic Instability • Wetlands • Watercourses 2. For wetlands and watercourses which may come into the City through annexation, or to address changes in the ecology of the existing systems, the inventory can be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original study. If the study identifies wetlands or watercourses which 065A0106 3 3/22/90 can have compensatory mitigation, then the provisions of Sections 18.45.080(3)(b) and 18.45.080(4)(b) shall apply. 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 1. General: a. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas, and (ii) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, and (iii)Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value, or (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are permitted. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. b. Wetland and Natural Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii)Stabilize banks, and (iv) Intercept fine sediments, and (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and 065A0106 4 3/22/90 (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. c. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii)Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (iv) Enhance the appearance of hillside development. 2. WETLANDS BUFFER See Addendum A, "Scope of Work, Wetlands and Watercourses." a. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. b. Buffers for all types of wetlands may be increased when the wetland is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland study by a qualified expert which documents the basis for such increased or decreased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. c. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the DCD or other professional. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. 065A0106 5 3/22/90 If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along water courses with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 3. NATURAL WATERCOURSE BUFFERS a. Any buffer may be modified or may be variable in width as suggested by topography and other existing conditions. The intent of this provision is to accommodate the size of the buffer to site conditions. It is not the intent to modify the overall buffer width for an entire site. b. Buffers for natural watercourses may be increased when it is determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase or decrease in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a technical study by a qualified expert which documents the basis for such increased or decreased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. c. Any disturbance of the buffers for natural watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the DCD or other professional. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along water courses with comparable specimens which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 4. AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability 065A0106 6 3/22/90 shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(5). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall include the minimum buffer distances as defined with the geotechnical report. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES 1. General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas or buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. If a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. a. Pre - application Conference: (procedure to be defined) b. Sensitive Areas and Technical Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140. It is intended that sensitive areas and technical studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. c. Pre - construction Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre- construction conferences prior to any work on the site. d. Construction Monitoring: The specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Other uses may be permitted consistent with the technical studies required pursuant to this chapter and the underlying zoning. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. a. Maintenance and repair of existing uses b. Non - destructive education and research c. Passive recreation and open space d. Essential utilities and essential roads including maintenance of existing facilities e. Enhancement or mitigation as approved by the City including approved landscaping as may be required pursuant to Sections 18.45.050(7) and 18.45.053(5). 065A0106 7 3/22/90 f. Essential right -of -way 2. Administrative Review Required: The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval. a. Construction of new roads, including elevated roads or bridges, and access roads on fill when no reasonable alternative exists; and b. Stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre- treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland must not be diverted to do so. 3. Wetlands a. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland and /or its buffer except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080.(1). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. b. For those wetlands which are designated for potential modification according to the ranking system adopted as part of this ordinance, alteration and relocation may be allowed subject to an approved mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a qualified expert. Any alteration or relocation shall ensure that water quality meets or exceeds that which existed prior to modification. c. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. 065A0106 8 3/22/90 d. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland and interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted in conformance with the landscaping provisions of Sections 18.45.050(7) and 18.45.053(5) and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. e. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) (5) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland and its buffer must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow 065A0106 9 3/22/90 ( f. Dredging or filling within a wetland and its buffer may occur only for the following purposes: (1) Maintenance of an existing wetland or water course; or (2) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (3) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (4) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila. 4. Natural Watercourses adequate surface and ground water movement; and Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. a. General: No use or development may occur in a natural watercourse on the property proposed for development (defined as a watercourse not modified by man during the last twenty -five years), except as allowed by Section 18.45.080.(1). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. b. Diversion or Rerouting: (1) The existing course for any natural watercourse is preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can show that the rerouting maintains or enhances the value of the watercourse in water quality treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the diversity of wildlife and plant communities. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. (3) Any mitigation must have the construction completed before the existing watercourse can be drained. (4) Any mitigation plan must have a written plan for monitoring and maintenance of the new construction and all funding necessary for the maintenance of the 065A0106 10 3/22/90 new construction and all funding necessary for the maintenance shall be guaranteed pursuant to Section 18.45.135. (5) For those water courses which are designated for potential modification according to the ranking system adopted as part of this ordinance, alteration and relocation may be allowed subject to an approved mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a qualified expert. Any alteration or relocation shall ensure that water quality meets or exceeds that which existed prior to modification. (6) If the natural watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species, it shall not be rerouted. (7) Any natural watercourse which does not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds within 1000 feet downstream a salmonid bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. c. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize . or where possible avoid disturbance of the watercourse and its buffer. (2) All construction must be designed to protect the watercourse and its buffer against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, watercourses and their buffers must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. d. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and 065A0106 11 3/22/90 (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the watercourse and its buffer and interrelated water habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted in conformance with the landscaping provisions of Sections 18.45.050(7) and 18.45.053(5) and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. e. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect watercourses and their buffers by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (3) (4) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and f. Piping: (1) Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if the applicant can show that mechanisms will be put into place as part of the construction process that will address: i) excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event, ii) flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. 065A0106 12 3/22/90 g. (2) No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured. (3) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, flow must be comparable. Dredging or Digging: (1) Dredging or digging in watercourses shall be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain existing water quantity controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, re- routing, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. (2) Any dredging or digging shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water and every effort shall be made to do such maintenance at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. 5. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability a. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirement of a geotechnical study. b. Exemptions: Any slope which has been created through legal grading activities may be regraded under an approved permit. Any such slope which remains in excess of 40% in the absence of, or following, regrading shall be subject to these rules. c. Alterations: Prior to preparation of a proposal involving alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant shall contact the City of Tukwila to discuss the overall feasibility, scope of special studies, and regulatory restrictions. Development proposals must demonstrate one of the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development. (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any 065A0106 13 3/22/90 (3) potential impact to the project is eliminated. The development proposal should cause no increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation and should not decrease slope stability. The life span of the proposed development and of the proposed mitigation measures should be discussed. Any anticipated requirements for maintenance, repair, or replacement of the mitigating measures over the anticipated life span of the project should be discussed; or Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, the landscaping plan for the site shall include tree re- planting with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater, of nine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. d. Pre - application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(a) the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: the requirements of other applicable ordinances; the requirements of this chapter; the soils report to be provided by the applicant; the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; the design of the proposed structure; a proposed construction schedule; and any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City, and shall be documents of record relative to the application, distributed to the attendees and others identified at the meeting. e. Geotechnical Report: The owner shall be responsible to submit a Geotechnical Report. The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare a report and evaluation of the subsurface soils conditions on the site. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where 065A0106 14 3/22/90 appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. Reports prepared for development applications shall address comments received from the public and governmental agencies concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The City will require such supplements or amendments to the report as are needed to develop a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the soil conditions on the site. f. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. When required by the City the owner shall submit a complete set of plans and specifications for the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in their judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into 065A0106 15 3/22/90 the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. The applicant and the owner of the site, if the owner is not the applicant, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, and prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: The legal description of the Property; A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (4) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. g. Bonds and Public Liability Insurance. Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in a potential area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the City may require assurance devices pursuant to Section. 18.45.135. h. Construction Monitoring: The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The owner shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and (1) ( (3) 065A0106 16 3/22/90 specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor during construction compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the City at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain 'a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical - related permit requirements. .Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the City. i. Conditioning and Denial of Permits: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development. 6. Abandoned Mine Areas (a) Development of a site containing abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when all significant risks associated with the abandoned mine working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. (b) Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical engineering 065A0106 17 3/22/90 special study. 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS /DENSITY CREDITS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS 1. a. Each owner of a building lot within the development proposal shall own an undivided interest in the common tract and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot. b. In development proposals for planned unit developments, short subdivisions, subdivisions, or binding site plans, property owners may elect to establish a sensitive areas common tract. If such a common tract is established, the City of Tukwila may require the lot owners to enter into an agreement with the City to care for and protect the common tract. Alternatively, ownership may be transferred to a responsible entity acceptable to the City. 2. Density Credits are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning. The calculation of density credit is determined by the ratio of non - sensitive areas to sensitive areas including buffers on any particular site. The development factor ratio is intended to provide a basis by which the development credit for the wetland, watercourse and associated buffers portion of the site is transferred to the buildable (non- sensitive area) portion of the site. a. Development Factor: Wetland, Watercourses, and Associated Buffers as Percentage of Site Percent Density Allowed 25% or less 100% 26% to 50% 75% 51% to 75% 50% 76% or more 25% b. In commercial and industrial development proposals, setbacks, height and other site development regulations except parking requirements may be modified as necessary to accommodate the allowable density credit. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the site plan review process. The calculation of potential dwelling units in residential development proposals and building size in commercial and industrial development proposals shall be based on a 100% development factor for the wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers on the development proposal site. 3. Common tract restrictions for wetlands, watercourses and their 065A0106 18 3/22/90 18.45.115 EXCEPTIONS 1. associated buffers shall appear on the face of all PUDs, subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans and shall be recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots. a. General: All residential, commercial, and industrial development located in wetlands, natural watercourses and /or their buffers or areas of potential geologic instability and any buffer in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. b. Modification of Existing Structures: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced provided that the new construction does not further intrude into a sensitive area or the required buffer. c. Reasonable Use Exceptions: If application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property, the property owner or the proponent of a development proposal may apply for a. reasonable use exception. The application for a reasonable use exception shall be filed with the Planning Department and shall be heard by the Planning Commission pursuant to the following: (1) The Commission, in recommending approval of the reasonable use exception, must determine that: (a) No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area is possible; and (b) As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. (c) Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. (d) Any approved alteration of a sensitive area under this section may be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and may require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. 18.45.120 VARIANCES. The Board of Adjustment shall review 065A0106 19 3/22/90 requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless exempted by 18.45.115. 1. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. 18.45.125 APPEALS 1. Any proponent of a project who objects to or disagrees with an interpretation of the sensitive areas maps as defined by Section 18.45.020, by DCD or decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, may appeal to the Planning Commission. Any such appeal shall be made in writing within ten days of the interpretation being appealed, and should set forth the basis for the appeal. 2. In considering the appeal, the following shall be considered: a. The intent of ordinance; b. The best interests of the City of Tukwila weighed against the interest of the individual; c. Any circumstances and /or hardships caused by the ordinance; d. Damage that could result from strict.. adherence to the ordinance. 18.45.130 RECORDING REQUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. On public property, the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any developable land will be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 065A0106 20 3/22/90 18.45.135 ASSURANCE DEVICE 065A0106 21 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City of Tukwila may require a performance or maintenance assurance device in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, letter of credit or other security device acceptable to 'City of Tukwila, and adequate to protect the Sensitive Area and its buffer for up to two years after completion of construction. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the director of DCD may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of _,possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies. 3/15/90 Agreement To Be Subject To A Sensitive Areas Ordinance The undersigned owner and developer of real property located at . and more specifically described in Exhibit A attached hereto, hereby agrees, pursuant to the requirements of Tukwila Ordinance No.'s 1544 and 1550, that if the City of Tukwila will process the following applications: the development of the property described in Exhibit A will be subject to all of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance provisions as finally passed by the City Council even though those provisions may be more restrictive than any conditions or limitations imposed by or resulting from the processes described above. The Undersigned agree(s) that these processes will be continued solely at their risk and expense and that the result of the final Sensitive Area Ordinance may be to require extensive project modification and re- evaluation or recision of the above approvals. It is also understood and agreed that continuation of these processes does not mean that applications not pending on November 20, 1989, for this project, will be accepted or processed unless the City Council approves a petition therefor. The undersigned acknowledges that the covenants herein run with the land described in Exhibit A and that this document will be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections and that these covenants cannot be released without the written consent of the City of Tukwila. Landowner Applicant STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the individual described in and who executed this instrument, and acknowledged that s /he signed the same as a free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Dated . 1990. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at . My appointment expires ILA City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 FAX TRANSMISSION DATE /TIME: JULY 2, 1990 TO: VALLEY DAILY (Name) (Company Name) (FAX 1) FROM: PHONE NO: SUBJECT : .. PAGE(s):- ,.1.(♦ Cover Sheet) COMMENTS: • 3, WENDY BULL 431 -3680 FAX #: 9JMUME 431 - 3665 PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE PLEASE PRINT THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT IN THE LEGAL SECTION ON SUNDAY, JULY 8 AND SUNDAY, JULY,, 1990. /5 89 -2 -CA: SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY PUBLIC HEARING The'Tukwila Planning Commission will hold the following public hearing on thc proposcd Sensitive Arc $ rdinance$: When: Wednesday, July 25,1990 8:00 p.m. Where: Tukwila City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 uw,u n L.uluw uuu UU1 n>, %1ffG Ur_ written cpinmmnts before the Car Brads ilia* pi rtti>crit 01 Commute Dvolopment: „WOO .*Moonier , Bouleva Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Your comments will be considered by the Planning Commission in their deliberations. AFFIDAVIT 1, WENDY BULL hereby Notice of Public Nearing [] Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Friday, SENSITIVE AREAS MAILING LIST WIMP Name of Project SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY File Number 89 - 2 - CA OF DISTRIBUTION declare that: 0 Determination of Nonsignificance [l Mitigated Determination of Non- significance [J Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [I Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Other 0 Other June 29, 1990. 19 . Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the City of Tukwila INTRODUCTION This brochure and public notice is a continuation of the information process for the proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation. Consultants studied the City's wetlands, watercourses, geology, abandoned mine areas and hillside development. This bulletin summarizes their studies; which are available at the City's Department of Community Development. This bulletin is also to notify you on the upcoming public hearing on the proposed legislation. Coal Mine Hazard Areas Additional historical and field research by engineers on coal mining within the City was completed. A report with maps was produced that identifies one area of potential abandoned mine hazard generally located west of Inter- urban, across from the Foster Golf Course. The site was worked by the Foster Coal Company between 1932 and 1935 and pro- duction records show that 824 tons of coal were removed. In this arca more detailed study of mine entrances or workings is required before any new construction can occur. Geological Hazard Areas Geologists testified that mapping of geologic hazards could include not only percent of slope but also the underlying geology and hydrology of sites. Mapping of these condi- tions is now completed. Besides landslide stability, the geologists have classified seismic and erosion hazard areas. The seismic areas are generally the valley floors and the erosion hazard areas are those with slopes exceeding 15 percent. The following are more specific observa- tions regarding each of these areas: Erosion Hazard Areas During development, the control of sediment is critical to clarity and quality of your water, the habitat value of your streams, the Green/ Duwamish River and Puget Sound; the storm sewer system and your building site. There are two basic construction measures to minimize erosion: 1. Minimize the removal of vegetation cover and 2. Install and maintain sediment control and trapping measures on the site to contain runoff. The City's proposed clearing and grading or- dinance would establish these objectives and the criteria for meeting them. Printed on recycled paper Seismic and Landslide Hazard Areas Geologists mapped the City of 'Tukwila using four landslide and one seismic hazard catego- ries. They recommend that geotechnical reports be required for all seismic hazard and certain classes of landslide hazard areas. Geotechnical investigation may be neces- sary for areas that slope between 15 to 40 percent and have well drained soil. Geotechnical investigation is recom- mended for areas that slope between 15 and 40% and underlain by impermeables such as clay, all areas that slope 40% and more, and areas of previous landslides. • Wetlands and Watercourses The Tukwila Citizen's SAO Advisory Com- mittee, who studied the sensitive areas issues this year, felt qualified professionals should design a three -tiered classification system for the City's wetlands and watercourses. They also determined thatTukwila's water resources generally fall into three classes: 1. Those that should be preserved and possibly enhanced; 2. Those that should be enhanced and; 3. Those that could be filled but mitigated through a replacement ratio based on the size and quality features of the resource. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Each wetland and watercourse fits in one of these three classes and will have a buffer around them. Analysis of each watercourse within the city is pending becauseelectroshocking for the presence of fish has to be completed this summer when water levels are lower. Hillside Development Design . The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan calls for preserving steep and wooded hillsides in their scenic condition and encour- aging the replanting and revegetation of de- nuded areas. The City Council, in working towards implementation of that goal, felt that this should be achieved while allowing devel- opment per existing zoning. Focusing on this goal, a team composed of an architect, landscape architect, civil engi- neer and planner, analyzed several recent de- velopments on the hillsides. A report of rec- ommendations listed many developments and design techniques that could be used with the existing review processes fora building permit or plat. The Board of Architectural Review, the subdivision approval process, and the Planned Development approval process give flexibility to the city and the developer in meeting this goal. Sensitive Areas Legislation The Tukwila City Council prepared a legisla- tion package that is the culmination of the work done up to this point. Staff has prepared a summary sheet that highlights the significant items within the legislation. Both may be picked up the Department of Community De- velopment. Design Considerations — Lotting Arrangements Clustering usually allows the same number of lots on a site as a conventional development of the same site, but development will be concentrated on the less sensitive portions of the site. The excessive economic and social cost of developing rough, ecologically sensitive, or scenic land can be avoided. A conventional development — where a number o lots are geometrically carved out of the site — demonstrates how agrid of straightlines superimposed on a curving hill may work on paper, but doesn't work on the site. Site Considerations — Vegetation Cover provided by sireamside vegetation shades the water, keeping it cooler and thus tolerable for certain species of fish. Lack of cover over fragile streams causes them to be exposed to sunlight. This heats up the water, making it intolerable for certain species of fish, such as trout and salmon. Vegetation adjacent to streams also catches sediment and chemicals collected in storm water and prevents them from entering our water bodies. Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the City of Tukwila City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 seam wlsuag s,emnl BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID TUKWILA, WA PERMIT NO. 12698 Q Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting 0 EMMET MARSHALL AFFIDAVIT Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses PROPETY OWNERS IN TUKWILA Name of Project SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY File Number 89 - CA OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Q Oetermination of Nonsignificance ❑ Mitigated Determination of Non - significance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice C1 Notice of Action [] Official Notice Q Other Other on FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1990. ignature 1 Site Considerations — Vegetation Cover provided by streamside vegetation shades the water, keeping it cooler and thus tolerable for certain species of fish. Lack of cover over fragile streams causes them to be exposed to sunlight. This heats up the water, making it intolerable for certain species of fish, such as trout and salmon. Vegetation adjacent to streams also catches sediment and chemicals collected in storm water and prevents them from entering our water bodies. Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the City of Tukwila City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Higdon mvidedpIpIr BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID TUKWIIA, WA PERMIT NO.12698 Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the City of Tukwila INTRODUCTION This brochure and public notice is a continuation of the information process for the proposed Sensitive Areas Legislation. Consultants studied the City's wetlands, watercourses, geology, abandoned mine areas and hillside development. This bulletin summarizes their studies; which are available at the City's Department of Community Development. This bulletin is also to notify you on the upcoming public hearing on the proposed legislation. Coal Mine Hazard Areas Additional historical and field research by engineers on coal mining within the City was completed. A report with maps was produced that identifies one area of potential abandoned mine hazard generally located west of Inter- urban, across from the Foster Golf Course. The site was worked by the Foster Coal Company between 1932 and 1935 and pro- duction records show that 824 tons of coal were removed. In this arca more detailed study of mine entrances or workings is required before any new construction can occur. Geological Hazard Areas Geologists testified that mapping of geologic hazards could include not only percent of slope but also the underlying geology and hydrology of sites. Mapping of these condi- tions is now completed. Besides landslide stability, the geologists have classified seismic and erosion hazard areas. The seismic areas are generally the valley floors and the erosion hazard areas are those with slopes exceeding 15 percent. The following are more specific observa- tions regarding each of these areas: Erosion Hazard Areas During development, the control of sediment is critical to clarity and quality of your water the habitat value of your streams, the Green/ Duwamish River and Puget Sound; the storm sewer system and your building site. There are two basic construction measures to minimize erosion: 1. Minimize the removal of vegetation cover and 2. Install and maintain sediment control and trapping measures on the site to contain runoff. The City's proposed clearing and grading or- dinance would establish these objectives and the criteria for meeting them. Printed on recycled paper Seismic and Landslide Hazard Areas Geologists mapped the City of Tukwila using four landslide and one seismic hazard catego- ries. They recommend thatgeotechnical reports be required for all seismic hazard and certain classes of landslide hazard areas. Geotechnical investigation may be neces- sary for areas that slope between 15 to 40 percent and have well drained soil. Geotechnical investigation is recom- mended for areas that slope between 15 and 40% and underlain by imperrneables such as clay, all areas that slope 40% and more, and areas of previous Landslides. • Wetlands and Watercourses The Tukwila Citizen's SAO Advisory Com- mittee, who studied the sensitive areas issues this year, felt qualified professionals should design a three -tiered classification system for the City's wetlands and watercourses. They also determined thatTukwil a's water reso u rces generally fall into three classes: 1. Those that should be preserved and possibly enhanced; 2. Those that should be enhanced and; 3. Those that could be filled but mitigated through a replacement ratio based on the size and quality features of the resource. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Each wetland and watercourse fits in one of these three classes and will have a buffer around them. Analysis of each watercourse within the city is pending becauseelectroshocking for the presence of fish has to be completed this summer when water levels are lower. Hillside Development Design The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan calls for preserving steep and wooded hillsides in their scenic condition and encour- aging the replanting and revegetation of de- nuded areas. The City Council, in working towards implementation of that goal, felt that this should be achieved while allowing devel- opment per existing zoning. Focusing on this goal, a team composed of an architect, landscape architect, civil engi- neer and planner, analyzed several recent de- velopments on the hillsides. A report of rec- ommendations listed many developments and design techniques that could be used with the existing review processes fora building permit or plat. The Board of Architectural Review, the subdivision approval process, and the Planned Development approval process give flexibility to the city and the developer in meeting this goal. Sensitive Areas Legislation The Tukwila City Council prepared a legisla- tion package that is the culmination of the work done up to this point. Staff has prepared a summary sheet that highlights the significant items within the legislation. Both may be picked up the Department of Community De- velopment. Design Considerations — Lotting Arrangements Clustering usually allows the same number of lots on a site asa conventional development of the same site, but development will be concentrated on the less sensitive portions of the site. The excessive economic and social cost of developing rough, ecologically sensitive, or scenic land can be avoided. A conventional development — where a number of lots are geometrically carved out of the site — demonstrates how agrid of straight lines superimposed on a curving hill may work on paper, but doesn't work on the site. PLIGET POWER Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Soutncenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Mr. Beeler: 1. 18.06.253 ESSENTIAL RIGHT -OF -WAY 3. 18.06.695 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 5. 18.06.938 WETLANDS June 14, 1990 Puget Power supports the above ordinance and wishes to assist in making it a success. We have a number of areas which we believe critical to that success, and provide you the following for inclusion in the ordinance: Private electric utility related activities should be included in the scope of the definition. It's important the word "utility" includes the word private, r e ge is by tself. Puget Power operates with a franchise in Tukwila as a "Private" utility. 2. 18.06.695 SENSITIVE AREAS A sensitive areas map and their limits in the document. We / recommend a large map available for the Public Hearings. A sensitive areas buffer map in the document. We recommend a large map available for the Public Hearings. 4. 18.06.935 WATER COURSES Change the definition to be more spe'cific provide a map in the document of all affected watercourses.' Provide a map of the all wetlands for the public hearings'. This definition should be conditional with the Army Corps of Engineers criteria for identifying wetlands. That is, three things must be present for a wetland to exist: - hydrophytic vegetation - hydric soils - wetland hydrology (All three must be present or it doesn't become catagorized as a wetland). Wetlands "under one acre" in size. are, covered by a Nat.i,onwide.. Permit and requirements. We believe these should. be "Exempt "'from this ordinance to avoid duplicat • Puget Sound Power & Light Company 620 South Grady Way ,P.O. Bdx 32 lientom A 98057-0329 (206) 255-2464 page 2 'i �' 1 ,� le 0 6. 18.45.080 ESSENTIAL UTILITIES � Delete the word "public" in paragraph (2b In addition, verify if this paragraph is covered by 18.06.253: Modify paragraph 2(b)(1) to allow for overhead utility powerlines. Modify paragraph 2(b)(4) to include: All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings " unless facilities are incompatible. Include in paragraph 3c language relating to how "procedures and standards of this chapter affect private utility easement corridors. Provide procedures and standards in the ordinance for this area. 7. 18.45.120 EXCEPTIONS Please include the following language in the "exceptions" section of the ordinance by adding the following: PROVISIONS FOR ELECTRICAL UTILITIES: a. All electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with a voltage of 55kv or less, including: Replacement, operation, alteration, installation or construction in improved city road right -of -way or in rights -of -way being developed as part of a subdivision of short plat subdivision with preliminary approval. b. Normal and routine maintenance or repair of existing utility structures, facilities, or rights -of -way, including damage by fire, accident, or acts of god. c. Relocation of electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with a voltage of 55kv or less in city road rights -of -way when required by governmental agencies and /or the city. We request to meet with you to resolve any questions regarding our input to the ordinance. Please contact us at 235 -2917. Sincerely yours, /- /./err' — •e is en tray Mana.er B ness Office Renton /Tukwila June 11, 1990 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT SPECIAL ISSUES Discussion on Sensitive Areas Ordinance format and process. OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Council President Hernandez called the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. JOAN HERNANDEZ, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI, STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN RANTS. John Colgrove, City Attorney Moira Bradshaw, Department of Community Development. The Mayor announced that there have not been any new appointments to the Library Board; however, there are three vacancies and stated recommendations are welcomed. Friends of the Library Presidents Wendy Morgan (Tukwila) and Karen Livermore (Foster) stated the Council had contributed to a research study of the Georgette Group relating to libraries, but to their knowledge key people, i.e. frequent users of the library had not been interviewed. They requested the Council and the Mayor draft a letter to the Consultants requesting interviews with frequent users of the library. A list of key people will be provided by Morgan and Livermore. Mayor Van Dusen announced that there have not been any new appointments to the Library Board; however, there are three vacancies and that recommendations are welcomed The Council agreed that a draft copy of all material discussed will be provided to the Planning Commission for review. When the draft • is at a more final stage, a Public Hearing will be held to afford an opportunity for input and /or comments to all concerned. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with the format and process presented by the Council Ad- hoc SAO Committee. The discussion ensued with the Council elaborating on the Sensitive Area Ordinance Format/Zoning Code Amendments: Subdivision Code; PRD) Planned Residential Development Section; (PM Permitted Mixed Use Development; Mufti- Family Design Standards; and the New Section Hillside Design. The Council concluded with scheduling a special Committee of The Whole Meeting for Thursday, June 21, to review the SAO draft, the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the Hillside. Design Ordinance. The Sensitive Area Ordinance and the Hillside Design Ordinance will be sent to the Planning Commission for review and hearings. The Planning Commission will then forward the documents back to the Council for evaluation and possible consideration to hold a Public Hearing. The Tree Preservation Ordinance and the Clearing and Grading Ordinance will go separately to Tukwila City Hal Council Chamber C. Committee of The Whole June 11, 1990 Page 2 Special Issues (Con't) REPORTS C, the Planning Commission; and the Surface Water Ordinance can also be dealt with at a slightly slower pace. Mayor Van Dusen read a letter of commendation that was written to the Tukwila Fire Department, Station and Aid Unit #53, by Mr. Roy H. Jourdan. Mr. Jourdan expressed his deep appreciation for the attention the fire department had given turn after he had been involved in a recent automobile accident in the Allentown area. The Mayor also announced that Mr. Arley Radford (a former Council Member in years past) died recently of a massive heart attack. Councilmember Moriwaki reported that he was going to attend the following meetings this week: AWC in Wenatchee; Puget Sound Council of Government; and two (2) Human Services sessions. Councilmember Rants reported that the Finance and Safety Committee had discussed two (2) amendments to the Panoram ordinance that will go before the Regular Council on June 18, 1990. Councilmember Lawrence reported that he had spent about.three and one-half hours recently hiking around the lo wetlands in the Duwamish area recently. He will share some of the ideas gained from that visit with the Council at a later date. Council President Hernandez informed the Council of upcoming meeting dates: June 27, river walk at 9:30 a.m. with the Department of Fisheries; June 21, COW; and June 27, Suburban Cities. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Duffle, Seconded by Robertson, that the 9:45 p.m. Committee of The Whole meeting adjourn. &ad., ,/) Celia Square, Rg6rding Secretary COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE June 11, 1990 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tukwila City Hall 'Police Training Room 1 7 z k 3. ROLL CALL 4. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: At this time, you are invited to comment on items that are not included on this agenda. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Discussion on Sensitive Areas Ordinance format and process. ( Pg . 3) b. Review of Hillside Design and Development Standards. (Pg. 7) 6. PAMPli a. Mayor b. City Council c. Staff d. City Attorney e. Intergovernmental 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT •NOTE CHANGE DILOCA7TON HOW TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS The Mayor is elected by the people to a four year term and presides at all Regular Council Meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 P.M.* Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council Meetings. COMMITTEE of the WHOLE MEETINGS Council Members are elected for a four -year term. The Council President is elected by the Council Members to preside at all Committee of the Whole Meetings for a one -year term. Committee of the Whole Meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 P.M.* Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council Meeting for official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Council Meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. SPECIAL MEETINGS may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures are the same as those used in Regular Council Meetings. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, or personnel matters. *No Council Meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the Month unless prior public notification is given. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public interest, such as land -use laws, annexations, re -zone requests, public safety issues, etc. T.M.C. 2.04.150 states the guidelines for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for their presentation. 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make their presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for five minutes • each. No one may speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postoned to another date. CAS COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS CAS NO. qo r J O AGENDA ITEM TITLE Sensitive Areas Ordinance Format Original Agenda Date March, 1990 Original Sponsor: Council X Timeline Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: /Admin. Apprvd. The Council should understand and agree on the format the Sensitive Areas legislation will take. It is currently planned as additions and amendments to the Zoning Code, with those changes going into several parts of the Zoning Code. Both the calendar and format for the process should be discussed and agreed upon. Sponsor's Recommended Action: Reach consensus on format and process for SAO. Alternative Action: (1) (2) Committee Recommendations: The Council Ad -hoc SAO Committee agreed on the format shown in the attachment. Administration Recommendations: Date 6/11/90 COST IMPACT (if known) FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENDICES Format Calendar RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Action 3 Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Additions to Zoning Code) 1 1 1 1 Tree Preservation Ordinance 1 Clearing and Grading Ordinance 1 FORMAT FOR S.A.O. 6/8/90 1 1 Surface Water Ordinance Wetlands i Water courses ue � 1/24p oWl Geologic Hasard I f Coal Mine: Hazards i ' Hillside Design i Development 5.1.0. Ordinance Format Zoning Code Amendments • Subdivision Code • (PRD)Planned Residential Development .Section • (PIIDD) Pereittnd • liLmed Use Development ment • Multi- Fa*ily Design Standards • Nor . Section Hillside Deiiga Council Ad Hoc committee prepares. SAO documents ' June. 5 11 City Council approves package of documents • :June 21 (Thurs) City Council forwards package to staff June 22 • Staff prepares highlights for public review June 22-27 Public hearing notice • June 27 Planning'CoMmission.publichearings July- 31 Commission review and recommendations HAugust-1-9 COW review of SAO for public review Public notice of hearings City Council public hearings August 27-28 Council deliberation of ordinances . September Adoption of SAO ?tote 7 1490 August 13, 14 August 17 September 24 .•... • • • • • , CAS ITEM COUNCIL AGENDA 5b SYNOPSIS CAS NO. _ 3 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Hillside Development Original Agenda Date March, 1990 Original Sponsor: Council X /Admin. Apprvd. Timeline ASAP to meet SAO schedule. Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: In March, a team of consultants presented a report on "Tukwila Hillsides: Design and Development Standards." Since March the Council Ad -hoc Committee has spent many meetings discussing the report's recommendations. A summary of the issues and actions that the Ad -hoc Committee is recommending to the Council is included here to serve as a guide for discussion. Sponsor's Recommended Action: Discuss and reach consensus on the Ad -hoc Committee's recommendations that will become part of the S.A.O. sent to the Planning Commission and on a schedule for discussing the other S.A.O. parts. Alternative Action: (1) Go through entire report page by page. (2) Committee Recommendations: The Ad -hoc Committee recommends approval of the policies included in their summary recommendations. Administration Recommendations: COST IMPACT (if known) FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENDICES Summary reference. RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Date Action 6/18/90 COW *Please brin our li'ht reen "Tukwila Hillside " r ••r f TOPIC ] . Lot Coverage 8e WkOMMENDATIONS per Maximum and minimum stalls allowed ale 2 multi -family unit. i IMPLEMENTATION Zoning Code amendment Establish maximum impervious surface (50%) to encourage under- building • : kin for multi -famil deve \ • - ts. Multi - Family Design amendments Establish maximum impervious surface permissible (33%) for single- family homes. Toning Code amendment 2 . Height and Bulk Restrictions / sloped .. \ f without height penalty in multi - family projects. ; r q ,i i r 1 1 ' // 6,- a ..� Multi Family Design - amendments 3. Landscape Standards ///� �� 1 /A1 / _l. /'R J / `'1 * ' ,XwL U I, , � \ t, , / Y 1 / V ` Allow sensitive areas and visual buffers to count • recreation space requirements. (Multi) Zoning Code (PRD) Amendment & Multi-Famil De ry ,n amendments Require biofi tration of development's stormwater prior to discharge off- site. (Multi) 1, &Immo /'vvt,4 Storm and Surface Water ordinance Establish minimum required tree coverage. Tree Preservation ordinance v. Recommended by City Council Ad-Hoc SAO Committee ° 7° W0464 / f,0 e Page 1 ito TOPIC RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION SENSITNITY TO CONTEXT A. Accommodation of adjacent development B. Compatibility with surrounding patterns Incorporate access to adjacent parcels, discofirage cul-de -sacs. Subdivision Code amendment — front yard /rear yard designations that , conform to adjacent patterns. amendment Administrative requirement r EFFECT ON VEGETATION Incorporation of significant vegetation inventory in plat review. Subdivision Code amendment Tree Preservation ordinance ROAD /PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS ;- Establish preferred roadside planting for PRDs and PMUDs streets. Zoning Code amendment and design guidelines Require street trees Subdivision Code amendment - City plant and maintain right-of-ways to establish buffers and street trees. Public Works projects Tree P ordinance Allow hillside road grades to exceed 15% (18% for no more than 200'); local access width to be 40' when adjacent to watercourses and wetlands. Subdivision Code amendments 2. PLATTING STANDARDS /SLOPED SITE June 8, 1990 TUKWILA HILLSIDE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For New Single -Family Plats, Multi - Family and Commercial/Industrial Projects Recommended by City Council Ad -Hoc SAO Committee Page 2 ,'o 114 /k1141(tf\' I /6 • r''1 TUICWILA HILLSIDE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For New Single -Family Plats, Multi - Family and Commercial/Industrial Projects Recommended by City Council Ad-Hoc SAO Committee 3. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT /VISUAL MITIGATION: STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE OFF -SITE VIEW OF PROJECTS TOPIC BUILDING SITING: Multi- Family Single - Family 'l6 Require better site plan information at time of submission, including trees, Lf !�wetlands, slopes and retaining structures ` Establish approved access, considering common drives, during plat process. BUILDING SCALE AND FORM COLOR eflech'vily Camouflage SITE PROTECTION Grp t-- y Sri SITE RESTORATION June 3, 1990 BCOMMENDATIONS Establish downslope buffers. Provide sideyard buffers (increase sideyards). Survey existing significant stands of vegetation remaining in Tukwila, particularly on slopes an Require detailed survey at time of platting /permit and field review by City. 2 / 6 /, t/Q JUG OW "Urban Forester" to protect existing and • • '• new tree plantings. Job would include care of street trees, monitoring of buffers, supervision of clearing and grading, etc. Require that hillside developments retain and plant suffident trees so that the site will be reforested to a minimum level of 40% of the landscaped surface. IMPLEMENTATION Family Design standards Application Form amendments Subdivision Code amendment Zoning Code (PRD) amendments Consider scale, form, modulatio etail and texture in plans review by BAR. Application Form Submittal of perspective /montage views during design reviews. Use diagrams amendments or photographs of selected preferred existing projects and site plans for use as fl `,Z / Gr' c "descriptive standards" for developers. 71 1 �' `` A ' `��� / Increa allowable building height without increase in total square foots ; ,�9 Multi-Family Design Cl gn =� where significant vegetation could be retained. ` t ork\∎(Idifv+ 1 r` �'i1005.,• ; '` endments Prz� Provide paint examples as "descriptive standards" developers Use Munsell Chart to establish ranges of color value and chromatic range. (Medium values amendmen [4 / to 5/1 and lower chromatic ranges [/2 to /61 are recommended, with a n e,t1 v ¢ g medium to low light reflectance value (LRV) as shown on paint charts. ore- Recommend variation in color, shade and tone to reduce apparent mass. Adopt BAR design guidelines Tree Preservation ordinance Tree Preservation ordinance Tree Preservation ordinance Page 3 Planned Developments Apply the PRD & PMUD ordinance to all developments falling within the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as a requirement for development Zoning Code (SAO) amendment Regional /City-Wide Circulation Establish a City- designed preferred road circulation network to be applied to future plats, PRD's and multifamily developments. Proponent may offer alternatives. Public Works planning project Sensitive Areas Ordinance Establish interlinked linear greenbelts, especially on hillsides, as part of open space plan. Require protection of Open Space Plan and enhancement of these buffers. Open Space Plan Clearing and Grading Ordinance Coordinate Clearing and Grading ordinance with SAO policies. Improve "Grading Application" to indude information regarding vegetation and wetlands. Application Standards Establish pictorial requirements for plat, PRD and multi-family submissions (e.g., Photo-montage, CADD generated perspectives, etc. Amend (BAR/PRD /PMUD) Application Form amendments Site Inventory Sury j stands of significant vegetation within City and assi tree Preservation ordinance 4. CITY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TUKWILA HILLSIDE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For New Single -Family Plats, Multi - Family and Commercial/Industrial Projects Recommended by City Council Ad-Hoc SAO Committee June 8, 1990 Page 4 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 PROCESS PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS LEGISLATION SUMMARY BACKGROUND Part of the 1989 work program for the Department of Community Development (DCD) was to provide implementation for the Open Space and Natural Environment policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff drafted the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in October 1989 and the Planning Commission held two public hearings in November 1989. Due to the community's interest in a greater degree of public involvement in the legisla- tion process, the City Council formed a Citizens Advisory Committee who worked from January through March and produced a recommended Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. The Citizens Committee recommended and the City Council requested additional profes- sional and technical information which was produced through several consultant con- tracts. The City Council also requested a study regarding hillside development. The recent public notice mailed to property owners discusses the four studies that were produced. The City Council compiled all of the information produced into a draft legislative proposal which will be the subject for the Planning Commission Public Hearing on Wednesday, 25 July 1990. LEGISLATION PROPOSAL The overall legislative goal is to: 1. Recognize that Tukwila lies in the center of an urban region that has already experienced tremendous natural system changes. Tukwila must accommodate and plan for increasing use and development and more clearly prioritize the preservation of its natural resources. 2. Create regulations that balance the existing private rights of property owners with the public safety, public needs, and public responsibilities. The sensitive areas are identified in an overlay zone. All property within the city is already within a zoning district (such as R-1-7.2). The sensitive areas zone and its requirements will lay on top of existing zoning forming another layer of regulations. The proposed overlay zone will be a new chapter in the Zoning Code, that references other existing chapters within the code. Therefore, to understand developing on a sensitive area site requires becoming familiar with the Zoning Code. In addition, the existing Environmental and Subdivision Codes and the Planned Residential Development Chapter of the Zoning Code are modified to reflect and incorporate the sensitive areas policies and regulations. The Planning Commission will take written comments up until the close of the public hearing and will take oral testimony at the public hearing on Wednesday, July 25, 1990. If there is not enough time Wednesday evening to receive the testimony of all those attending, Thursday, July 26 will be available for those who were signed -up, but unable to testify Wednesday. After deliberations, they will make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposal. All of their meetings are open to the public; however, at the close of the public hearing, no additional testimony will be allowed. The City Council will hold an additional hearing, then deliberate and adopt an ordinance. SUBDIVISION TEXT The subdivision code is an existing ordinance which regulates the division of land into lots for sale. The subdivision text amendment shows the new wording in bold and strikes deleted language. The changes are to eliminate any conflict between the new sensitive areas proposal and existing code language and to strengthen subdivision design standards. A summary of the changes are as follows: • Replace "unsuitable land" section with sensitive areas language per the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. • Add a section that requires administrative review of PRDs for short plats with a public notice requirement. • Retain and replant vegetation as part of the initial design. • Reference the proposed Land Altering (Clear /Grade /Fill) ordinance. Reference the proposed tree preservation ordinance Street and utility construction and layout should reference Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. Allow reduction of local access street right -of -way width to minimize impact to sensitive areas. • Allow increase in grade to 18% for no more than 200 feet subject to criteria, review and approval. Create dear goal of integrated street system and circulation solutions as criteria for plat design. Establish cut and fill results as secondary concern. Delete reference to "Community Assets" which suggests that "due regard" be shown towards sensitive areas and trees. Lot arrangement should emphasize integration with existing neighborhood, avoid through lots or require down slope buffers. Eliminate flag lot design in favor of common access drives. • Require planting of trees in new plats The Planned Residential Development (PRD) is a design and development tool that provides flexibility for the developer, public design review for the City and an opportunity to have the site's characteristics govern the design rather than zoning code standards: The PRD process requires a public hearing, Planning Commission recommendation, then City Council approval. Procedure requirements of the proposed Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone would require PRD approval for new residential subdivisions and multiple- family residential developments within sensitive areas. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The Tukwila Zoning Code has an existing PRD process. The PRD text amendment shows the new wording in bold and strikes deleted language. The following summary of changes would only apply to developments undergoing PRD review. •. Delete the minimum site acreage and location requirements. • Allow flexibility in the yard requirements and in structure type in PRDs in R-1 zones to allow zero lot line developments and greater clustering ability. Allow flexibility in height, parking (in multiple - family zones) and recreation space requirements on sensitive sites. • Require retention of vegetation on significant hillsides, and downslope and side yard buffers. • Specify chroma and value of building color. • Revise PRD review criteria of suitability of site for proposed development. Establish 33 and 50 percent impervious surface requirements on sensitive sites for single- family and multiple - family, respectively. • Require boulevards with five foot medians on roads cut perpendicular to the topography and buffers on roads with significant cut and fill and retention wall requirements. • Modify criteria for density bonuses and open space location. Revise approval authority from Council to DCD Director for PRD 6 month construction extension. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICE ACT TUKWILA IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE The Environmental code is an existing ordinance which regulates the City's implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposed language is shown in bold in deleted language is stricken. A summary of the changes follows: • Change the designation of "environmentally sensitive areas" from those areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as "special development consideration" areas to the areas defined and mapped in the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. • Specify that a sensitive area study may be required when developing a sensitive area as part of the SEPA process. • Require applicant funding of an independent review by a geotechnical engineer for developments in Class 4 landslide hazard areas, with possible independent review in Class 2 and 3 landslide and seismic areas. • Identify the elements of a mitigation plan for alteration of a wetland or watercourse. TYPE OF AREA OBJECTIVES IDENTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION LANDSLIDE- PRONE AREAS Ensure safe geologically stable development on- site. Prevent damage off -site from development within these areas. Minimize disruption and maintain vegetated character. City -wide mapping of 3 landslide categories where hazard is moderate, high and very high. Mapping elements included slope, geology and hydrology. Soil investigation and review. Establish permit review and construction procedures. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS Ensure seismically safe development City -wide mapping of areas where ground shaking and liquification potential is significant. Areas are generally underlain by soft or loose soils and have a shallow groundwater table. Soil investigation and review. Establish permit review and construction procedures. ARCHAEO- LOGICAL AREA Prevent disturbance of archaeological areas. Allow study, research, and salvage. Preserve significant useful sites. One known site within City. Compliance with State laws and guidelines. Control development of historic sites in association with research community. ABANDONED COAL MINE AREAS Prevent unsafe development due to subsidence. Comprehensive survey of City; located one area that is mapped. Require site investigation at time of redevelopment or new development. WETLANDS Provide flood attenuation and storage. Improve Tukwila and region's water quality. Maintain or enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat. Federal Definition of Wetlands; 22 identified and mapped within City. Prevent development on portion of site that is a wetland and its buffer. Transfer development rights to other portion of site. Allow exceptions in certain circumstances. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. WATERCOURSES Provide flood attenuation and storage. Improve Tukwila and region's water quality. Maintain or enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat. A route formed by nature or modified by man generally consisting of a bed and banks throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally. Generally referred to as creeks or streams. Mapping in progress. Prevent development or piping of portion of site that is a watercourse and its buffer. Transfer development rights to other portion of site. Allow exceptions in certain circumstances. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. SUMMARY PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE Chapters: Amend Add Amend SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE DRAFT 6/27/90 Title 18 ZONING 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established-Map 18.10 R -A District-Agricultural 18.12 R -1 District -- Single - family Residence 18.14 R -2 District - Two - family Residential 18.16 R-3 District - -Three and Four Family Dwellings 18.18 R-4 District -Low Apartments 18.20 RMH District-Multiple-residence High Density 18.26 P-O District - Professional and Office District 18.28 C -1 District -- Community Retail Business 18.30 C -2 District -- Regional Retail Business 18.34 C -P District - Planned Business Center 18.38 C -M District - Industrial Park 18.40 M -1 District-Light Industry 18.42 M -2 District - -Heavy Industry 18.43 M -2L District -Heavy Industry /Special Landscaping 18.44 Shoreline Zone 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.46 PRD-- Planned Residential Development 18.48 PMUD - Planned Mixed -use Development 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Regulations 18.52 Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements 18.56 Off- street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 18.64 General Conditional Uses 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments 18.84 Requests for Changes in Zoning 18.88 Application Fees 18.90 Appeals 18.92 Public Notice of Hearing 18.96 Administration and Enforcement 18.06 Definitions 18.45.010 Purpose 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation and Applicability 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers 1. Purpose 2. Wetland and Watercourse A. Wetlands B. Watercourses C. Reduction D. Increase E. Maintenance 3. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands and Watercourses 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 5. Abandoned Mine Areas 6. Areas of Important Geological or Archaeological Evidence 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 1. General 2. Density Credits 3. Sensitive areas common tract restrictions 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 18.45.130 Recording 1. Procedure 2. Signage 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required ZONING CODE Chapter 18.06 Amended. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility, utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities defined in the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report by Geoengineers dated May 1990 on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and includes the following: 1. Class II areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. 2. Class III areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 3. Class IV areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 4. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. 18.06.185 Constructed Wetlands. Wetlands do not include those wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands, if permitted by the City. — 2 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.06.385 "Impervious surface" Those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre- existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. The surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. 18.06.650 Performance Standards. These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instability, abandoned coal mine areas, and important geological or archaeological sites. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means any portion of a sensitive area or land contiguous to a sensitive area that is required to be enhanced and /or left undisturbed in order to maintain the function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.935 Watercourses. 'Watercourses" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. 'Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered regulated wetlands. — 3 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone ZONING CODE Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Sensitive Area Overlay District is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. The standards are being set to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values these areas perform for the community and region. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and watercourses and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides which benefit all citizens. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeological sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation of this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on a sensitive area study; or B. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following: • Abandoned coal mines • Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class II, III, IV and seismic instability areas. • Wetlands • Watercourses C. Is a site which contains archaeological remnants of value to the archaeological research community of colleges, universities, or a society of professional archaeologists. 2. For sensitive areas which may come into the City through annexation, or to address changes in the ecology of the existing systems, the inventory shall be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original studies list. - 4 - june 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS 1. Purpose: A. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Sensitive area buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas, and (ii) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development, and (iii) Preserve the edge of the sensitive area for its critical habitat value, or (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are permitted. Sensitive area buffers . located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. B. Wetland and Natural Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii) Stabilize banks, and (iv) Prevent erosion and increased surface water runoff that increase silt and contaminants. (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. C. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii) Prevent avoidable loss of or damage to property. (iv) Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (v) Protect Tukwila's amenity and identifying physical characteristic of wooded hillsides. - 5 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 2. WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES BUFFERS General. The type of wetland or watercourse shall be determined by using the May 1990 report by Jones & Stokes Associates entitled "Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendation" on file with the Tukwila Department of Community Development. All development shall be setback 15 feet from the buffer. However single - family residences shall be set back 10 feet. Setbacks to buildings shall be measured to the foundation line. A. For wetlands: 1. Type I - -100 foot wide buffer. 2. Type II -- 50 foot wide buffer. 3. Type III - 25 foot wide buffer. B. For watercourses, the buffer shall be the greater of the following: 1. Type 1 Watercourse -- 70 feet 2. Type 2 Watercourse - -35 feet 3. Type 3 Watercourse - -15 feet 4. 25 feet from the top of slope, when the watercourse is within 25 feet of the toe of a 15% slope. C. Buffer width reductions are negotiable only when topographical or existing conditions leave no alternative, or when essential roads and utilities as described in 18.45.080 are required. D. Buffers for all types of wetlands and watercourses may be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland or watercourse study by a qualified wetlands biologist or expert which documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland or watercourse which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. E. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer unless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the Director of the Department of Community Development (DCD Director). If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands and watercourses with comparable specimens approved by the City which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. 3. BUFFERS FOR AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY A. Each development p, - r posal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geoit:sic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(4). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this - 6 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone ordinance. Development proposals shall include buffer distances as defined with the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the reports of the site by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply: 1. Pre - application conference with the appropriate City departments. At this conference the applicant and City representatives will discuss the requirements for development in a sensitive area, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and the applicable standards for the proposed development. 2. Sensitive Areas Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this Chapter, and any relevant City ordinances. It is intended that sensitive areas and technical studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 3. Any new subdivision and multiple family residential proposal which includes sensitive areas on site shall apply for Planned Residential Development and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. 4. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - development conferences prior to any work on the site. 5. Conditioning: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. 6. Denial of Permit: A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. Proposed developments in wetlands, watercourses, class 4 and seismic geological hazard areas and their buffers are assumed to carry a great potential for damaging the environment. The applicant in those areas must bear the burden of proof in assuring the safety and environmental sensitivity of his or her development. 7. Construction Monitoring: The geotechnical consultant or other specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: The following uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer. Other uses may be permitted consistent with the technical study required pursuant to this chapter and the underlying zoning. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this Section. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities, where no additional alterations or fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. — 7 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 B. Non - destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space. D. Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping as approved by the Director of DCD. E. Essential right -of -way. 2. Administrative Review Required: The following uses may be permitted only after review and approval. A. DCD Director approval of stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre - treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland must not be diverted to do so. B. Essential utilities and roads where no feasible alternative exists and maintenance of existing facilities other than 1(a), as approved by the DCD Director and City Council. 3. Wetlands and Watercourses Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone General: No use or development may occur in a wetland, watercourse and /or their buffers except as specifically allowed by Section 18.45.080.(1 and 2). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. For those wetlands and watercourses which are designated as having the lowest value as defined in the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study, alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan conclusively demonstrates that the change would be an improvement of the wetland or watercourse quantitative and qualitative functions and their buffers. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technical study by a specialist in fisheries, wetland biology or hydrology and approved by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland or watercourse quality would be improved by the alteration or relocation. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetland or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD Director and the City Council. A. Essential Utilities (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland or watercourse disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland, watercourse and their buffers against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands and watercourse must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. — 8 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone B. Essential Roads (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions in both the long and the short terms is accomplished. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland, watercourse or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to an approved plan by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. C. Public Use and Access: (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland, watercourse or their buffers except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland, watercourse or their buffers must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. D. Dredging or filling 1. Dredging or filling within a wetland, watercourse and their buffers may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and City Council and only for the following purposes: (a) Uses permitted by 18.45.080(1); or (b) Maintenance of an existing wetland or water course; or (c) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or - 9 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (d) Natural system interpretatiox, education or research when undertaken by, or in coopers on with, the City of Tukwila; or (e) Flood control or water qualit enhancement by the City of Tukwila. 2. Any dredging or digging shall be minimize sedimentation in the wa such maintenance at the time of y E. Diversion or Rerouting of Watercours s: (1) The existing course for any natura rerouting. Diversion or rerouting show that the rerouting enhance water quality treatment, erosion diversity of wildlife and plant co may only occur with the permissi Council. F. Piping (1) Piping of any watercourse should in any watercourse if the applica put into place as part of the const Water quality must be as good o for the water entering the pipe, Piping in a wetland or watercou the DCD Director and the City — 10 — rformed in a manner which will er. Every effort will be made to do ar when the impact can be lessened. watercourse is highly preferable to ay be allowed if the applicant can the value of the watercourse in ntrol, pollution reduction or the unities. Diverting or rerouting n of the DCD Director and the City (2) Any watercourse which has any c itical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of saim • nids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats e special needs of these species. (3) Any mitigation must have the co struction completed before the existing watercourse can be diver •- d. (4) Any mitigation plan must have a written plan for monitoring and maintenance of the new construc lion and all funding necessary for the maintenance of the new construc ion which shall be guaranteed pursuant to Section 18.45.135. (5) If the natural watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species it shall not be rerouted. (6) Any natural watercourse which • oes not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds within 1000 feet do stream a salmonid bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the aters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to d • so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. be avoided. Piping may be allowed t can show that mechanisms will be uction process that will address: a. excess capacity to meet need of the system during a 100 year flood event, b. flow restrictors, and water q ality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. No process that requires mainte acceptable unless this maintenan normal facilities' maintenance p show funding for this maintena ance on a regular basis will be process is part of the regular and ocess or unless the applicant can ce is ensured. better for any water exiting the pipe as ow must be comparable. se sensitive area shall be approved by uncil. une 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability A. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirement of a geotechnical study. B. Alterations: Prior to preparation of a proposal involving alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant shall contact the City of Tukwila to discuss the overall feasibility, scope of special studies, and regulatory restrictions. Development proposals must demonstrate one of the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development. (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project is reduced to a level acceptable to the DCD Director. The development proposal should cause no increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation and should not decrease slope stability. The life span of the proposed development and of the proposed mitigation measures shall be discussed. Any anticipated requirements for maintenance, repair, or replacement of the mitigating measures over the anticipated life span of the project shall be discussed; or (3) Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, the landscaping plan for the site shall be in accordance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, including both tree retention and replanting. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. C. Pre - application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(1) the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: the requirements of other applicable ordinances; the requirements of this chapter; the soils report to be provided by the applicant; the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; the design of the proposed structure; a proposed construction schedule; and any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City, and shall be documents of record relative to the application, distributed to the attenders and others identified at the meeting. D. Geotechnical Report: 1. The owner shall be responsible to submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in areas identified in Addendum A as Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the DCD Director for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. —11 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 2. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. 3. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 and Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. 4. Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. 5. Developers shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. 6. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. 7. Reports prepared for development applications shall address comments received from the public and governmental agencies concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The City will require such supplements or amendments to the report as are needed to develop a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the soil conditions on the site. 8. Based on a review of the information contained in the geotechnical report and the site conditions, either the Public Works Director or the DCD Director may require an independent review of any such report on a site in a Class II, III, seismic or coal mine hazard area, and shall require such a review of reports regarding proposed development in all Class 4 landslide hazard areas. The independent review shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical consultant selected by the City and paid for by the applicant. The requirement for the independent review should be clearly and explicitly stated in the permit requirements, and may be required for any sensitive area development. -12 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone E. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. 1. When required by the City the owner shall submit a complete set of plans and specifications for the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in their judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. 2. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. 3. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. 4. The applicant and the owner of the site, if the owner is not the applicant, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, and prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. 5. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: (1) The legal description of the Property; (2) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; - 13 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (3) A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (4) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. F. Assurance Devices. Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in a area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the Department of community Development Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. G. Construction Monitoring: The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The owner shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. H. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor during construction compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the Department of Public Works at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical - related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Department of Community Development. Conditioning and Denial of Permits: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. —14 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. 5. Abandoned Mine Areas A. Development of a site containing an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when all geotechnical studies show that significant risks associated with the abandoned mine working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval shall be granted from the DCD Director before any building or land altering permit processes begin. B. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical study. C. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. 6. Areas of important geological or archaeological evidence. A. Any specific site or area which is designated as important to save as a record of our area's past by a qualified archaeologist, professional archaeologist or geologist, shall be deemed a sensitive area subject to controls on development. B. Development on a site determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or archaeological evidence, shall be prohibited until that evidence has been studies or researched for any valuable information about our history. Removal or salvage of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW 27.53. C. Once the geologic or archaeological evidence or articles have been studies or researched, or the importance of the site is declared to be marginal or not of use to the scientific community, development shall be allowed on the site. The DCD Director shall five the approval for development to begin on such a site. 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS /DENSITY CREDITS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS 1. A. Each owner of a building lot within the development proposal shall own an undivided interest in the common tract and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot. B. In development proposals for planned residential or mixed use developments, short subdivisions, subdivisions, or binding site plans, property owners may elect to establish a sensitive areas common tract. If such a common tract is established, the City of Tukwila may require the lot owners to enter into an agreement with the City to care for and protect the common tract. Alternatively, ownership may be transferred to a responsible entity acceptable to the City. C. Common tract restrictions for wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers shall appear on the face of all PRDs and PMUDs, subdivisions, short plats and binding site plans, and shall be recorded on all documents of title and record for all affected lots. - 15 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 2. Density Credits are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning. The calculation of density credit is determined by the ratio of non - sensitive areas to sensitive areas including buffers on any particular site. The development factor ratio is intended to provide a basis by which the development credit for the wetland, watercourse and associated buffers portion of the site is transferred to the buildable (non - sensitive area) portion of the site. a. Development Factor: 18.45.115 EXCEPTIONS WETLAND, WATERCOURSES, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS AS PERCENTAGE OF SITE PERCENT DENSITY ALLOWED ON BUILDABLE PORTION OF SITE 25% or less 100% 26% to 50% 75% 51% to 75% 50% 76% or more 25% b. Setbacks, height and other site development regulations except parking requirements may be modified to accommodate the allowable density credit. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the BAR, PRD or PMUD review process. The calculation of potential dwelling units in residential development proposals and building size in commercial and industrial development proposals shall be based on a 100% development factor for the wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers on the development proposal site. 1. Conforming uses: All residential, commercial, and industrial development located in wetlands, natural watercourses and /or their buffers or areas of potential geologic instability and any buffer in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. 2. Modification of Existing Structures in Wetlands, Watercourses and their Buffers: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced provided that the new construction does not further intrude into a sensitive area or the required buffer. 3. Modification of Existing Structures in Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard Areas: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled provided that the new construction does not increase the potential of soil movement or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development. 4. Reasonable Use Exceptions: Development of a single family dwelling shall be allowed if application of this Section would deny all other reasonable uses of the property based on the zoning. 18.45.120 VARIANCES. The Board of Adjustment shall review requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless exempted in 18.45.115. 1. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. —16 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 18.45.125 APPEALS 1. Any proponent of a project who objects to or disagrees with an interpretation by the Department of Community Development of the sensitive areas maps as defined by Section 18.45.020, , or decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, shall use the appeal process in the Section 18.90 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 18.45.130 RECORDING REQUIRED Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. On public property, the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any developable land will be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.135 ASSURANCE DEVICE 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City of Tukwila may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to City of Tukwila, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements of this Chapter. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the DCD Director may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies. CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development Chapter 18.46 PRD- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sections: DRAFT AMENDMENT Amend 18.46.010 Purpose. 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Amend 18.46.030 Permitted uses. Delete Delete . Amend 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. Amend 18.46.070 Density standards. Amend 18.46.080 Open space. Delete 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. Amend 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. Add 18.46.112 Review Criteria 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City attorney. Amend 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. 18.46.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: (1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation, waterways, watercourses, wetlands, and views; (2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types; (3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements; (4) Create and /or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general public. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the following districts: (1) R-1 Single- family residential; (2) R-2 Two - family residential; (3) R-3 Three and four family residential; (4) R-4 Low apartments; (5) RMH Multiple- residence high density. (Ord. 1289 1, 1983: Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). 18.46.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are allowed in planned residential development: (1) In R -1 districts, single - family dwellings and duplexes; - 2 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (2) In R -2, R -3, R-4, and RMH districts, residential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in which such residence is located, such as single- family residences, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; provided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels, and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded; (3) Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature; (4) In planned residential developments of ten acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self - service laundries. (Ord. 1289 2, 1983: Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). Y . 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. (1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this code are waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density. Building Height, Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining natural resources, significant vegetation, and enhances views within the site without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in building height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface. Setbacks Yard requirement provisions of TMC. 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. (2) Off - Street Parking. Off - street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of buildings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple family zoned sites with sensitive areas, 2 parking stalls per unit will be the maximum number of parking stalls allowed, with a 50% compact stalls allowance. In addition, parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be allowed, if the design does not affect circulation. (3) Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. (Ord. 1289 4, 1983; Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). (4) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed on sensitive areas sites will be 33% for each single family dwelling and 50% for each multi - family development. — 3 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (5) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums for multi - family developments. (6) Landscape and Site Treatment. Down slope and side yard buffers - Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape coverage of 25% of the structures at time of project completion with anticipated 40% coverage within 15 years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement. Any road or access drive which cuts perpendicular to a slope to the ridgeline of a hill shall have minimum five foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species that provides a branch pattern sufficient to provide at maturity, 50 % coverage of the pavement area. Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of northwest native plant species. (7) Board of Architectural Review review guidelines. The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. For areas of potential geologic instability, the following shall be in addition to the existing B.A.R. guideline regarding (4) Building Design (D) Colors shall be harmonious with a landscaped environment and use hues which have chromas which do not exceed 6 and values of between 4 and 5 according to the Munsell Color system. Other colors harmonious with the primary color may be used for accent. 18.46.070 Density standards. (1) The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. (2) the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a minimum lot size -net less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); and (B) Advantage and enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, -streams, watercourses, or other natural characteristics; and (C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; and (D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan; and (3) With reference to multiple - family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a dwelling unit density not more than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) A variety of housing types are offered; (B) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); — 4 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 ... • • Planned Residential Development (C) Advantage and enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, beams watercourses or other natural characteristics; (D) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; (E) Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan; 1247 - 11part), 1 2. 18.46.080 Open space. Each planned residential development shall provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site area for common open space which shall: (1) Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas; or (2) Incorporates and protects the environmentally sensitive areas on the site; (3) Networks with the trail system of the city and provides a connection and extension, if feasible; (4) If under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership; or (5) Held in common ownership by all of the owners of the development by means of a home owners or similar association. Such association shall be responsible for maintenance of the common open space; (6) Dedicated for public use, if acceptable to the city or other appropriate public agency. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. A preapplication conference between representatives of the city and the potential applicant for a PRD is required prior to the acceptance of an application for PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the planning department at the written request of the potential applicant. All affected city departments shall be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint the applicant with the provisions of this section as well as other ordinances and regulations which would affect the property under consideration. (Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. The following procedure is required for approval of the planned residential development: - 5 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (1) Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the planning Department of Community Development and which shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and by the following: (i) Justification for the density bonus, if requested by the applicant, (ii) Program for development including staging or timing of development, (iii) Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of the project, (iv) Basic content of any restrictive covenants, (v) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a home owners association, or similar association, condominium development or other means acceptable to the city; (vi) An application for rezone may be submitted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be in addition to those of the PRD application; (vii) An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application. (2) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by city departments. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time. (3) Planning Commission Recommendation. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter and forward the report to the city council.-Suell-rt —6— June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (4) City Council Public Hearing. After receipt of the planning commission report, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed PRD as recommended by the planning commission. The city council shall give approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval to the proposed PRD. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). The PRD shall be an exception to the regulations to the extent that approved conditions of the PRD may modify and supersede the regulations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance. 18.46.112 Review criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the proposed development plans and use the following criteria in their decision making. (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met; if appropriate; and (2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; and (3) Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; (4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter; (5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; (6) Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans; (7) For multiple family developments, compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050). 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by city council and city attorney. The restrictive covenants intended to be used by the applicant in a planned residential development (PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other structures thereon, must be approved by the city council and the city attorney before the issuance of any building permit. (Ord. 1289 6, 1983). 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development: (1) Time Limitation. A complete application for the initial building permit shall be filed by the applicant within twelve months of the date on which the city council approved the PRD. An extension of time for submitting an application may be requested in writing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding six months may be granted bthe- eity -eoun it by the Director of DCD. If application for the initial building permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan shall be considered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code. (2) Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the - plug - department DCD and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the building code. CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (3) Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be included in the building permit application presented in finalized, detailed form. ' These plans shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public dedication documents must be approved by the city council before the issuance of any building permits. (4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties, or other security device as shall be approved by the City Attorney, shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in the final plan. (5) Planning Department Action. The planning department shall determine whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in compliance with and carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Following approval of the planning department, the city clerk shall file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the city and the originals shall be recorded with the King County department of records and elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. If minor adjustments or changes are proposed following the approval of the PRD, by the city council as provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall be approved by the planning department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or open space provided. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning department, substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to make one or more major changes, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. Construction of improvements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date of the filing of the final PRD plan by the city clerk as provided in Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning construction may . be requested in writing by the applicant, and such extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the planning commission upon showing of good cause. If construction does not occur within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD plans by the city clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from the official zoning map and the zoning shall revert to the underlying designation. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). - 8 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Chapters: Amend Amend Amend Sections: 17.08.010 17.08.020 Amend 17.08.030 Amend 17.08.040 17.08.050 Amend 17.08.060 17.08.070 17.08.080 17.08.090 17.08.100 (4) (5) (6) Title 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS DRAFT AMENDMENT Chapter 17.08 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR SHORT SUBDIVISIONS Purpose. Scope. Principles of acceptability. Application requirements. Fees. Review procedures. Required improvements. Filing of short plat. Expiration period. Limitations on further subdivision. Short Subdivisions 17.04 General Provisions 17.08 Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions 17.12 Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions 17.16 Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plan 17.20 Design Standards for the Subdivision of Land 17.24 Minimum Standards for Residential Subdivision Design 17.28 Minimum Standards for Commercial /Industrial Subdivision Design 17.32 Exceptions, Penalties, Severability, Liability 17.08.010 Purpose. The procedures regulating short subdivisions are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots while promoting the public health and general welfare and complying with provisions of RCW 58.17. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.020 Scope. Any land being divided into four or fewer parcels, lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than twenty acres in size, and which has not been divided in a short subdivision within a period of five years, shall meet the requirements of this section. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. The following principles shall determine the acceptability of short subdivisions: (1) Create legal building sites with respect to zoning and health regulations; (2) Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel; If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into consideration the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction, as well as the requirements of this code; Make adequate provision for: drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes, as deemed necessary. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Comply with Chapter 17.20, Design standards for the subdivision of land, and Chapters 17.24 and Chapter 17.28 Minimum standards for Residential and Commercial Subdivision Design, respectively. - 2 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions 17.08.040 Application requirements. (a) Application for a short subdivision shall be made with the planning division of the Department office of community development on forms prescribed by that office. Said application shall be accompanied by ten copies of the short subdivision plat. If the subject site is within the sensitive area overlay zone, administrative review and approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall be required for the proposed short plat. The standards and criteria for PRD design and review are those listed in TMC 18.46. The procedure shall be those listed in 17.08.060. The short subdivision plat shall conform to the following requirements: (1) Shall be a neat and accurate drawing by a land surveyor on reproducible material at a decimal scale. The plat map shall measure between eight and one -half inches by eleven inches and eight and one -half inches by fourteen inches. Shall show how the proposed subdivision will be served by streets and utilities. Each application shall be accompanied by a preliminary title report dated within thirty calendar days of the submission date. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). (b) (c) (2) (3) 17.08.050 Fees. A nonrefundable application fee of fifty dollars shall accompany each and every application for short subdivision to cover costs of administration and inspection. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.060 Review procedures. (a) Referral to Other Departments. Upon receipt of an application for a short subdivision, the planning division of the Department office of community development shall transmit one copy of the application to each member of the short subdivision committee, and one copy to any department or agency deemed necessary. The application shall be transmitted at least five working days prior to the short subdivision committee meeting. (b) Notice to adjacent property owners. If a PRD is being processed as part of the short plat application per 17.08.040 (b), notice shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, fifteen days prior to the Short Subdivision Committee meeting, notifying them of the pending proposal and requesting comments. Short Subdivision Committee. The short subdivision committee shall consist of the director of the office of community development, who shall be chairman; the public works director; and the fire chief; or their designated representatives. Short Subdivision Committee Meeting. A meeting of the short subdivision committee, attended by the applicant at his option, shall be held no later than twenty calendar days from receipt of a complete application. Said meeting shall be open to the public. (1) Quorum. All members of the short subdivision committee or their representative must be present in order for action to be taken. (2) Action. The short subdivision committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for a short subdivision. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall be made at the meeting and the applicant notified in writing of such decision within three working days. An additional meeting may be called if a decision is not reached at the first meeting. The second meeting should be no later than seven days after the first meeting. An applicant may request to have an application on which the short subdivision committee has taken action reopened by the committee if it is found by the director of the office of community development and the applicant that new information has come to light that might affect the action taken by the short subdivision committee. (3) Appeal. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall.be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the planning commission within ten calendar days of the date of decision of the short subdivision committee. Said appeal shall be in writing to the planning commission and filed with the office of community development. The (c) (d) — 3 — June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions planning commission shall act on said appeal within forty calendar days unless an extension thereto is agreed to, in writing, by the applicant. The decision of the planning commission shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten calendar days, any aggrieved party files with the city clerk a written appeal addressed to the city council. The city council shall act on said appeal within twenty days of the date of appeal. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.070 Required improvements. (a) Prior to recommending approval for any short subdivision, the short subdivision committee shall determine that the following improvements are available for each parcel created by the division of land: (1) Adequate water supply; (2) Adequate method of sewage disposal; (3) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; (4) Fire hydrants; (5) Adequate access to all parcels. Streets, alleys, and sidewalk improvements may be required by the short subdivision committee; (6) Provision for appropriate deed, dedication, and/ or easements. (b) Any and all improvements required pursuant to subsection (a) shall be as per the respective requirements of Chapters 17.20, 17.24 or 17.28 as appropriate for either the residential or commercial industry design standards. (c) Other improvements not specifically mentioned herein but found necessary due to conditions found on the site may be required. (d) Finished plans of all public improvements as installed shall be required before the city will accept the improvements. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.080 Filing of short plat. (a) All required improvements must be constructed by the applicant and accepted by the city, or a bond posted by the applicant for construction of same, prior to the short plat being filed. Said bond shall be in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of complete construction of such improvements as determined by the director of public works. (b) A short plat must be certified for filing by the chairman of the short subdivision committee before it is filed. (c) Short plats shall be filed by the applicant with the department of records and elections and a copy of the recorded instrument shall be returned to the office of community development prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with this filing. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.090 Expiration period. If the short plat is not filed within six months of the date of approval, the short plat shall be null and void. Upon written request by the subdivider, the short subdivision committee may grant one extension of not more than six months. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.100 Limitations on further subdivision. Any land subdivided under the requirements of this chapter shall not be further divided for a period of five years without following the procedures for subdivision. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). - 4 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions Chapter 17.20 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sections: 17.20.010 Purpose. Amend 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. Amend 17.20.040 Grading. Amend 17.20.050 Streets. 17.20.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and provide vegetation. These are beneficial to the city in lessening the costs of development to the city as a whole, to the subdivider in creating an attractive and quality environment, and in attainment of the goals and objectives of the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. (a) Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to the Flood Zone Control Ordinance as defined in TMC 16.52, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Area Overlay zone, TMC 18.45, and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. (b) Trees. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on site as part of the preliminary plat application. The standards and procedures of the Tree Preservation Ordinance shall be followed and integrated into the plat process. (c) Strums. Eve marshes -ate -begs: — 5 — June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. (a) Buffer Between Uses. Where residential subdivisions are to be adjacent to multiple- family, commercial or industrial land use districts, and where natural separation does not exist, buffer strips shall be provided. (b) Conformity with Existing Plans. The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the city. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right-of- way or for easements to the city for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to and complement city ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.040 Grading. Prior to any grading within a proposed or approved subdivision, a grading permit shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the City's Land Altering (Clearing, Grading & Filling) Ordinanc (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.050 Streets. (a) Extension. Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the plat. Where appropriate, streets shall be extended to the boundaries of the plat to insure access to neighboring properties. The City's goal is to have an integrated system of local streets rather than system of cul -de -sacs. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective. However, in sensitive areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the standards and procedures of the sensitive areas overlay zone. (b) Names. All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval by the Department of office community development. (c) Intersections. Any intersection of public streets, whatever the classification, shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset in so far as practical. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions Chapter 17.24 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN Sections: 17.24.010 Conformance required. Amend 17.24.020 Street layout. 17.24.030 Private access roads. Amend 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. 17.24.010 Conformance required. Any plat, subdivision or dedication for residential use shall be designed in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.020 Street layout. Street layouteuld shall provide for the most advantageous development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where sensitive areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights -of -way in the sensitive areas overlay zone shall be followed. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.030 Private access roads. Private access roads may be authorized if: (a) allowing private access roads in the area being subdivided will not adversely affect future circulation in neighboring parcels of property; and (b) adequate and reasonable provisions are made for the future maintenance and repair of the proposed private access roads; and (c) the proposed private access roads can accommodate potential full (future) development on the lots created; and (d) the proposed private access roads do not serve more than four lots nor are more than two hundred feet in length. When private access roads are authorized, the easement width shall be a minimum of thirty feet and shall conform to the applicable standards for design alignment set forth in Chapter 17.24.040, subsection (b). (Ord. 1014 (part) , 1977). 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. (a) Right -of -way Width. Street widths may vary according to function, traffic generated and topography. The following minimum street widths for streets, as defined in the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan, shall apply unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the preliminary plat or by the short subdivision committee in the case of short plats. TYPE OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY PAVEMENT Major Arterial 80 feet 60 feet Secondary Arterial 75 feet 48 feet Collector 60 feet 36 feet Local Street 50 feet * 30 feet Cul- De-Sac Roadway 40 feet 26 feet Turnaround 80 feet diameter 60 feet diameter Alley 20 feet 15 feet * Right -of -way may be reduced to 40 feet with five foot easements on each side if the subject roadway will be traversing or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. - 7 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions (b) Design. The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the department of public works: (1) Street Intersection Offsets. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure less than two hundred fifty feet from centerline to centerline. (2) Cul -de -sacs. Cul -de -sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred feet unless authorized in accordance with Section 17.32.010. (3) Street Grades. Street grades shall stances -not exceed 15 percent. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18 percent, for not more than 200 feet when: (i) exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; and (ii) the greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive slopes; and (iii) the Fire Marshall grants approval (4) Tangents. Minimum tangents shall conform to department of public works standards. (5) Horizontal Curves. Minimum curve radii shall conform to department of public works standards. (6) Vertical Curves. Changes in grade shall conform to department of public works standards. (c) Right -of -way Improvement. All right -of -way improvements shall conform to department of public works standards. (d) Utilities. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground and, if located within a sensitive area, shall be designed to meet the standards of the sensitive areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the department of public works; such installation shall be completed and approved prior to application of any surface materials. (1) Sanitary Sewers. Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the appropriate health agencies, sanitary sewers shall be provided at no cost to the city and designed in accordance with city standards. (2) Storm Drainage. An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water; the amount of runoff shall be determined by the rational method. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes. The diameter to be provided shall be determined by Manning's Equation, but in no case shall the inner diameter be less than twelve inches. (3) Water System. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with city standards. (e) Public Use and Service Areas. Due consideration shall be given by the subdivider to the allocation of adequately sized areas for public service or usage. (1) Easements. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the public works department. (f) Blocks. (1) Length. Blocks should not be less than three hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in length. Where circumstances warrant, the planning commission may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet nor more than fifteen feet in width dedicated in the city to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. (2) Width. Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the planning commission may approve a single tier. — 8 — June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions (g) Lots. (1) Arrangement. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each lot must have access to a public street that is approved at the time of plat review; however rather than designing flag lots, access shall be accomplished with common drive easements. Location of yards shall reflect the prevailing pattern within the neighborhood. For example, if adjacent developed lots front on the street the subdivision's lots fronting the street should also establish front yards for those lots. (2) Minimum Size. The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet or exceed the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. (3) Corner Lots. Corner lots may be required to be platted with additional width to allow for the additional side yard requirements. (4) Through Lots. Residential through lots are not encouraged and shall only be approved if there is a topographic or traffic safety concern preventing double tiered lots. Approved through lots shall be permitted access to only one street, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and shall provide a fifteen foot rear yard buffer of native vegetation. (5) Property Corners at Intersections. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights -of -way shall have a minimum radius of twenty -five feet. (h) Trees. Each lot within a new subdivision shall be landscaped with at least one tree in the front yard to create a uniform streetscape. Installation shall be required per 17.12.040(3) (hi) Other Improvements. (1) Monuments. (A) Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the department of public works. (B) All other lot corners shall be marked with suitable metal or wood markers. (2) Street Signs. The subdivider shall be responsible for the initial cost of any . street name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, necessary in the subdivision as required by the department of public works. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). June 26, , 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 Sections: 21.04.010 21.04.020 21.04.030 Amend 21.04.040 21.04.050 21.04.060 21.04.070 21.04.080 Amend Amend Amend Amend 21.04.090 21.04.100 21.04.110 21.04.120 21.04.130 21.04.140 21.04.150 21.04.160 21.04.170 21.04.180 21.04.190 21.04200 21.04.210 21.04.220 21.04.230 21.04.240 21.04.250 21.04.260 21.04.270 21.04.280 21.04.290 21.04.300 21.04.310 21.04.320 21.04.330 21.04.340 Title 21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Chapter 21.04 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DRAFT AMENDMENT Adopted—Authority. General provisions—Adoption by reference. Definitions -- Adoption by reference. Definitions -- Additional. Designation of responsible official. Lead agency -- Determination -- Responsibilities. Lead agency—Transfer of status to state agency. Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations—Adoption by reference. Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations—Time estimates. Categorical exemptions—Adoption by reference. Categorical exemptions—Flexible thresholds. Categorical exemptions -- Determination. Threshold determination—Review at conceptual stage. Threshold determinations—Environmental checklist. Threshold determinations—Mitigated DNS. Documents required—SEPA decisions. EIS—Adoption by reference. EIS -- Preparation. EIS -- Additional elements. EIS -- Commenting -- Adoption by reference. Public notice—Procedure. Consulted agency responsibilities—Official designated. Using existing environmental documents -- Adoption by reference. SEPA-- Decisions -- Adoption by reference. SEPA -- Decisions -- Substantive authority. SEPA—Compliance—Adoption by reference. SEPA—Policies. Appeals. Notice—Statute of limitations. Environmentally sensitive areas. Fees. Forms—Adoption by reference. Copies on file. Severability. State Environmental Policy Act CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act 21.04.010 Adopted -- Authority. (a) The city adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197 -11 -904. This chapter contains the city's SEPA procedures and policies. (b) The SEPA rules contained in WAC Chapter 197 -11 must be used in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 1331 §1, 1984). 21.04.020 General provisions -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference: 197 - 11-040 Definitions. 197 - 11-050 Lead agency. 197 -11 -055 Timing of the SEPA process. 197 - 11-060 Content of environmental review. 197 -11 -070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process. 197 -11 -080 Incomplete or unavailable information. 197 - 11-090 Supporting documents. 197 -11 -100 Information required of applicants. (Ord. 1331 §2,1984) 21.04.030 Definitions—Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as may be amended hereafter, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -700 Definitions. 197 -11 -702 Act. 197 -11 -704 Action. 197 -11 -706 Addendum. 197 -11 -708 Adoption. 197 -11 -710 Affected tribe. 197 -11 -712 Affecting. 197 -11 -714 Agency. 197 -11 -716 Applicant. 197 -11 -718 Built environment. 197 -11 -720 Categorical exemption. 197 -11 -722 Consolidated appeal. 197 -11 -724 Consulted agency. 197 -11 -726 Cost-benefit analysis. 197 -11 -728 County /city. 197 -11 -730 Decision maker. 197 -11 -732 Department. 197 -11 -734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 197 -11 -736 Determination of significance (DS). 197 -11 -738 EIS 197 -11 -740 Environment. 197 -11 -742 Environmental checklist. 197 -11 -744 Environmental document. 197 -11 -746 Environmental review. 197 -11 -748 Environmentally sensitive area. 197 -11 -750 Expanded scoping. 197 -11 -752 Impacts. 197 -11 -754 Incorporation by reference. 197 -11 -756 Lands covered by water. 197 -11 -758 Lead agency. 197 -11 -760 License. 197 -11 -762 Local agency. 197 -11 -764 Major action. 197 -11 -766 Mitigated DNS. 197 -11 -768 Mitigation. 197 -11 -770 Natural environment. 197 -11 -772 NEPA. 197 -11 -774 Nonproject. 197 -11 -776 Phased review. 197 -11 -778 Preparation. — 3 — now existing or as June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act 197 -11 -780 Private project. 197 -11 -782 Probable. 197 -11 -784 Proposal. 197 -11 -786 Reasonable alternative. 197 -11 -788 Responsible official. 197 -11 -790 SEPA. 197 -11 -792 Scope. 197 -11 -793 Scoping. 197 -11 -794 Significant. 197 -11 -796 State agency. 197 -11 -797 Threshold determination. 197 -11 -799 Underlying governmental action. (Ord. 1331 §27, 1984). 21.04.040 Definitions-Additional. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197 -11 -700 through 799, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise: (1) "Department" means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order. (2) "Early notice" means the city's response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of the determination of significance likely for the applicant's proposal. (3) "Environmentally sensitive area" - see 21.04.300. (4) "Notice of action" means the notice of the time for commencing an appeal of a SEPA determination that the city or the applicant may give following final city action upon an application for a permit or approval when said permit or approval does not have a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing an appeal. (Ord. 1344 §1, 1985; Ord. 1331 §3, 1984). (5) "Official notice" means the notice that the city shall give of the date and place for commencing an appeal of final city action upon an application for a permit or approval where said permit or approval has a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing appeal. (6) "SEPA Rules" means WAC Chapter 197 -11 adopted by the Department of Ecology. 21.04.050 Determination of responsible official. (a) For those proposals for which the city is a lead agency the responsible official shall be the planning director or such other person as the mayor may designate in writing. (b) For all proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and perform any other functions assigned to the lead agency or responsible official by those sections of the SEPA Rules that have been adopted by reference. (Ord. 1344 §2, 1985; Ord. 1331 §4,1984). 21.04.060 Lead agency -- Determination -- Responsibilities. (a) The responsible official shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197 -11 -050 and WAC 197 -11 -922 through 197 -11 -940, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the responsible official is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead agency. (b) When the city is not the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the city shall use and consider as appropriate either the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency unless the city determines a supplemental environmental review is necessary under WAC 197 -11 -600. (c) If the city, or any of its departments, receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197 -11 -922 through 197 -11 -940, it may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination and resolved within fifteen days of receipt of the determination or the city must petition the - 4 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act department of ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197 -11 -946 within the fifteen -day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the city may be initiated by the responsible official or mayor. (d) The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency's duties for a proposal under WAC 197 -11 -942 and 197 -11- 944. 21.04.130 Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. (a) If the city's only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. (b) In addition to the environmental documents an applicant may be required to submit the following information: (1) Conceptual site plans and building plans; (2) Other information as the responsible official may determine. (Ord. 1344 §5, 1985; Ord. 1331 §9,1984). (3) Environmentally sensitive areas studies as described in 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. 21.04.140 Threshold determinations -- Environmental checklist. (a) A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197 -11 -960 with the following additions: (1) If the site is an environmentally sensitive area, a sensitive area study that meets the requirements of the SEPA official may be required. The SEPA official may waive any study requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a particular use or application. Environmentally sensitive area studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the geotechnical reports on Class 2 and 3 Landslide, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard areas may be required of the applicant; will be required in Class 4 Landslide Hazard areas. (2) Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts; (3) Description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preferred course of action. (b) A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. (c) The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination. (d) For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide information as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal. (e) The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: (1) The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or (2) The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. (Ord. 1344 §7, 1985; Ord. 1331 §13, 1984). CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act 21.04.150 Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. (a) The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant. (b) An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely. The request must: (1) Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and (2) Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal. (c) The responsible official's written response to the request for early notice shall: (1) State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and (2) State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and /or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. (d) When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. (1) If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required. (2) If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. (3) The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. (4) Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. (e) Mitigation plans for alterations to wetlands and streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: (1) Baseline information of quantitive data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (2) Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (3) Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: (A) Maintain or better stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient. (B) Restore or plant native vegetation unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (C) Create an equivalent or better channel bed. (D) Create equivalent or better biofiltration. (E) Replace habitat value unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (F) Replace or lengthen horizontal alignment (meander length). (4) Detailed contraction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. -6- June26,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act (5) Monitoring and/or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (6) Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. (e) The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fifteen days after the date of issuance. (f) Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of any license issued. (g) If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigation DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. (h) The city's written response under subsection (c) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 1344 §8, 1985; Ord. 1331 §14, 1984). 21.04.160 Documents required - -SEPA decisions. For nonexempt proposals, the DNS or draft EIS for the proposal shall accompany the city staffs recommendation to any appropriate advisory body such as the planning commission. (Ord. 1331 §8, 1984). 21.04.170 EIS -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented by this chapter: 197 - 11-400 Purpose of EIS. 197 - 11-402 General requirements. 197 - 11-405 EIS types. 197- 11-406 EIS timing. 197 - 11-408 Scoping. 197 - 11-410 Expanded scoping. 197 - 11-420 EIS preparation. 197 - 11-425 Style and size. 197 - 11-430 Format. 197 - 11-435 Cover letter or memo. 197 - 11-440 EIS contents. 197 - 11-442 Contents of EIS on non - project proposals. 197 - 11-443 EIS contents when prior non - project EIS. 197 - 11-444 Elements of the environment. 197 - 11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations. 197 - 11-450 Cost - benefit analysis. 197 - 11-455 Issuance of DEIS. 197 - 11-460 Issuance of FEIS. (Ord. 1331 §15, 1984). 197 -11 -922 Lead agency rules. 197 -11 -924 Determining the lead agency. 197 - 11 - 926 Lead agency for governmental proposals. 197 -11 -928 Lead agency for public and private proposals. 197 -11 -930 Lead agency for private projects with one agency with jurisdiction. 197 -11 -932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses for more than one agency, when one of the agencies is a county /city. 197 -11 -934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency, not a county/ city, and one or more state agencies. 197 -11 -936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one state agency. - 7 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 197 -11 -938 Lead agencies for specific proposals. 197 -11 -940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency. 197 -11 -942 Agreements on lead agency status. 197 -11 -944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties. 197 -11 -946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes. 197 -11 -948 Assumption of lead agency status. (Ord. 1331 §29, 1984). State Environmental Policy Act 21.04.270 SEPA -- Policies. (a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. (b) The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: (1) Zoning Code -TMC Chapter 18; (2) Shoreline Master Plan- Ordinance 898; (3) Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan- Ordinance 1246; (4) Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan- Ordinance 1315; (5) Subdivision Ordinance -TMC Chapter 17.04; (6) Comprehensive Sewer Plan- Resolution 904; (7) Comprehensive Water Plan- Resolution 873; (8) Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition - Ordinance 1287; (9) Transportation Improvement Plan- Resolution 917; (10) Annexation Policy Plan - Resolution 626; (11) Sidewalk Ordinance- Ordinance 1233; (12) Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction - Ordinance 1250. (Ord. 1344 §14, 1985; Ord. 1331 §24, 1984). 21.04.280 Appeals. (a) Any interested person may appeal a threshold determination, adequacy of a final EIS and the conditions or denials of a requested action made by a non - elected city official pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. No other SEPA appeal shall be allowed. (b) All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days of the date of the decision appealed from. (c) On receipt of a timely written notice of appeal, the city clerk shall advise the city council of the pendency of the appeal and request that a date for considering the appeal be established. The council shall expeditiously process the appeal and in any event shall render a decision within sixty calendar days of the date appeal is filed. (d) All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal and the decision shall be made de novo. The procedural determination by the city's responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (e) For any appeal under this section, the city shall provide for a record that shall consist of the following: (1) Findings and conclusions; (2) Testimony under oath; and (3) A taped or written transcript. (f) The city may require the appellant to bear the expense for a written transcript. (Ord. 1344 §11, 1985; Ord. 1331 §25, 1984). 21.04.290 Notice -- Statute of limitations. (a) The city shall give official notice whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial appeal. (b) The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action. (1) The form of the notice of action shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197 -11 -990. (2) The notice of action shall be published by the city Berk, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080. (Ord. 1344 §12, 1985; Ord. 1331 §26, 1984). CHAPTER 21.04 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. (a) State Environmental Policy Act b.. reference Environmentally sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and/or as defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 or hereinafter amended, designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded areas and the Green/Duwamish River. For each environmentally sensitive area, the categorical exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for these areas are: WAC 197 -11- 800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6)(a), (14(c), (24)(a) through (g), and (25)(d), (f), (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. (b) The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (c) Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. (Ord. 1344 §13, 1985; Ord. 1331 §30,1984). 21.04.310 Fees. The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter: (1) Threshold Determination. For every environmental checklist the city will review when it is lead agency, the city shall collect a fee of one hundred dollars from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination, provided, that no fee shall be charged to or collected from the proponents of any proposal for annexation to the city and the city shall review such checklists without charge. Where payment of a fee is required, the time periods provided by this chapter for making a threshold determination shall not begin to run until payment of the fee is received by the city. (2) Environmental Impact Statement. (A) When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred, including overhead, by the city in preparing the EIS. The responsible official shall advise the applicant of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation. (B) The responsible official may determine that the city will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated by some persons or entity other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by the city. (C) The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the city prior to commencing work. The city will refund the excess, if any, at the completion of the EIS. If the city's costs exceed the projected costs, the applicant shall immediately pay the excess. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under (A) or (B) of this subsection which remain after incurred costs, including overhead, are paid. • DATE /TIME: MAY 30, 1990 SUBJECT: TONIGHT'S MEETING PAGE(s):,.3__(+ Cover Sheet) COMMENTS: C1r • of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 FAX TRANSMISSION TO: JOAN HERNANDEZ 242 -0733 • (Name) (Company Name) (FAX 0 FROM: MOIRA BRADSHAW FAX N: 433 -1833 PHONE NO: 431-3670 I. C City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor WELCOME 7:00 AGENDA Joan Hernandez, Tukwila City Council President II. INTRODUCTIONS 7:05 Tukwila City Council and Planning Commission Moderator - Sue Freeborn, Attorney Cromwell, Mendoza & Belur III. WETLAND & WATERCOURSE FUNCTIONS AND PROTECTIONS Dyanne Sheldon, Wetland Ecologist Betsy MacWhinney, Wetland Biologist Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. IV. BREAK 8:10 - 8:30 V. TUKWILA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 8:30 - 9:30 Bill Arthur and Mae George Malina Jack Flesher Wynn Anderson Harris, Co- Chairs Cheryl Brown Marilyn Stoknes Becky Reid 7:10 (This is not a public hearing, but is an informational meeting intended for presentation and questions and answers. There will be future notice and hearings in July, August, and September on a draft sensitive areas ordinance, when there will be opportunity for comment.) Joan - For tonight's meeting - Issue started as a work program item for the 1989 calendar year. Initial research, comprehensive plan policy evaluation, Council and Planning Commission policy discussion occurred in the fall of 1989. An informational process, draft regulation and public hearings occurred in October and November 1989. Interest by the community in a citizens advisory committee to study the issues resulted in the formation of a Committee in December. That Committee worked through March on the subject and completed a draft proposal. As a result of the initial hearings and Citizens Committee discussion, additional consultant studies have been generated. Tonight and tomorrow night are opportunities to listen to the results of these work efforts. The information and comments generated to date will be compiled into a new draft proposal which will be reviewed by the Council Committee of the Whole and forwarded to the Planning Commission for deliberation and recommendation. The Council will then hold hearings on. the issue and adopt an ordinance by October 8, 1990. INTRODUCTION PUBLIC MEETINGS STING NO 1 Wednesday, May 30,1900 7.00pm i C ity Council :Chambers at Tukwila City Hall EAKERS Dr Donald Tubbs, Geologist from GeoE ngineers , Inc Subject: "Geologic Hazards` �Ir Steve .Johnson; Principal rom Johnson: Architecture: and Plannin u!s Beoca Hanson,; Partner rom Tte Portico Group S ubject: "Hillside Design . .......... FUTURE MEETINGS City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA This is another in a series of bulletins that update and inform Tukwila citizens and property owners about the City's efforts to protect against improper development in environmentally sensitive areas. A Citizens Advisory Committee spent the first three months of this year drafting a Sensitive Areas ordinance. Copies of their proposal are available at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard just east of City Hall. The Citizens Committee met with geologists and biologists and found their input helpful in understanding the is- sues and concerns. The City then hired provessionals to provide additional analysis of the geologic and coal mine hazard areas and of the wetlands and watercourses. These reports are available for review at DCD. The following two meetings are your opportunities to hear from the people who have studied Tukwila's natural environment. EETING: NQ 2 Thursday, May 31, 199 700 pm'Inthe City Council Chambers . Tukwila City Hall PEAKERS: Members of the Tulcv+riia Citizens Advisory Committee Subject "Proposed Draft Sensitive Area Overlay Distric Ms Dyanne Sheldon, Wetland Ecologis from Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc, S ubject: "Wetland and Watercourse Function and Protection" Planning Commission hearings will be held in late July 1990. Detailed notices will be sent prior to the hearing dates. If you have any questions regarding the Sensitive Areas Ordinance or these hearings, please call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680. MORE ABOUT TUKWILA'S SENSITIVE AREAS... City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID TUKWILA, WA PERMIT NO. 12698 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOL'THCENTER BOULEVARD, TL'h'NiL.A, WASHINGTON 98188 To: Citizens Advisory Committee From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 15 May 1990 Subject: Tuesday, 22 May 1990 Meeting 4:00 P.M.- 6:30 P.M. 6:45 P.M. - ? Barbecue at Becky Reids PHONE #1206)433.1800 Gang L. VanDnsvn. Mayor Becky Reid has invited everyone to her house after the meeting for a barbecue. Please bring a side dish. Her address: 5103 S. 164th. Her phone numbers: 244 - 1857(machine) & 938- 5783(work) This is to confirm the date and time of the above meeting. The Department of Community Development has moved next door to the 6300 building where Public Works has been located. We will meet in the conference room in the new space. Tuesday's goal is to prepare for a presentation at the public meeting and to review the finished work of the consultants. Enclosed is a copy of the notice being mailed to all property owners in the City of the public meeting schedule Enclosed is a copy of the Abandoned Mine Assessment. The Geologic Hazard report is in draft form, the final should be available on the 22nd. The bulk of Geoengineers work is mapping, which is gradually being completed. Half of the maps will be available for your review on Tuesday. We have a draft of the classification and protection recommendations from Jones & Stokes but will probably not have the Final in time for your meeting. The consultants have done a preliminary survey of Tukwila's watercourses and determined that a full survey for rating and buffers needs to wait until water levels are down to allow for electroshocking for fish. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE CiTY OF TUKWILA This is another in a series of bulletins that update and inform Tukwila citizens and property owners about the City's efforts to protect against improper development in environmentally sensitive areas. A Citizens Advisory Committee spent the first three months of this year drafting a Sensitive Areas ordinance. Copies of their proposal are available at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard lust east of City Hail. The Citizens Committee met with geologists and biologists and found their Input helpful In understanding the is- sues and concerns. The City then hired provessionats to provide additional analysts of the geologic and coal mine hazard areas and of the wetlands and watercourses. These reports are available for review at DCD. INTRODUCTION PUBLIC MEETINGS FUTURE MEETINGS The following two meetings are your opportunities to hear from the people who have studied Tukwila's natural environment. City of 'Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98138 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen. Mayor One� wetland, co m 8 Stokes Associates; u bled: "Wetland and *woo ion and.Pbte 'F.'. +y::::tii.:(:•::nY`';:: Planning Commission hearings will be held In Late July 1990. Detailed notices will be sent prior to the hearing dates. If you have any questions regarding the Sensitive Areas Ordinance or these hearings, please call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680. VJILA City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM To: All Employees From: Martin N arc Analyst Date: May 10, 1990 Re: Complaints - Seattle Rendering Works In order to help the Rendering Works better pinpoint potential problems, three important questions need to be answered whenever someone calls about the odor. Please be sure and ask; 1) where was the person when they noticed the smell, 2) what was the time of day, 3) and what was the date. With this information the Plant Manager can better anticipate and /or resolve problems and we can better track the severity of the problem. Thank you. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTNCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 To: Citizens Advisory Committee From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 15 May 1990 Subject: Tuesday, 22 May 1990 Meeting 4:00 P.M.- 6:30 P.M. 6:45 P.M. - ? Barbecue at Becky Reids Becky Reid has invited everyone to her house after the meeting for a barbecue. Please bring a side dish. Her address: 5103 S. 164th. Her phone numbers: 244 - 1857(machine) & 938- 5783(work) This is to confirm the date and time of the above meeting. The Department of Community Development has moved next door to the 6300 building where Public Works has been located. We will meet in the conference room in the new space. Tuesday's goal is to prepare for a presentation at the public meeting and to review the finished work of the consultants. Enclosed is a copy of the notice being mailed to all property owners in the City of the public meeting schedule Enclosed is a copy of the Abandoned Mine Assessment. The Geologic Hazard report is in draft form, the final should be available on the 22nd. The bulk of Geoengineers work is mapping, which is gradually being completed. Half of the maps will be available for your review on Tuesday. We have a draft of the classification and protection recommendations from Jones & Stokes but will probably not have the Final in time for your meeting. The consultants have done a preliminary survey of Tukwila's watercourses and determined that a full survey for rating and buffers needs to wait until water levels are down to allow for electroshocking for fish. 1'IIONE q (206) 4331800 1( 4day 4a/ (." Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA This is another in a series of bulletins that update and inform Tukwila citizens and property owners about the City's efforts to protect against Improper development In environmentally sensitive areas. A Citizens Advisory Committee spent the first three months of this year drafting a Sensitive Areas ordinance. Copies of their proposal are available at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Just east of City Hall. INTRODUCTION The Citizens Committee met with geologists and biologists and found their input helpful In understanding the Is- sues and concerns. The City then hired provessionats to provide additional analysts of the geologic and coal mine hazard areas and of the wetlands and watercourses. These reports are available for review at DCD. PUBLIC MEETINGS :Wed nesday, May 30,.19 90:''.:. 7;00 p.m in the C ity ; Council Chamber at : T ukwita Cd y . .Ha . r Dona d Tub s, eo og st fro m'GeoEngineers I nc > .• • • '' « <> < S "Geologic Hazards n� g rin ( r<: �� r..Steve': o son, P cp al f rom ` Johnson: Architecture and Ptannin M s. m Becca •Hanson; partne fro The: portico Group < Subject :..'"H iliside' Desi gn'....; FUTURE MEETINGS City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor The following two meetings are your opportunities to hear from the people who have studied Tukwila's natural environment. ETING N << hursday, May 7:0 p.m. in the ';City Council Chain Tukw Cit Hall O yahne Sheldon, W etland Epp Jones 8, Stokes Associates,: ab ject ."Wetland and Wateroou mct ion and Prote ction' Planning Commission hearings will be held in late July 1990. Detailed notices will be sent prior to the hearing dates. If you have any questions regarding the Sensitive Areas Ordinance or these hearings, please call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680. H . , CROWSER J -2860 May 3, 1990 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Bradshaw: 1. Tukwila Mine (multiple entries); 2. Beacon Hill Mine; and 3, 4. Abandoned rock quarries. 5. Strain Coal Company; and 6. Black River Mine. [I:<«(lmq MAY 07 1990 Hart Crowser, Inc. 1910 Fairview Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 -3699 FAX 206.328.5581 206.324.9530 Hart Crowser is pleased to present this report discussing our assessment of potential hazards related to abandoned coal prospects and mines in Tukwila. Our work was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated January 5, 1990. Figure 1 shows the locations of the areas discussed in this report. The purpose of our work was to document available information on the six areas which the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) identified for you, as well as identify any other areas where coal mine hazards could be anticipated. From our review of available information on coal mining activities in the Tukwila area (see Bibliography), we assessed the areas identified by DNR and shown on Figure 1 as: City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 2 Other potential mine hazard areas in Tukwila were identified from 1936 aerial photographs (see Figure 1) but no other evidence of mining was found, as discussed herein. SUMMARY Hart Crowser accomplished a historical and geologic review to identify abandoned underground coal mine hazards in Tukwila. • Location No. 1, the Tukwila Mine, is the best documented underground coal mine. Subsidence in this area was described to Hart Crowser and it appears there is some risk of future subsidence problems at this location. • Locations No. 2 and 6 are abandoned underground coal mines where subsidence has occurred, but these areas are not within the City of Tukwila. • Locations No. 3 and 4 are surface excavations (quarries) and no evidence of any underground workings was identified. • Location No. 5 is not positively identified as an abandoned mine, but represents a likely location for coal mine workings identified in this general area. HISTORIC INFORMATION The following section characterizes efforts to identify mining activities in the Tukwila area using historical information sources. We reviewed historic clipping files related to mining (at the University of Washington), reports of the State Inspector of Mines, mineral plat records, regional histories, historic maps (U.S. Geological Survey 1900 and 1909; Kroll Map Co., 1920, 1940, and 1958), and an early aerial photo set (King County Assessor, 1936). No recorded documentation of coal mining activities within the City of Tukwila was located through the historic review for areas other than those previously identified by DNR. ► The Tukwila Mine, Beacon Hill Mine, northern abandoned quarry, and the Black River Mine were noticeable on the aerial photo set. These were noticeable because of pits, mine waste or tailings piles, or cleared areas with I possible mine - related activity. City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 4 Two cleared areas of possible mine workings, numbered 7 and 8 on Figure 1, were noted on the photos and are discussed later in this report. A small gravel pit (labeled No. 9) was evident in the SW 1/4 of the SW 'A of Section 35, but did not appear to relate to subsurface activities. ABANDONED MINES AND /OR PROSPECTS This section discusses recorded information, Hart Crowser field observations, and anecdotal information on each of the reported or inferred potential coal mine hazard areas. 1. Tukwila Mine The Tukwila Mine, located in the SE '/, SW '/a of Section 14, was operated by the Foster Coal Company. From 1932 to 1935, state production records indicate 824 tons of coal were removed (Tim Walsh, 1990) from the mine which consisted of three underground water -level prospects (Waldron, 1962). The mine was reportedly abandoned when the inflow of water into the workings became too rapid. The mine is identified on a 1962 USGS map by Waldron and on a 1932 Map (PK -1) from the Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection. Figure 2 shows the approximate location of the entries at about 75 feet in elevation along the hillside. However, these locations are very rough since they were copied from the 1 inch to two thousand foot scale Waldron map. The former mine area identified on the map is a steeply sloped, heavily vegetated hillside between 56th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. Our field reconnaissance identified a linear depression approximately 50 feet long at the bottom of the hillside downslope of 56th Avenue South. At the northern end of the depression, small coal fragments were observed. The depth of the depression could not be determined because of thick blackberry bush overgrowth. Another, smaller depression was observed near the base of the hillside below the residence on the east side of 56th Avenue South at South 139th Street. The depression measured about 3 feet in diameter and a small opening in its bottom was visible extending into the slope. The extent of the small opening, approximately 1 foot in diameter, could not be determined. snit `r City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 5 Although downslope of the mine entries located on the 1962 map, the two depressions appear to be possibly subsidence related, which would suggest entrances to the mine are somewhat farther east. A local resident, Mrs. Marilyn Patton of 13930 56th Avenue South, told us the porch on the house across the street (13925 56th Avenue) collapsed into a hole about 45 years ago. This hole was described as about 6 feet by 8 feet and 15 feet deep. Mrs. Patton also described a steep gulley between her property and her northern neighbor's, which had a hole at its base. She recalled that the gulley, the opening at its base, and the hole into which the porch collapsed appeared to line up with each other. She believed that these features were probably related to the old abandoned mines. The gulley was reportedly backfilled in the early 1960s. Mrs. Patton indicated that her parents had observed an air chute to the mine oriented across the slope beneath their residence, but the location of this was not identified to Hart Crowser. We made a rough estimate of the possible extent of workings by assuming a nominal 5 -foot by 5 -foot mine tunnel size and the reported volume of coal extracted. If mining was accomplished to the same degree from each of the three entries reported by Waldron, maximum length of a single tunnel would likely not exceed about 300 feet. Actual extent of the workings is likely less than this, considering common local coal mining practice of excavating workings in a room and pillar (referred to as "breast and pillar ") arrangement rather than single tunnels. However, there is no information on actual extent of workings and any one of the three entries could have extended much further than 300 feet. Considering apparent dip of the coal seam and topography in the area, depth of cover over a mine tunnel extending into the hillside is estimated to vary from zero at the entry, at an elevation at or below about 75 feet, to about 60 feet or more below 55th Avenue South. The available recorded information, information obtained from our field reconnaissance and discussion with long -time residents suggest that the hillside below 56th Avenue South and the properties between 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue South should be examined more closely before new or re- development is permitted. 2. Beacon Hill Mine The Beacon Hill Mine is located in the NE 'V4 of Section 14, South of Seattle in unincorporated King County. According to Waldron (1962), small amounts of coal were mined in the early 1900s, but nothing is known about production. The entry to City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 the mine was reportedly still open in 1960, but the tunnel was flooded and inaccessible. 3., 4. Abandoned Rock Quarries Two of the sites in Tukwila identified by DNR are abandoned igneous (hard rock) quarries which likely were excavated to produce building stone or possibly road material. J -2860 Page 6 From apparently similar stratigraphy, this mine location in Renton is likely on the same coal seam as the Tukwila Mine, across the Duwamish River. The area had subsidence occur in 1984 which was backfilled by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining. Our reconnaissance included this area but no information was obtained which is pertinent to mine hazards in Tukwila. The first of two abandoned quarries is located in the NE 1/4 of Section 23, west of Interurban Avenue, below South 144th Street. During our field reconnaissance, we observed a very steeply sloped hillside having partially covered outcrops and a lot of broken rock at its base. Waldron's 1962 map identified this area, which is presently undeveloped. The second quarry identified by Waldron in the SW 1 /4 of Section 10 is located between Marginal Way South and Highway 599, north of South 124th Street. Our field reconnaissance revealed that this area has been completely developed and is currently a bus base for Metro. We found no information to indicate any underground excavation or related hazard at either quarry location. 5. Strain Coal Company The map PK -1 which we obtained from the Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection indicated an area in the south half of Section 23 and the north half of Section 26 where the Strain Coal Company operated. Available records and discussions with Tim Walsh of DNR, indicate that the Strain Company worked a number of small coal mines in King County at various times (typ. 1930s). However, there are only very poor records of any of the mining activity by the Strain Coal Company. Mr. Walsh felt that workings of Strain Coal Company in Tukwila were probably located in the vicinity of the intersection of Interstate 5 and 405, based on coal that has been observed in the freeway roadcuts. City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 J -2860 Page 7 A surficial geology map contained in Water Supply Bulletin Number 28 identifies an outcrop of the Puget Group, a coal- bearing formation, in the south half of Section 23, T23N, R4E. No evidence of coal mining was observed in this area during our field reconnaissance. The majority of the area has been developed and the remaining areas are heavily vegetated. Outcrops of weathered sandstone were visible in the roadcut along Southcenter Boulevard at the time of our reconnaissance, but no coal was observed. Local development may already have obscured evidence of mining, if in fact it occurred in this area. The undeveloped area east of Denny's and the Arco Gas State on Southcenter Boulevard had been cleared of vegetation and contained graded slopes of fill. The closest recorded information on mining activities of the Strain Coal Company are located in Renton, T23N, R5E (Green, 1947), outside the study limits. 6. Black River Mine The Diamond Coal Company operated the Black River Mine located in Renton in the north half of Section 24 at the Black River Junction. The mine, which opened in the late 1880s, closed in 1892. This mine is likely on the same seam as the Beacon Hill and Tukwila Mines to the north, but differences in reported coal bed dip suggest some intervening faults or other bedrock structural changes exist. According to a report from the Office of Surface Mining, ground subsidence developed at the site in 1984. However, no information pertinent to mine hazards in Tukwila was available. The area where the entrance to the Black River Mine is believed to be located is presently fenced off by Metro. No information was available to allow us to determine the exact location of the entrance. We did not examine this area during our field reconnaissance as it was outside the city limits of Tukwila. 7., 8. Other Areas Two additional areas were identified by our review of aerial photographs of the Tukwila area, which appeared to be possibly related to mining activities. Because the air photos suggested possible mining, we included these areas in our reconnaissance. However, no mine - related information was found from other sources for these areas. Area No. 7, located in the NW '/, SE '/., SW 'A of Section 26, consisted of a road leading to structures in a gulley along the western valley bluffs of the Green River. City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 8 The aerial photo showed two buildings set on an excavated apron (cut -fill terrace) along the north side midway up the gulley. The terrace area extended further up the gulley where it dead - ended. Our field reconnaissance of the area revealed a gulley with a fenced, large culvert structure at the base of a slope below Interstate 5. Outcrops of weathered sandstone but no coal were observed in the gulley slopes which ranged from 40 • to 60*. We found no evidence of mining activities during our field reconnaissance. Area No. 8 is located in the SW 1, SW 1 4 of Section 3 at the southern base of Cabrini Hill. A small cleared and cut area with one standing structure was identified on an aerial photograph. A review of a USGS surficial geology map of South Seattle, which is now Tukwila (Waldron, 1962), indicates that rock in this area is of a sedimentary nature but not coal - bearing. We were prevented from examining this area in detail during our field reconnaissance because of safety reasons. The Seattle Police Department currently operates a firing range in this area. Finally, area no. 9 was noted on the air photos as possibly mining- related excavation. Hart Crowser determined this location is a gravel pit, and not coal mine - related. Conclusions and Recommendations From our review of available information, we consider the Tukwila Mine (1.) and the Strain Coal Company workings (5.) to be the most likely areas where coal mine hazards exist or can be anticipated in the City of Tukwila. Mining in Tukwila appears to have been on a smaller scale overall, compared to the extensive workings located in adjacent Renton, because of the generally thick cover of glacial soils and apparently more limited amounts of economically feasible extractable coal. Except by fortuitous accident, more intensive efforts are unlikely to define the locations of mine entrances and extent of mine workings more accurately, in our opinion. For future zoning purposes, we recommend the City identify the area of the Renton Formation Outcrop south of 137th Street, shown on Figure 2, as an area of potential mine workings. In our opinion, the City could reasonably require a detailed site reconnaissance by a geologist or engineer to look for indications of mine entrances or workings prior to permitting new construction in this area. Because of uncertainty in the actual location of these mines, you may wish to expand the limits of the outcrop area to include a "buffer zone" of about 200 or 300 feet. WEI 111.111 City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 Although there is risk of undiscovered Strain Coal Company mine workings in the vicinity of the SR -5 and SR -405 interchange, we do not consider the available information sufficient to warrant restrictions on future development in this area. Similarly, we do not recommend development restrictions on any of the other areas in Tukwila discussed in this report. Hart Crowser appreciates the opportunity to work with you on this assessment of potential abandoned underground mine hazards in the City of Tukwila. Please call if you have questions, or if we can be of additional assistance. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. STEPHEN A. SIEBERT Staff Engineer SAS/MJB:aim/taw /pm interavirp J -2860 Page 9 MICHAEL J. BAILEY, P.E. Associate Attachments: Bibliography Figure 1- Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Portion of Section 14 Showing Vicinity of Reported Tukwila Mine and Related Features BIBLIOGRAPHY Hart Crowser J -2860 Beikman, Helen M., Howard D. Gower, and Tony A.M. Lana. "Coal Reserves of Washington" Washington State Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 47 (1961). Diamond Coal Company. Map. Diamond Mine Workings, Renton Junction, Washington. N.d. Eggleston Smith, E. "Coals of the State of Washington" USGS Bulletin 474 (1911). Evans, George Watkin. "The Coal Fields of King County" Washington State Geologic Survey Bulletin 3 (1912). "Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington." Water Supply Bulletin 28 (1969). Green, S.H. Coal and Coal Mining in Washington. Washington State Division of Mines and Mining Report of Investigations No. 4R (Revision of R.I.4, 1947). Kaldenbach, Ginger. Beacon Hill Mine Emergency. Seattle. King County, Washington IWA-84-0081. Office of Surface Mining Final Report (1984). Kaldenbach, Ginger. Diamond Mine Emergency. Renton. King County. Washington jWA - 84-0111. Office of Surface Mining Final Report (1984). King County Assessor Aerial Photograph (1936). Kroll Map Co. (1920/1940/1958). Landes, H. "The Coal Deposits of Washington" Washington Geologic Survey. Volume II, Annual Report for 1902. 1903: 167 -277. McFarland, Carl R. Oil and Gas Exploration in Washington 1900 - 1982 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 75. N.d. Northwestern Improvement Company Map Showing Location of Coal Mines. Map. Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection PK -1 (1932). Hart Crowser J -2860 Richardson, Bingham and Madison. Water Resources of King County. Washington. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1852 (1968). Seattle Quadrangle and Tacoma Washington Quadrangle. Maps. USGS (1900 and 1909). Waldron, Howard H. Map. Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington. USGS (1962). Waldron, Howard H. et al. Map. Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity. Washington. USGS (1962). Walsh, Tim, Washington State Department of Natural Resrouces, Personal Communication, April 1990. Washington Geologic Newsletter. Volume 10, No. 1. January 1982. Water Well Logs of Southwest King County. Willis, Bailey. Map. Structure of Coal Beds Wjshington. Renton District. USGS N.d. Project Vicinity Map S Sal •62r ST 56 ST 3 1 Tr. •r. STEW • 5103'^ rl (M ILER Tr. IIf ,, sr • • II3Tr ST e AIRPORT WY It REDA T lH Douai.' • —g •41T5 I IT ucgt.ki_ T CRESTON ST onga Race rac Washing ton - 1 r 1.311 S MTh 6./fM.p s* in sr P COLV rinfivit J c c..CFF..57 • SOUrm s.litor .11.r ti.' (O,swHO S 5000t.f s' • 0 St s R 1S4T n 160TH $T S 15QTm ST 1r7 22 t R - � 1 'film IT f JI9TmL6l —, 0 0 0 0 0 Tukwila Mine Beacon Hill Mine Northern Abandoned Quarry Southern Abandoned Quarry Strain Coal Company (General Vicinity) Refer to Figure 2 for Details Black River Mine Area Considered as Possibly Mine Related Area Considered as Possibly Mine Related Gravel Pit 0 Scale in Miles V 1/2 1 IiitinDaowsat J -2860 4/90 Figure 1 Portion of Section 14 Showing Vicinity of Reported Tukwila Mine and Related Features Reported Porch Collapse • S. 139TH ST Approximate Locatio ns \ Tukwila Mine entrances /� from Waldron, 1962 110 • ft! NJ ,'Jo t J 0 ;mow eie � \ 40 0 ire Boundary of Renton Formation Outcrop v , including coal seam(s) according • to Waldron, 1962 \ o Note: Base map prepared from drawing provided by Walker & Associates, Inc., Seattle. WA. entitled "City of Tukwila ". undated. 0 Scale in Feet 400 800 Y I' ARTOM SER J -2960 4/90 Figure 2 �l Il f, AY n7 1993 4 HARTCR0w5ER 3-2860 May 3, 1990 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Hart Crowser, Inc. 1910 Fairview Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 -3699 FAX 206.328.5581 206.324.9530 Hart Crowser is pleased to present this report discussing our assessment of potential hazards related to abandoned coal prospects and mines in Tukwila. Our work was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated January 5, 1990. Figure 1 shows the locations of the areas discussed in this report. The purpose of our work was to document available information on the six areas which the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) identified for you, as well as identify any other areas where coal mine hazards could be anticipated. From our review of available information on coal mining activities in the Tukwila area (see Bibliography), we assessed the areas identified by DNR and shown on Figure 1 as: 1. Tukwila Mine (multiple entries); 2. Beacon Hill Mine; and 3, 4. Abandoned rock quarries. 5. Strain Coal Company; and 6. Black River Mine. City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 .1-2860 Page 2 Other potential mine hazard areas in Tukwila were identified from 1936 aerial photographs (see Figure 1) but no other evidence of mining was found, as discussed herein. SUMMARY Hart Crowser accomplished a historical and geologic review to identify abandoned underground coal mine hazards in Tukwila. • Location No. 1, the Tukwila Mine, is the best documented underground coal mine. Subsidence in this area was described to Hart Crowser and it appears there is some risk of future subsidence problems at this location. • Locations No. 2 and 6 are abandoned underground coal mines where subsidence has occurred, but these areas are not within the City of Tukwila. • Locations No. 3 and 4 are surface excavations (quarries) and no evidence of any underground workings was identified. • Location No. 5 is not positively identified as an abandoned mine, but represents a likely location for coal mine workings identified in this general area. HISTORIC INFORMATION The following section characterizes efforts to identify mining activities in the Tukwila area using historical information sources. We reviewed historic clipping files related to mining (at the University of Washington), reports of the State Inspector of Mines, mineral plat records, regional histories, historic maps (U.S. Geological Survey 1900 and 1909; Kroll Map Co., 1920, 1940, and 1958), and an early aerial photo set (King County Assessor, 1936). No recorded documentation of coal mining activities within the City of Tukwila was located through the historic review for areas other than those previously identified by DNR. • The Tukwila Mine, Beacon Hill Mine, northern abandoned quarry, and the Black River Mine were noticeable on the aerial photo set. These were noticeable because of pits, mine waste or tailings piles, or cleared areas with possible mine - related activity. ZN City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 J -2860 Page 4 Two cleared areas of possible mine workings, numbered 7 and 8 on Figure 1, were noted on the photos and are discussed later in this report. A small gravel pit (labeled No. 9) was evident in the SW '/4 of the SW V. of Section 35, but did not appear to relate to subsurface activities. ABANDONED MINES AND /OR PROSPECTS This section discusses recorded information, Hart Crowser field observations, and anecdotal information on each of the reported or inferred potential coal mine hazard areas. 1. Tukwila Mine The Tukwila Mine, located in the SE ' /., SW 'A of Section 14, was operated by the Foster Coal Company. From 1932 to 1935, state production records indicate 824 tons of coal were removed (Tim Walsh, 1990) from the mine which consisted of three underground water -level prospects (Waldron, 1962). The mine was reportedly abandoned when the inflow of water into the workings became too rapid. The mine is identified on a 1962 USGS map by Waldron and on a 1932 Map (PK -1) from the Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection. Figure 2 shows the approximate location of the entries at about 75 feet in elevation along the hillside. However, these locations are very rough since they were copied from the 1 inch to two thousand foot scale Waldron map. The former mine area identified on the map is a steeply sloped, heavily vegetated hillside between 56th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. Our field reconnaissance identified a linear depression approximately 50 feet long at the bottom of the hillside downslope of 56th Avenue South. At the northern end of the depression, small coal fragments were observed. The depth of the depression could not be determined because of thick blackberry bush overgrowth. Another, smaller depression was observed near the base of the hillside below the residence on the east side of 56th Avenue South at South 139th Street. The depression measured about 3 feet in diameter and a small opening in its bottom was visible extending into the slope. The extent of the small opening, approximately 1 foot in diameter, could not be determined. City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 3 -2860 Page 5 Although downslope of the mine entries located on the 1962 map, the two depressions appear to be possibly subsidence related, which would suggest entrances to the mine are somewhat farther east. A local resident, Mrs. Marilyn Patton of 13930 56th Avenue South, told us the porch on the house across the street (13925 56th Avenue) collapsed into a hole about 45 years ago. This hole was described as about 6 feet by 8 feet and 15 feet deep. Mrs. Patton also described a steep gulley between her property and her northern neighbor's, which had a hole at its base. She recalled that the gulley, the opening at its base, and the hole into which the porch collapsed appeared to line up with each other. She believed that these features were probably related to the old abandoned mines. The gulley was reportedly backfilled in the early 1960s. Mrs. Patton indicated that her parents had observed an air chute to the mine oriented across the slope beneath their residence, but the location of this was not identified to Hart Crowser. We made a rough estimate of the possible extent of workings by assuming a nominal 5 -foot by 5 -foot mine tunnel size and the reported volume of coal extracted. If mining was accomplished to the same degree from each of the three entries reported by Waldron, maximum length of a single tunnel would likely not exceed about 300 feet. Actual extent of the workings is likely less than this, considering common local coal mining practice of excavating workings in a room and pillar (referred to as 'breast and pillar ") arrangement rather than single tunnels. However, there is no information on actual extent of workings and any one of the three entries could have extended much further than 300 feet. Considering apparent dip of the coal seam and topography in the area, depth of cover over a mine tunnel extending into the hillside is estimated to vary from zero at the entry, at an elevation at or below about 75 feet, to about 60 feet or more below 55th Avenue South. The available recorded information, information obtained from our field reconnaissance and discussion with long -time residents suggest that the hillside below 56th Avenue South and the properties between 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue South should be examined more closely before new or re- development is permitted. 2. Beacon Hill Mine The Beacon Hill Mine is located in the NE 'h of Section 14, South of Seattle in unincorporated King County. According to Waldron (1962), small amounts of coal were mined in the early 1900s, but nothing is known about production. The entry to City of Tukwila 3 -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 6 the mine was reportedly still open in 1960, but the tunnel was flooded and inaccessible. From apparently similar stratigraphy, this mine location in Renton is likely on the same coal seam as the Tukwila Mine, across the Duwamish River. The area had subsidence occur in 1984 which was backfilled by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining. Our reconnaissance included this area but no information was obtained which is pertinent to mine hazards in Tukwila. 3., 4. Abandoned Rock Quarries Two of the sites in Tukwila identified by DNR are abandoned igneous (hard rock) quarries which likely were excavated to produce building stone or possibly road material. The first of two abandoned quarries is located in the NE '/4 of Section 23, west of Interurban Avenue, below South 144th Street. During our field reconnaissance, we observed a very steeply sloped hillside having partially covered outcrops and a lot of broken rock at its base. Waldron's 1962 map identified this area, which is presently undeveloped. The second quarry identified by Waldron in the SW '/4 of Section 10 is located between Marginal Way South and Highway 599, north of South 124th Street. Our field reconnaissance revealed that this area has been completely developed and is currently a bus base for Metro. We found no information to indicate any underground excavation or related hazard at either quarry location. 5. Strain Coal Company The map PK -1 which we obtained from the Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection indicated an area in the south half of Section 23 and the north half of Section 26 where the Strain Coal Company operated. Available records and discussions with Tim Walsh of DNR, indicate that the Strain Company worked a number of small coal mines in King County at various times (typ. 1930s). However, there are only very poor records of any of the mining activity by the Strain Coal Company. Mr. Walsh felt that workings of Strain Coal Company in Tukwila were probably located in the vicinity of the intersection of Interstate 5 and 405, based on coal that has been observed in the freeway roadcuts. City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 7 A surficial geology map contained in Water Supply Bulletin Number 28 identifies an outcrop of the Puget Group, a coal- bearing formation, in the south half of Section 23, T23N, R4E. No evidence of coal mining was observed in this area during our field reconnaissance. The majority of the area has been developed and the remaining areas are heavily vegetated. Outcrops of weathered sandstone were visible in the roadcut along Southcenter Boulevard at the time of our reconnaissance, but no coal was observed. Local development may already have obscured evidence of mining, if in fact it occurred in this area. The undeveloped area east of Denny's and the Arco Gas State on Southcenter Boulevard had been cleared of vegetation and contained graded slopes of fill. The closest recorded information on mining activities of the Strain Coal Company are located in Renton, T23N, R5E (Green, 1947), outside the study limits. 6. Black River Mine The Diamond Coal Company operated the Black River Mine located in Renton in the north half of Section 24 at the Black River Junction. The mine, which opened in the late 1880s, closed in 1892. This mine is likely on the same seam as the Beacon Hill and Tukwila Mines to the north, but differences in reported coal bed dip suggest some intervening faults or other bedrock structural changes exist. According to a report from the Office of Surface Mining, ground subsidence developed at the site in 1984. However, no information pertinent to mine hazards in Tukwila was available. The area where the entrance to the Black River Mine is believed to be located is presently fenced off by Metro. No information was available to allow us to determine the exact location of the entrance. We did not examine this area during our field reconnaissance as it was outside the city limits of Tukwila. 7., 8. Other Areas Two additional areas were identified by our review of aerial photographs of the Tukwila area, which appeared to be possibly related to mining activities. Because the air photos suggested possible mining, we included these areas in our reconnaissance. However, no mine - related information was found from other sources for these areas. Area No. 7, located in the NW '/., SE 'A, SW '/. of Section 26, consisted of a road leading to structures in a gulley along the western valley bluffs of the Green River. City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 8 The aerial photo showed two buildings set on an excavated apron (cut-fill terrace) along the north side midway up the gulley. The terrace area extended further up the gulley where it dead- ended. Our field reconnaissance of the area revealed a gulley with a fenced, large culvert structure at the base of a slope below Interstate 5. Outcrops of weathered sandstone but no coal were observed in the gulley slopes which ranged from 40 • to 60*. We found no evidence of mining activities during our field reconnaissance. Area No. 8 is located in the SW 'A, SW 'A of Section 3 at the southern base of Cabrini Hill. A small cleared and cut area with one standing structure was identified on an aerial photograph. A review of a USGS surficial geology map of South Seattle, which is now Tukwila (Waldron, 1962), indicates that rock in this area is of a sedimentary nature but not coal - bearing. We were prevented from examining this area in detail during our field reconnaissance because of safety reasons. The Seattle Police Department currently operates a firing range in this area. Finally, area no. 9 was noted on the air photos as possibly mining - related excavation. Hart Crowser determined this location is a gravel pit, and not coal mine - related. Conclusions and Recommendations From our review of available information, we consider the Tukwila Mine (1.) and the Strain Coal Company workings (5.) to be the most likely areas where coal mine hazards exist or can be anticipated in the City of Tukwila. Mining in Tukwila appears to have been on a smaller scale overall, compared to the extensive workings located in adjacent Renton, because of the generally thick cover of glacial soils and apparently more limited amounts of economically feasible extractable coal. Except by fortuitous accident, more intensive efforts are unlikely to define the locations of mine entrances and extent of mine workings more accurately, in our opinion. For future zoning purposes, we recommend the City identify the area of the Renton Formation Outcrop south of 137th Street, shown on Figure 2, as an area of potential mine workings. In our opinion, the City could reasonably require a detailed site reconnaissance by a geologist or engineer to look for indications of mine entrances or workings prior to permitting new construction in this area. Because of uncertainty in the actual location of these mines, you may wish to expand the limits of the outcrop area to include a "buffer zone" of about 200 or 300 feet. City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 Although there is risk of undiscovered Strain Coal Company mine workings in the vicinity of the SR -5 and SR-405 interchange, we do not consider the available information sufficient to warrant restrictions on future development in this area. Similarly, we do not recommend development restrictions on any of the other areas in Tukwila discussed in this report. Hart Cromer appreciates the opportunity to work with you on this assessment of potential abandoned underground mine hazards in the City of Tukwila. Please call if you have questions, or if we can be of additional assistance. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. STEPHEN A. SIEBERT SAS/MJB:alm/taw /pm Interavlrp Staff Engineer Associate J -2860 Page 9 MICHAEL J. BAILEY, P.E. Attachments: Bibliography Figure I - Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Portion of Section 14 Showing Vicinity of Reported Tukwila Mine and Related Features BIBLIOGRAPHY Beikman, Helen M., Howard D. Gower, and Tony A.M. Lana. "Coal Reserves of Washington" Washington State Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 47 (1961). Diamond Coal Company. Map. Diamond Mine Workings, Renton Junction, Washington. N.d. Eggleston Smith, E. "Coals of the State of Washington" USGS Bulletin 474 (1911). Evans, George Watkin. "The Coal Fields of King County" Washington State Geologic Survey Bulletin 3 (1912). "Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington." Water Supply Bulletin 28 (1969). Green, S.H. Coal and Coal Mining in Washington. Washington State Division of Mines and Mining Report of Investigations No. 4R (Revision of R.I.4, 1947). Kaldenbach, Ginger. jWA- 84 -008j. Office of Surface Mining Final Report (1984). ea o i In e Se .t e Kaldenbach, Ginger. is ., I • , d Mi mer ` e jWA- 84-0111 Office of Surface Mining Final Report (1984 King County Assessor Aerial Photograph (1936). Kroll Map Co. (1920/1940/1958). Landes, H. "The Coal Deposits of Washington" Washington Geologic Survey. Volume II, Annual Report for 1902. 1903: 167 -277. McFarland, Carl R. Oil and Gas Fjcploration in Washington 1900 - 1982 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 75. N.d. Northwestern Improvement Company Map ShQwitg I.oJtiQf of Coal Mines. Map. Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection PK -1 (1932). to Coun W . s Was Hart Crowser J -2860 0 0 Hart Crowser J -2860 Richardson, Bingham and Madison. Water Resources of King County. Washington. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1852 (1968). Seattle Quadrangle and Tacoma Washington Quadrangle. Maps. USGS (1900 and 1909). Waldron, Howard H. Map. Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle. Washington. USGS (1962). Waldron, Howard H. et al. Map. Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity. Washington. USGS (1962). Walsh, Tim, Washington State Department of Natural Resrouces, Personal Communication, April 1990. Washington Geologic Newsletter. Volume 10, No. 1. January 1982. Water Well Logs of Southwest King C,punty. Willis, Bailey. Map. Structure of Coal Beds - Washington. Renton District. USGS N.d. Project Vicinity Map q.. • �_. ,.�. ._ r J ,...•1 t JfY "11.1 11 r•3 1_ i is _ ' C —a/, 5 bi•., of — °I +. s s S4 @1•_ j ' {� P yS ! _.n t ; z 51 ,,,, � t 1.1:x � '.. w. , ° �rw. I j L, �n' 1 FF t ,tin 1L _1L,:.4q; . l .. Z ti 151 '77.,.".'.'„..,",—:-.2. i ti4 „ k • EARLIRG .O 1v'a s hinrton sclat S s ON. O Tukwila Mine O Beacon Hill Mine O Northern Abandoned Quarry ® Southern Abandoned Quarry O Strain Coal Company (General Vicinity) © Black River Mine O Area Considered as Possibly Mine Related © Area Considered as Possibly Mine Related O Gravel Pit Reim to figure 2 for Details 0 1/2 Scale in Miles A V 1-2860 4/90 Figure I Portion of Section 14 Showing Vicinity of Reported Tukwila Mine and Related Features y S. 139TH ST • Reported Porch Collapse 41111 ,t" ■ i r' Patto • lkpYC_ \ \t� N., ■ * ` I <, 1 Approximate Locations \ T • ukwila Mine entrances w. from Waldron. 1962 " ! -t Is • • Is, 0 lI, "5 ,J f 0 IY! 0 • III p.. O Boundary of Renton Formati Ou ,` including coal seam(s) according o • 0 to Waldron, 1962 :w .' o 0 ibis.; A . •.;¢ \\ Note: Base map prepared from drawing provided by Walker & Associates. Inc.. Seattle. WA. entitled "City of Tukwila ". undated. 0 Scale in Feet 400 800 I'II•IRTC OWSER J -2860 4/90 Flgur..2 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To: The Tukwila Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 22 May 1990 Subject: Abandoned Coal Mine Assessment Attached is the final report on abandoned underground coal mines in Tukwila. The document reveals that there is one area of . potential concern. The area is generally located between Interurban Avenue. S. and 56th Avenue S. across from Foster Golf Course. At the time of any redevelopment or development in this area, the recommendation is that a more detailed site analysis occur. The study is also' interesting from an historical perspective and has been passed along to the Tukwila Historical Society. Date: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To: Mayor Van Dusan and City Council Members From: Moira Carr Bradshaw 17 May 1990 Subject: Abandoned Mine Assessment Attached is the final report on the study regarding abandoned underground coal mines in Tukwila. The document reveals one area of potential concern generally located between Interurban Avenue S. and 56th Avenue S. across from Foster Golf Course. The study is also interesting from an historical perspective and has been passed-along to the Tukwila Historical Society. ■ MAY 14, 1990 7.00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation & Plaque thanking Steve Robinson. Geological history of Poverty Hill. CITIZEN COMMENTS REPORTS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE M I N U T E S Council President Hernandez called the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ (Council President); DENNIS ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI, ALLAN E. EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN RANTS. JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; RON WALDNER, Police Chief; REBECCA FOX, Department of Community Development. Mayor Gary Van Dusen presented Steve Robinson a Plaque and Proclamation in appreciation of his seventeen years of ser- vice with the City of Tukwila. Robinson has accepted the position of Police Chief for the City of Arlington, Washington. Dr. Terrence J. Frest, The Burke Museum, University of Washington, stated the fossil localities on the West end of Poverty Hill (also known as Walker Hill) are of extraordinary interest, both as a scientific and educational feature, of the Puget Sound Area. The site was discovered in 1881 by C.A. White, a pioneer geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. Dr. Frest urges its preservation as a scientifically unique and interesting area that cannot be replaced and that has no other equals accessible to the public. Al Pieper, 17083 53rd Avenue South, addressed his concerns on human services commenting that he had never seen a private program, funded with donations, stay private. It's only a matter of time until the program managers are asking for a small government grant. When the private donations dry up, the citizens are left with another government program to sup- port. Pieper added most human services needs would be met if the managers worked toward ways to get out of the citizens pockets rather than looking for ways to get deeper and deeper into their pockets. Tom Williams stated he had previously called the Council's attention to the fireworks problem at the Duwamish Park (Allentown). July 4th is approaching and the park is usually crowded with firework participants. Williams feels the need for police and fire supervision is legitimately warranted and wanted to know had the Council followed up on this matter. Mr. Duffle informed Mr. Williams that measures have been taken to handle this matter. Mr. Williams stated there's also a problem with neighborhood kids hitting golf balls into neighbors' homes and asked the Council to please check on this situation. Mayor Gary Van Dusen presented the First Quarter Activity Report to the Council from the Admini �tratinn_ Thp Mavnr 25 -48 -010 WAC 25 -48 -010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish application and review procedures for the issuance of archaeological excavation permits as provided for in RCW 27.53.060 and 27.44.020. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13 -001 (Or- der 11), § 25- 48 -010, filed 6/5/86.] WAC 25 -48 -020 Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Archaeology" means systematic, scientific study of man's past through his material remains. (2) "Historic" means peoples and cultures who arc known through written documents in their own or other languages. (3) "Prehistoric" means peoples and cultures who arc unknown through contemporaneous written documents in any language. (4) "Professional archaeologist" means a person has designed and executed an archaeological study as evi- denced by a thesis or dissertation, and has been awarded an advanced degree such as an M.A., M.S., or Ph.D. from an accredited institution of higher education in ar- chaeology, anthropology, or history or other germane discipline with a specialization in archaeology; has a minimum of one year of field experience with at least twenty -four weeks of field work under the supervision of a professional archaeologist including no more than twelve weeks of survey or reconnaissance work, and at least eight weeks of supervised laboratory experience. Twenty weeks of field work in a supervisory capacity must be documentable with a report produced by the in- dividual on the field work. (5) "Public lands" means lands owned by or under the possession, custody, or control of the state of Washington or any county, city, or political subdivision of the state. (6) "Site restoration" means to repair the archaeolog- ical property to its preexcavation vegetational and topo- graphic state. (7) "Amateur society" means any organization com- posed primarily of persons who are not professional ar- chaeologists, whose primary interest is in the archaeological resources of the state, and which has been certified in writing by two professional archaeologists. (8) "Archaeological resource" means any material re- mains of human life or activities which are of archae- ological interest. This shall include all sites, objects, structures, artifacts, implements, and locations of pre- historical or archaeological interest, whether previously recorded or still unrecognized, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to prehistoric and historic American Indian or aboriginal burials, campsites, dwellings, and their habitation sites, including rock shelters and caves, their artifacts and implements of culture such as projec- tile points, arrowheads, skeletal remains, grave goods, basketry, pestles, mauls, and griding stones, knives, scrapers, rock carvings and paintings, and other imple- ments and artifacts of any material. (9) "Of archaeological interest" means capable of providing scientific or humanistic understandings of past [Title 25 WAC —p 121 Title 25 WAC: Archaeology and historic preservation human behavior, cultural adaptation, and related topics through the application of scientific or scholarly tech- niques such as controlled observation, contextual meas- urement, controlled collection, analysis, interpretation, and explanation. (10) "Director" means the state historic preservation officer as provided for in chapter 27.34 RCW. (11) "Office" means the Washington state office of archaeology and historic preservation. (12) "Suspension" means the abeyance of a permit under this chapter for a specified period of time. (13) "Revocation" means the termination of a permit under this chapter. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34 220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13 -001 (Or- der I I ). § 25 48 020. filed 6/5/86.) WAC 25 -48 -030 Scope and coverage of this chap- ter. (I ) This chapter is applicable to any person, corpo- ration, partnership, trust, institution, association, or any other private entity, or any officer, employee, agent, de- partment, or instrumentality of the state, county, or city, or a political subdivision of the state. (2) This chapter is applicable to the alteration, dig- ging excavating, or removal of archaeological resources from public lands, the alteration, digging, excavating or removal of archaeological resources from private lands where the landowner has requested the office to issue archaeological excavation permits, and the removal of glyptic or painted records of prehistoric peoples or arch- aeological resources from Indian cairns or graves under either circumstance. (3) This chapter does not apply to the removal of ar- tifacts found exposed on the surface of the ground nor to the excavation and removal of artifacts from state - owned shorelands below the line of ordinary high water or within the intertidal zone except when there will be removal of glyptic or painted records of prehistoric peo- ples, or archaeological resources from Indian cairns or graves. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86- 13-001 (Or- der I I), § 25- 48 -030, filed 6/5/86.] WAC 25 -48 -040 Agency policy. The overriding policy of the office is to assure the protection of the archaeological resources of the state. This policy results from: (1) The legislated duty of the office to preserve and protect the heritage of the state in a manner that does not impair the resources (RCW 27.34.220); and (2) Recognition of the fact that the public has an in- terest in the knowledge of the state's heritage and a re- sponsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of that heritage (RCW 27.53.010). [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13-001 (Or- der 11), § 25- 48 -040, filed 6/5/861 WAC 25 -48 -050 Application forms. (1) Any person or entity covered by this chapter and described in WAC 25- 48-030 proposing to excavate and /or remove arch- aeological resources from public lands, or private lands where the landowner has transferred permit authority to (1986 Ed.) C Archaeological Excavation Permit the office, or proposing to remove glyptic or painted re- cords of prehistoric tribes or peoples, or archaeological resources from Indian cairns or graves shall apply to the office for a permit for the proposed work, and shall not begin the proposed work until a permit has been issued. (2) Each application for a permit from the office shall be submitted on the archaeological excavation permit application form approved by the preservation officer. These application forms may be obtained from the Of- fice of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 11 1 West 21st Avenue KL —l1, Olympia, WA 98504; telephone (206) 753 -5010. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13 -001 (Or- der II), § 25- 48 -050, filed 6/5/86.] WAC 25 -48 -060 Summary of information required of an applicant. (1) Each application for a permit shall include: (a) The nature and.extent of the work proposed, in- cluding how and why it is proposed to be conducted, proposed time of performance, locational maps, and a completed site inventory form. (b) A professional, scientific research design demon- strating that the work will be performed in a scientific and technically acceptable manner taking into account current scientific research issues and cultural resource management plans. (c) The name and address of the individual(s) pro- posed to be responsible for conducting the work, institu- tional affiliation, if any, and evidence of education, training, and experience in accord with the minimal qualifications listed in this chapter. (d) The name and address of the individual(s) pro- posed to he responsible for carrying out the terms and conditions of the permit, if different from the individuals enumerated under (c) of this subsection. (e) Financial evidence of the applicant's ability to ini- tiate, conduct, and complete the proposed work, includ- ing evidence of logistical support and laboratory facilities. (f) A plan for site restoration following excavation activities and evidence of plans to secure bonding to cover the cost of site restoration. (g) Evidence of approval of the proposed work from the agency or political subdivision with management re- sponsibility over the land. (h) Evidence of filing of the proposed work with the Washington archaeological research center. (i) For amateur society application, evidence of review and recommendations from the Washington archaeolog- ical research center. (j) A site security plan to assure the protection of the site and its contents during the public permit review and excavation process. (k) A public participation plan detailing the extent of public involvement and dissemination of project results. (I) A completed environmental checklist as required by WAC 197 -11 -100 to assist the office in making a threshold determination and to initiate SEPA compliance. (1986 Ed.) 25 -48 -070 (2) Where the application is for the excavation and /or removal of archaeological resources on public lands, the name of the university, museum, repository or other sci- entific or educational institution in which the applicant proposes to store all collections, and copies of records, data, photographs, and other documents derived from the proposed work. Applicants shall submit written cer- tification, signed by an authorized official of the institu- tion, of willingness to assume curatorial responsibility for the collections, records, data, photographs and other documents and to safeguard, preserve, and allow for the future scientific access to these materials as property of the state. (3) Where the application is for the excavation and /or removal of archaeological resources on private land, the name of the university, museum, repository, or other scientific or educational institution in which the appli- cant proposes to store copies of records, data, photo- graphs, and other documents derived from the proposed work and all collections in the event the landowner does not wish to take custody or otherwise dispose of the archaeological resources. Applicants shall submit written certification, signed by an authorized official of the in- stitution, of willingness to assume curatorial responsibil- ity for the collections, if applicable, and /or the records, data, photographs, and other documents derived from the proposed work and to safeguard, preserve, and allow for the future scientific access to these materials. (4) After review of the application, the office may re- quire additional information to properly evaluate the proposed work and shall so inform the applicant. Field investigation or research may be required of the appli- cant or conducted by the office at the applicant's cost. A bond in an amount specified by the office may be re- quired of the applicant to ensure payment of the profes- sional expenses incurred by the office. Advance notice of any anticipated cost shall be given to the applicant. (Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13 -001 (Or- der I I ) , § 25- 48 -060, filed 6/5/86.1 WAC 25 -48 -070 Notification to Indian tribes. (1) Upon receipt of a completed application form for arch- aeological excavation of an Indian cairn or grave or the removal of glyptic or painted records, the office, at least thirty days before issuing such a permit, shall notify any Indian tribe which may consider the site to be of historic or cultural significance. (2) Notice by the office to any Indian tribe shall be sent to the chief executive officer or other designated official of the tribe. Any Indian tribe or other native American group may supply the office in advance with sites or locations for which such tribe or group wishes to receive notice under this section. (3) Upon request during the thirty —day period, the office may meet with official representatives of any In- dian tribe or group to discuss their interests, including, but not limited to, the proposed excavation methods. Mitigation measures, including stipulations pertaining to the disposition of human remains, may be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the permit. [Title 25 WAC —p 131 25 -48 -070 C (4) When the office determines that a permit applied for under this chapter must be issued immediately be- cause of an imminent threat of loss or destruction of an archaeological resource, the office shall so notify the ap- propriate tribe. (5) The tribes with whom the office has consulted shall be promptly notified in writing of the issuance of the permit. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13-001 (Or- der 1 I ), § 25-48 -070, filed 6/5/86.1 WAC 25 -48 -080 Public notice. (1) The office will give public notice of a pending permit application by one or more of the following methods as appropriate for the specific circumstances in order to solicit public and sci- entific comment: (a) Notifying public, and private groups, tribes, and agencies with a known interest in a certain application or type of application being considered; (b) Notifying individuals with known interest in a certain application or in the type of application being considered; (c) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which the application will be implemented; (d) Notifying the news media; and /or (e) Posting on the property site in question. (2) Comments from such notified agencies, groups, entities or individuals must be received within thirty days of the notice. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13 -001 (Or- der I1), § 25- 48 -080, filed 6/5/86.1 WAC 25 -48 -090 Issuance of permit. The office will normally act upon a permit application within sixty days of receipt of a complete permit application. The director may issue a temporary permit immediately where delay could cause damage to an archaeological resource or site. Said permit shall be valid only for thirty days. The office may issue a permit, for a specified period of time appropriate to the work to be conducted, upon deter- mining that: (1) The applicant, or in the case of an amateur soci- ety, or other group or organization, the individual pro- posed to be responsible for conducting the work, is appropriately qualified, as evidenced by training, educa- tion, and /or experience, and possesses demonstrable competence in archaeological methods and theory, and in collecting, handling, analyzing, evaluating, and re- porting archaeological data, relative to the type and scope of the work proposed, and also meets the mini- mum qualifications as a professional archaeologist. (2) The proposed work is to be undertaken for the purpose of furthering archaeological knowledge in the public interest, which may include but need not be lim- ited to, scientific or scholarly research, and preservation of archaeological data. (3) The proposed work, including time, scope, loca- tion, and purpose, is not inconsistent with any manage- ment plan or established policy, objectives, or requirements applicable to the management of public lands concerned. (Title 25 WAC—p 141 Title 25 WAC: Archaeology and historic preservation (4) Evidence is submitted to the office that any uni- versity, museum, repository, or other scientific or educa- tional institution proposed in the application as the repository possesses adequate curatorial capability for safeguarding and preserving the archaeological resources and all associated records. (5) After the granting of a permit and, when infor- mation filed with the office becomes inaccurate in any way, or additions or deletions are necessary, the appli- cant or permittee shall submit full details of any such changes and /or correct any inaccuracy, together with copies of any new required documents, with the office within fifteen days following the change. The office re- serves the right to suspend or revoke a permit under the terms of WAC 25-48 -110. (Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13-001 (Or- der I I ), § 25-48 -090, filed 6/5/86.1 WAC 25 -48 -100 Terms and conditions of permits. (1) In all permits issued, the office shall specify: (a) The nature and extent of work allowed and re- quired under the permit, including the time, duration, scope, location, and purpose of the work; (b) The name of the individual(s) responsible for con- ducting the work and, if different, the name of the individual(s) responsible for carrying out the terms and conditions of the permit. (c) The name of any university, museum, repository, or other scientific or educational institutions in which any collected materials and data shall be deposited. (d) Reporting documentation requirements and site restoration requirements. (2) The preservation officer may specify such terms and conditions as deemed necessary, consistent with this chapter, to protect public safety and other values and /or resources, to secure work areas, to safeguard other legit- imate land uses, and to limit activities incidental to work authorized under the permit. This may include sufficient bonding to cover cost of site restoration. (3) The office may include in permits issued for arch- aeological work on Indian cairns and graves or glyptic or painted records such terms and conditions as may be re- quested by the concerned Indian tribe. (4) Initiation of work or other activities under the au- thority of a permit signifies the permittee's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the permit. (5) The permittee shall not be released from require- ments of a permit until all outstanding obligations have been satisfied, whether or not the term of the permit has expired. (6) The permittee may request that the office extend or modify a permit. Such a request will require compli- ance with all the provisions of this chapter. (7) The permittee's performance under any permit is- sued for a period greater than one year shall be subject to review by the office, at least annually. (Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86- 13-001 (Or- der I I), § 25-48 -100, filed 6/5/86.1 WAC 25 -48 -105 Permit denial. If a permit is de- nied, a written statement of the reasons for the denial (1986 Ed.) C will accompany the notice of permit denial to the appli- cant. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86- 13-001 (Or- der 11), § 25-48 -105, filed 6/5/86.] WAC 25 -48 -110 Suspension and revocation of per- mits. (1) The office may suspend or revoke a permit is- sued pursuant to this chapter upon determining that the permittee has failed to meet any of the terms and condi- tions of the permit and upon at least twenty days written notice. In the case of emergencies which imminently threaten health, safety, or welfare including property, the office may suspend a permit immediately. (2) The office shall provide written notice to the per - mittee of the suspension or revocation, the cause thereof, and in the case of a suspension, the length of the sus- pension and the requirements which must be met before the suspension will be removed. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86- 13-001 (Or- der II), § 25-48 -110, filed 6/5/86.] WAC 25 -48 -120 Appeals relating to permits. Any affected person may request a hearing to appeal a denial of a permit, suspension, or revocation to the preservation officer. Said request must be in writing and filed with the preservation officer within twenty days of receipt of notice of the denial, suspension, or revocation. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13 -00I (Or- der 11), § 25-48 -120, filed 6/5/86.] WAC 25 -48 -130 Display of permit. (1) The permit granted by the office shall be prominently displayed at all times upon the archaeological site being excavated during the permitted period. (2) If more than one archaeological site is being ex- cavated under a single permit, the permittee may obtain from the office such copy or copies of his or her permit as may be necessary to display at each archaeological site being excavated. (3) The director or his designee may examine at any time the permit, work, and site at which such permitted work is being undertaken. [Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86 -13-001 (Or- der 11), § 25-48 -130, filed 6/5/86.] WAC 25 -48 -140 Severability. If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circum- stance is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application of the provision to other persons or cir- cumstances shall not be affected. (Statutory Authority: RCW 27.34.220 and 27.44.020. 86- 13-001 (Or- der I l), § 25-48 -140, filed 6/5/86.] • Archaeological Excavation Permit 25-48 -140 (t986 Ed.) (Title 25 WAC-p 151 , '. (% 11\r ` i ( 0' Arc haeological Sites \24)\,) it( state, federal, and private construction agencies regard- ing the possible impact of construction activities on the state's archaeological resources, are proper public func- tions; and the Washington archaeological research cen- ter, created under the authority of chapter 39.34 RCW as now existing or hereafter amended, is hereby desig- nated as an appropriate agency to carry out these func- tions. The director, in consultation with the Washington a rchaeological research center, shall provide guidelines for the selection of depositories designated by the state for archaeological resources. The legislature directs that there shall be full cooperation amongst the department, the Washington archaeological research center, and other agencies of the state. [ 1986 c 266 § 16; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 12; 1975 –'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 2 .] Severability -1986 c 266: See note following RCW 38.52.005. Severability -1977 ex.s. c 195: "If any provision of this 1977 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provi- sion to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1977 ex.s. c 195 § 20.] 27.53.030 Definitions. Unless the context clearly re- quires otherwise, the definitions contained in this section shall apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Archaeology" means systematic, scientific study of man's past through material remains. (2) "Archaeological object" means an object that comprises the physical evidence of an indigenous and subsequent culture including material remains of past human life including monuments, symbols, tools, facili- ties, and technological by– products. (3) "Archaeological site" means a geographic locality in Washington, including but not limited to, submerged and submersible lands and the bed of the sea within the state's jurisdiction, that contains archaeological objects. (4) "Department" means the department of commu- nity development. (5) "Director" means the director of community de- velopment or the director's designee. (6) "Historic" means peoples and cultures who are known through written documents in their own or other languages. As applied to underwater archaeological re- sources, the term historic shall include only those prop- erties which are listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington State Register of Historic Places (RCW 27.34.220) or the National Register of Historic Places as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Title 1, Sec. 101, Public Law 89 -665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470) as now or hereafter amended. (7) "Prehistoric" means peoples and cultures who are unknown through contemporaneous written documents in any language. (8) "Professional archaeologist" means a person who has met the educational, training, and experience re- quirements of the society of professional archaeologists. (9) "Qualified archaeologist" means a person who has had formal training and /or experience in archaeology over a period of at least three years, and has been certi- fied in writing to be a qualified archaeologist by two professional archaeologists. (1989 Ed.) � �! ) And Resourc` 27.53.045 (10) "Amateur society" means any organization com- posed primarily of persons who are not professional ar- chaeologists, whose primary interest is in the . archaeological resources of the state, and which has been certified in writing by two professional archaeologists. (II) "Historic archaeological resources" means those properties which are listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington State Register of Historic Places (RCW 27.34.220) or the National Register of Historic Places as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Title 1, Sec. 101, Public Law 89 -665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470) as now or hereafter amended. [ 1989 c 44 § 6; 1988 c 124 § 2; 1986 c 266 § 17; 1983 c 91 § 20; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 3.] Intent -1989 c 44: See RCW 27.44.030. Captions not law — Liberal construction -1989 c 44: See RCW 27.44.900 and 27.44.901. Intent -1988 c 124: "It is the intent of the legislature that those historic archaeological resources located on state -owned aquatic lands that are of importance to the history of our state, or its communities, be protected for the people of the state. At the same time, the legisla- ture also recognizes that divers have long enjoyed the recreation of diving near shipwrecks and picking up artifacts from the state -owned aquatic lands, and it is not the intent of the legislature to regulate these occasional, recreational activities except in areas where necessary to protect underwater historic archaeological sites. The legislature also recognizes that salvors who invest in a project to salvage underwater archaeological resources on state -owned aquatic lands should be re- quired to obtain a state permit for their operation in order to protect the interest of the people of the state, as well as to protect the interest of the salvors who have invested considerable time and money in the salvage expedition." [ 1988 c 124 § 1.] Application -1988 c 124: "This act shall not affect any ongoing salvage effort in which the state has entered into separate contracts or agreements prior to March 18, 1988." [1988 c 124 § 13.] For codifi- cation of "this act," see Codification Tables, Volume 0. Severability -1986 c 266: See note following RCW 38.52.005. Effective date -1983 c 91: See RCW 27.34.910. Severability -1977 ex.s. c 195: See note following RCW 27.53.020. 27.53.040 Archaeological resources — Declaration. All sites, objects, structures, artifacts, implements, and locations of prehistorical or archaeological interest, whether previously recorded or still unrecognized, in- cluding, but not limited to, those pertaining to prehis- toric and historic American Indian or aboriginal burials, campsites, dwellings, and habitation sites, including rock shelters and caves, their artifacts and implements of cul- ture such as projectile points, arrowheads, skeletal re- mains, grave goods, basketry, pestles, mauls and grinding stones, knives, scrapers, rock carvings and paintings, and other implements and artifacts of any material that are located in, on, or under the surface of any lands or waters owned by or under the possession, custody, or control of the state of Washington or any county, city, or political subdivision of the state are hereby declared to be archaeological resources. [ 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 4.] 27.53.045 Abandoned archaeological resources — Declaration. All historic archaeological resources aban- doned for thirty years or more in, on, or under the sur- face of any public lands or waters owned by or under the possession, custody, or control of the state of [Title 27 RCW—p 291 27.44.050 Title 2 RCW: Libraries, Museums, and Historical i 'Mlles 27.48.010 Public purpose declared Powers of counties and municipalities. The storage, preservation and exhibit of historical materials, including, but not re- stricted to, books, maps, writings, newspapers, ancient articles, and tools of handicraft, antiques, artifacts, an d relics is declared to be a public project carried on for public purpose and the legislative body of any county, city or town, may provide quarters therefor within the territorial limits thereof and may provide funds neces. sary for the proper operation of any such institution a l- ready in operation, or otherwise provide for the preservation of historical material covered by this chap. ter. [1957 c 47 § 1; 1949 c 160 § 1; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 8265 -9.] action must be brought within two years of the discovery of the violation by the plaintiff. The action may be filed in the superior or tribal court of the county in which the grave, cairn, remains, or artifacts are located, or in the superior court of the county within which the defendant resides. (2) Any conviction pursuant to RCW 27.44.040 shall be prima facia evidence in an action brought under this section. (3) If the plaintiff prevails: (a) The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the plaintiff; (b) The court may grant injunctive or such other eq- uitable relief as is appropriate, including forfeiture of any artifacts or remains acquired or equipment used in the violation. The court shall order the disposition of any items forfeited as the court sees fit, including the reinterment of human remains; (c) The plaintiff shall recover imputed damages of five hundred dollars or actual damages, whichever is greater. Actual damages include special and general damages, which include damages for emotional distress; (d) The plaintiff may recover punitive damages upon proof that the violation was willful. Punitive damages may be recovered without proof of actual damages. All punitive damages shall be paid by the defendant to the office of archaeology and historic preservation for the purposes of Indian historic preservation and to cover the cost of reinterment expenses by the office; and (e) An award of imputed or punitive damages may be made only once for a particular violation by a particular person, but shall not preclude the award of such dam- ages based on violations by other persons or on other violations. (4) If the defendant prevails, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the defendant. [1989 c 44 § 3.] 27.44.900 Captions not law 1989 c 44. Section captions used in *this act do not constitute any part of the law. [ 1989 c 44 § 10.] *Reviser's note: "This act" consists of the enactment of RCW 27.44.030, 27.44.040, 27.44.050, 27.44.900, 27.44.901, 68.05.410, and 68.05.420, the 1989 c 44 amendments to RCW 27.53.030 and 27.53- .060, and the repeal of RCW 27.44.010. 27.44.901 Liberal construction -1989 c 44. *This act is to be liberally construed to achieve the legisla- ture's intent. [ 1989 c 44 § 11.] *Reviser's note: For "this act" see note following RCW 27.44.900. Chapter 27.48 PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL MATERIALS Sections 27.48.010 Public purpose declared— Powers of counties and municipalities. Preservation and destruction of public records, state archivist: Chapter 40.14 RCW. [Title 27 RCW --p 281 Chapter 27.53 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND RESOURCES Sections 27.53.010 Declaration. 27.53.020 Archaeological resource preservation, etc., declared pub- lic functions — Archaeological research center desig- nated state agency — Cooperation enjoined. 27.53.030 Definitions. 27.53.040 Archaeological resources — Declaration. 27.53.045 Abandoned archaeological resources — Declaration. 27.53.060 Disturbing, etc., archaeological resource or site without written permit or permission unlawful — Conditions allowed -- Exceptions. 27.53.070 Field investigations — Communication of site or re- source location to research center. 27.53.080 Archaeological activities upon public lands —En- try— Agreement — Approval of activities. 27.53.090 Violations — Penalty. 27.53.100 Historic archaeological resources on state –owned aquatic lands— Discovery and report —Right of first refusal. 27.53.110 Contracts for discovery and salvage of state –owned his- toric archaeological resources. 27.53.120 Recovery of property from historic archaeological sites— Mitigation of damage — Refusal to issue salvage permit to prevent destruction of resource. 27.53.130 List of areas requiring permits. 27.53.140 Rule– making authority. 27.53.150 Proceeds from state's property — Deposit and use. 27.53.900 Severability -1975 1st ex.s. c 134. 27.53.901 Severability -1988 c 124. Office of archaeology and historic preservation: RCW 27.34.200 through 27.34.240. 27.53.010 Declaration. The legislature hereby de- clares that the public has an interest in the conservation, preservation, and protection of the state's archaeological resources, and the knowledge to be derived and gained from the scientific study of these resources. [1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 1.] 27.53.020 Archaeological resource preservation, etc., declared public functions Archaeological research center designated state agency—Cooperation enjoined. The discovery, identification, excavation, and study of the state's archaeological resources, the providing of in- formation on archaeological sites for their nomination to the state and national registers of historic places, the maintaining of a complete inventory of archaeological sites and collections, and the providing of information to (1989 Ed.) 27.53.045 Title tCW: Libraries, Museums, and Historical ,vities Washington, including, but not limited to all ships, or aircraft, and any part or the contents thereof, and all treasure trove is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Washington. [1988 c 124 § 3.] Intent — Application -1988 c 124: See notes following RCW 27.53.030. 27.53.060 Disturbing, etc., archaeological resource or site without written permit or permission unlawful Conditions allowed Exceptions. (1) On the private and public lands of this state it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or any agency or institution of the state or a political subdivision thereof to knowingly remove, alter, dig into, or excavate by use of any me- chanical, hydraulic, or other means, or to damage, de- face, or destroy any historic or prehistoric archaeological resource or site, or remove any archaeological object from such site, except for Indian graves or cairns, or any glyptic or painted record of any tribe or peoples, or his- toric graves as defined in chapter 68.05 RCW, disturb- ances of which shall be a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, without having obtained a written permit from the director for such activities. (2) The director must obtain the consent of the pri- vate or public property owner or agency responsible for the management thereof, prior to issuance of the permit. The property owner or agency responsible for the man- agement of such land may condition its consent on the execution of a separate agreement, lease, or other real property conveyance with the applicant as may be nec- essary to carry out the legal rights or duties of the public property landowner or agency. The director, in consulta- tion with the affected tribes, shall develop guidelines for the issuance and processing of permits. Such written permit and any agreement or lease or other conveyance required by any public property owner or agency re- sponsible for management of such land shall be physi- cally present while any such activity is being conducted. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the re- moval of artifacts found exposed on the surface of the ground which are not historic archaeological resources or sites. [ 1989 c 44 § 7; 1988 c 124 § 4; 1986 c 266 § 18; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 14; 1975 -'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 6.] Intent -1989 c 44: See RCW 27.44.030. Captions not law— Liberal construction -1989 c 44: See RCW 27.44.900 and 27.44.901. Intent — Application -1988 c 124: See notes following RCW 27.53.030. Severability -1986 c 266: See note following RCW 38.52.005. Severability -1977 ex.s. c 195: See note following RCW 27.53.020. 27.53.070 Field investigations — Communication of site or resource location to research center. It is the de- clared intention of the legislature that field investiga- tions on privately owned lands should be discouraged except in accordance with both the provisions and spirit of this chapter and persons having knowledge of the lo- cation of archaeological sites or resources are encour- aged to communicate such information to the [Title 27 RCW —p 301 Washington archaeological research center. Such infor- mation shall not constitute a public record which re- quires disclosure pursuant to the exception authorized in RCW 42.17.310, as now or hereafter amended, to avoid site depredation. [1975 -'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 7.] 27.53.080 Archaeological activities upon public lands —Entry Agreement Approval of activi- ties. Qualified or professional archaeologists, in per- formance of their duties, are hereby authorized to enter upon public lands of the state of Washington and its po- litical subdivisions, at such times and in such manner as not to interfere with the normal management thereof, for the purposes of doing archaeological resource loca- tion and evaluation studies, including site sampling ac- tivities. Scientific excavations are to be carried out only after appropriate agreement has been made between a professional archaeologist or an institution of higher ed- ucation and the agency or political subdivision responsi- ble for such lands. Notice of such agreement shall be filed with the Washington archaeological research center and by them to the department. Amateur societies may engage in such activities by submitting and having ap- proved by the responsible agency or political subdivision a written proposal detailing the scope and duration of the activity. Before approval, a proposal from an ama- teur society shall be submitted to the Washington arch- aeological research center for review and recommendation. [ 1986 c 266 § 19; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 15; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 8.] Severability -1986 c 266: See note following RCW 38.52.005. Severability -1977 ex.s. c 195: See note following RCW 27.53.020. 27.53.090 Violations — Penalty. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day of continued violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a distinct and separate offense. Offenses shall be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency or to the director. [ 1986 c 266 § 20; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 16; 1975 -'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 4; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 9.] Severability -1986 c 266: See note following RCW 38.52.005. Severability -1977 ex.s. c 195: See note following RCW 27.53.020. 27.53.100 Historic archaeological resources on state -owned aquatic lands— Discovery and report Right of first refusal. Persons, firms, corporations, insti- tutions, or agencies which discover a previously unre- ported historic archaeological resource on state -owned aquatic lands and report the site or location of such re- source to the department shall have a right of first re- fusal to future salvage permits granted for the recovery of that resource, subject to the provisions of RCW 27- .53.110. Such right of first refusal shall exist for five years from the date of the report. Should another per- son, firm, corporation, institution, or agency apply for a permit to salvage that resource, the reporting entity shall (1989 Ed.) c., City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 City Council 433 -1800 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission From: Rick Beeler, DC Date: 14 May 1990 TRANSMITTAL Subject: Tukwila Hillside Design and Development Study Attached is the consultant's final report on the Hillside Design and Development Study (aka Hillside Aesthetics Study). The consultant team was asked to look at Tukwila's developed hillsides and prepare recommendations which would preserve, enhance and create more natural vegetated hillside environments while enabling use to continue as zoned. The report is an interim step to implementation of these goals. Future legislation and project review will refer to and utilize recommendations contained within the study. City t of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To: Tukwila City Council and Planning Commission Members From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 14 May 1990 Subject: Sensitive Areas Meetings Wednesday, May 30 and Thursday, May 31 1990 have been scheduled for public meetings. These meetings are to provide a forum for dissemination of information generated by the City's consultants and the Citizens Sensitive Areas Advisory Committee in their review of the sensitive areas issues. I hope you all can make it, but realize that some of you may not be able to come. I apologize if the times are inconvenient; but, we will have tapes made of the meetings and loan those out to those who are not able to attend. Notices are being mailed to all property owners in the City as well, to give them an opportunity to hear expert testimony on the issues that the City has been studying. When: Wednesday, May 30, 1990 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Speakers: Dr. Donald Tubbs, Geologist Geoengineers, Inc. Geologic Hazards Steven Johnson, Architect and Becca Hanson, Landscape Architect Johnson: Architecture and Planning & the Portico Group Hillside Design When: Thursday, 31 May 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Speakers: Tukwila Citizens Advisory Committee Proposed Draft Sensitive Area Overlay District Dyanne Sheldon, Wetlands Ecologist Jones & Stokes Wetland and Watercourse Function and Protection 1 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 City Council 433 -1800 TRANSMITTAL To: Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission From: Rick Beeler, DC Date: 14 May 1990 Subject: Tukwila Hillside Design and Development Study Attached is the consultant's final report on the Hillside Design and Development Study (aka Hillside Aesthetics Study). The consultant team was asked to look at Tukwila's developed hillsides and prepare recommendations which would preserve, enhance and create more natural vegetated hillside environments while enabling use to continue as zoned. The report is an interim step to implementation of these goals. Future legislation and project review will refer to and utilize recommendations contained within the study. WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. / AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 1544 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 1550, TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 4/,,2 Gl L CITY OF TUKWILA WHEREAS, by Ordinance 1544 passed November 20, 1989 as clarified and amended by ordinance 1550 passed December 18, 1989, the City Council imposed a moratorium on development on certain property within the city, and WHEREAS, the purpose of such moratorium was to prevent development on such specified property, unless exempt or unless a waiver was granted by the city' Council, until the adoption of an ordinance to protect and regulate development of environmentally sensitive areas within the city, and WHEREAS, the moratorium is scheduled to expire by the terms of Ordinance 1544 on May 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and necessary to prevent environmental degradation for the moratorium to be extended to allow for orderly deliberation and passage of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance and WHEREAS, due to the length and extent of deliberation and public comment it is not possible to pass a Sensitive Areas Ordinance by the expiration date of the moratorium, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the environment may not be significantly adversely affected by allowing development on existing single family residential lots. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY• COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. extension of Moratorium. Pursuant to Section 2.B of ordinance 1544, the moratorium imposed by .Ordinance.1544 and clarified and amended by Ordinance 1550 is hereby extended fora penod of one year from the date passage: of this ordinance or until the "effective date of ' a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, whichever period is shorter. Section 2.B is therefore amended to read as follows: B. The moratorium established herewith shall be temporary in nature, shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance, e.nd shall run until midnight October 8, 1990, or until the effective date of a Sensitive Areas ordinance. whichever period is shorter, unless sooner ended or extended by action of the City Council. Section 2. Criteria for Waiver. The second paragraph Section 3.E of Ordinance 1550 is amended to require that anyone requesting a waiver fumish the planning staff for presentation to the city council a specific development proposal, and to provide that no waiver request will be considered without such a proposal. Section 3.E is therefore amended to read as follows: E. In addition to Paragraph C above, all development for which there were specific applications pending on November 20, 1989, and which do not impact the "sensitive area" or its "buffer" as those terms are defined in the October 25, 1989 Sensitive Area Ordinance, may continue to be processed during the period of the moratorium provided the applicant and the property owner, if different from the applicant, execute for recording an agreement that all such continued processes be subject to the provisions of any Sensitive Areas ordinance passed before the termination of this moratorium and acknowledging that such is continued at their request and at their risk and expense. The agreement must also state that it is understood that regardless of the continuation of such pending processes, application or requests for any other processes required for the project but not specifically applied for by 5:00 p.m. November 20, 1989, will not be accepted or processed during the moratorium period, unless it is clear on the face of such applications that the process applied for will not impact such "sensitive areas" or "buffers" except that under no circumstances will a new application for a building permit be accepted. For those who feel the moratorium on their property is creating an undue hardship for financial, personal, or other reasons, they n in writing to the City Counsel. A date for the council to hear that petition will petition set by the council President. In considering the petition, the Council will bear in mind the intent of the moratorium; the best interests of the City weighed against the interests of the individual; the circumstances and the hardship caused by the moratorium; and the damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. Section 3. Exemption of Si le- FamlIy . Section 2.0 of Ordinance 1544 Is amended to further provide that the Director of of Commun Development may exempt single family lots from operation of the moratorium. k a ection 2.0 is therefore amended to read as follows: c. The moratorium shall not prohibit development for which the necessary final building or subdivision or short plat permits or approvals have been obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or fear whith completed applications for a building permit or for a subdivision or short plat have , been filed with the appropriate officials of the City prior to such date. In addition, where as single family development will not affect the sensitive area portion of a lot as defined in the original draft of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, dated October 25, 1989, the. Director of the Department of Community. Development may exempt that proposal from the moratorium. In reviewing such proposals, the Department of Community Development will consider whether the development is likely to have any impact on the sensitive area during any phase of the project, including use and occupation, and wil require a waiver from the City Council if there is any question about the proposal's impact. Section 4. Reaffirmation of Moratorium. In all other respects the provilsions of Ordinance Noe. 1544 and 1550 are reaffirmed. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the attached summary, which is hereby approved. - PASSED BY THE CITY COLLNPIL OF E CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this T day of 1990. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: B y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Gary L Van Dusen, Re9 t�w of Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Discussion of riscal impact of Interurban Ave.. Southcenter Blvd.. & E. Marginal Wy. Project. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING April 23, 1990 Page 5 SPECIAL ISSUES (Con t) discussion on r r Councilmember Robertson responded it would lessen the con- fusion if they are presented as one package 'since all three are so closely related. Councilmember Rants stated all the highlights and policies will be in draft form and brought betore the full Council throughout the entire process. Councilmember Moriwaki commented tonight's discussion was for the purpose or establishing the timeline and that the process would allow tor the appropriate gathering of information. Council President Hernandez asked if the timeline could be shor- tened. Robertson responded pertinent steps in the process may be lost if the timeline were shortened. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY EKBERG, THAT THE SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE REVIEW PROCESS BE ACCEPTED AS AN OUTLINE JUST TO GET STARTED. MOTION CARRIED WITH HERNANDEZ VOTING NO. Councilmember Robertson stated publication of the Public Information Brochure should begin immediately and should include explanation of the purpose (statement of goals) and timeline schedule. Councilmember Lawrence asked if the whole Council would have a chance to review the public information brochure in (draft form) prior to its publication. Robertson response was a most definite yes. MOVED BY ROBERTSON. SECONDED BY LAWRENCE. THAT THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE PRODUCE A PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURE REGARDING THE SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE WITH SCHEDULE AND A STATEMENT OF COUNCIL GOALS. * - City Attorney Colgrove informed the Council unless he's directed by the Council to draft an ordinance to extend the moratorium before the Regular Council meeting, it will expire on its own terms, Councilmember Robertson inquired as to the length of time the Moratorium could be extended. Moriwaki asked if it can be extended indefinitely, until the passage of the SAO. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE ASKED TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM UNTIL A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE SAO IS PASSED, NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. ** Councilmember Rants questioned whether a window will be provided to allow some exceptions to process some of the waivers. Recommendations from staff to ease the waiver process would be appreciated. *MOTION CARRIED * *MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Ron Cameron. City Engineer. Public Works Department. explained the Transportation Committee recently discussed how the City can get approximately $10 million in grants for three projects: Southcenter Blvd. extension to Grady Way; Interurban Avenue (42nd - 52nd); and East Marginal Way. The City's costs for these three projects range from $5 -10 million total. Councilmember Duffie reminded the Council of the 11:00 p.m. adjournment regulation per the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING CONTINUE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. March 6, 1990 Conference Room 3 Sensitive Areas Ordinance Citizens. Advisory Committee 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. Discuss Cheryl Brown's Working Draft distributed February 28. Where you would like to see alternate language, please draft new wording that can be xeroxed and distributed for discussion. Enclosed is the enforcement section of the Zoning Code, which would pertain to the proposed legislation. Regular Council Minutes March 5, 1990 Page 6 Interlocal Agreement to Authorize Interlocal Agreement for Library Services (con't) ,/ Sensitive Areas Ordinance Discussion REPORTS c *MOTION CARRIED. a 4 / -57 John McFarland responded that our concerns have been expressed to the City of Mercer Island who is acting as Lead Agency on this project. The project will be done is phases with reviews done at the end of each stage to insure that our expectations are met. If they are not met in terms of the quality and volume of the data and the conclusions drawn at the end of Phase I, we would terminate our participation in the project. This could be written into the interlocal agreement. The commonality that exists between the cities in this project is that none of us are annexed into the King County Library System. Councilman Ekberg agreed with Councilman Moriwaki's statement. He commented that according to the Mayor's Letter of 2/28/90, if the phasing capacity is done and completed, it provides us the opportunity to discontinue study any time we determine. He would like to have the phased in capacity added to the agreement. Mayor VanDusen assured him that it had been added. Councilman Ekberg suggested a second survey to determine what type of library service the residents would like to see. Councilman Lawrence suggested using the consultants through Phase II, but developing the conclusions in- house. John McFarland noted there are still areas needing to be worked out as part of the interlocal contract between the jurisdictions and the consultant. We will be able to get some of our specific needs tailored into the agreement. We will be able to get a sharper definition of the tasks we want emphasized in each phase. Councilman Robertson suggested Council read and become familiar with the original draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance date 10/89 prior to reviewing the new draft in order to be able to identify the modifications. Council discussed holding joint hearings with the Planning Commission. This would be possible, but each body would have to make separate decisions as established by ordinance. Discussion ensued on the timeline for public hearings. Bill Arthur, Citizens Advisory Committee member, commented that the committee is aware of the complexity of the issues they are dealing with. He and other members of the committee would be willing to participate in public workshops to explain how they arrived at their final recommendations. Councilman Lawrence suggested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Rick Beeler suggested holding a citizens workshop as an informational session to provide an opportunity for citizens to ask questions regarding the ordinance. Councilman Moriwaki commented that if more time is needed to complete the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the moratorium be extended as well. Alternative timelines will be prepared for Council by Rick Beeler. Mayor VanDusen stated he will have to authorize a Change Order for Station #54 for $25,000 to repair a roof problem. Council President Hernandez has been appointed to the Jail Advisory Committee by the Suburban Cities Association. Dear Mr. Faull Yours truly, Enclosure � !� . � �6 February.1990 i JQ _ Fau & Banks 321 Burnett Avenue S.' Renton, Washington '98057. Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner Please be advised the Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meetings are at 8:00 p.m. on the fourth Thursday of every month at City. Hall. Enclosed is the list of Sensitive Areas Ordinance Citizens Committee names. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. GARY F FAULL PETER S. BANKS February 12, 1990 Tukwila Planning Commission c/o Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Roy and Winona Martin TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that I am the attorney for Roy and Winona Martin, individuals who will be impacted by the decisions made with respect to the "sensitive areas" ordinance. I note that the Planning Commission meets at 7:00 p.m. on the second Thursday of each month at City Hall and I also note that there is a Sen- sitive Areas Ordinance Citizens Committee. Would you be kind enough to provide to me the names of the individuals on that Committee? Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. tr GA GFF /d cc: R.y an Winona Martin LL FAULL & BANKS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 321 BURNETT AVENUE SOUTH P. 0. BOX 26 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 (206) 255 -5600 47;)90 Council Seeks Comments On Sensitive Areas Ordinance The recent flooding was a reminder that natural systems, such as soils on slop- ing property and watercourses, are limited in the amount of water they can handle. Development of property has over the years reduced the amount of land that can absorb the water or forced the water into under - capacity underground drainage pipes or above ground channels. Wetlands that normally function to absorb some storm water have been removed or the effective- ness reduced by development. Tukwila property owners face a bill for 15 million dollars for correcting existing surface wa- terproblems. To help prevent that bill from increasing, a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, known as SAO, was drafted last year. In November 1989, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the SAO but postponed making their recom- mendation to the City Council. An advi- sory committee of residential and business citizens was appointed by the Mayor and City Council in December to recommend development practices and procedures that will reflect the community's desire for safe, effective standards for development of steep Starting January 1, the City of Tukwila officially initiated a Surface Water Utility. All property owners within the City of Tukwila have been billed for surface water utility charges. This includes private busi- nesses, single - family lots, the City itself (for streets, parks, etc.), State highways, and King County for its road surface. The revenue will pay for the operations and maintenance of the City -wide storm and surface water management system and for construction of capital facilities. The first billing (half year) for the 1990 billing year was sent to property own- ers in February and the second half -year billing will be sent in August. Each will be due sixty (60) days from the billing date before 8% interest will be charged. All property owners in the Riverton/Foster / Thorndyke and Fire District #1 areasprevi- ously were billed by King County for sur- face water charges prior to annexation. Low income elderly and/or handi- capped persons may quality for a reduced rate if certain qualifications are met. slopes, wetlands and other water resources. The Planning Commission wants to see the committee's recommendation before re- suming deliberations on an SAO. The high degree of concern about the scarcity of these water and visual resources and hazards associated with improper de- velopment led the City Council to adopt a moratorium on development in these areas until May 12, 1990, when the ordinance is expected to be finalized and adopted. They have also established a waiver process for those who feel this moratorium creates an undue hardship, poses a hazard to life or property, or was improperly applied. Any remodel or addition to single family resi- dences on 12,000 square foot lots or smaller is not affected by the moratorium. The moratorium is in effect until May 12,1990. The advisory committee is now re- ceiving additional information from engi- neering and hydrology professionals re- garding regulations in the draft SAO. The City Council has yet to hold public hearings or make any decisions on SAO regulations. This will occur after the Plan- ning Commission reviews the advisory Tukwila ila l� qtr oduces Surface Water Utility The utility was formed in 1989 with an effective date of January 1, 1990 for im- plementation. A Citizen's Advisory Com- mittee was appointed by the Mayor to assist in the formation of the Utility and will continue to participate in developing a system of credits for mitigative measures that may be taken by property owners to reduce their cost for this utility. Most of the surrounding cities — Kent, Renton, Au- burn, Bellevue, Seattle — have surface water utilities in place. The billing rate categories are based on the percentage of impervious surface area. This includes rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, com- pacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect natural infiltration or run- off patterns. If you have questions, please call one of the following phone numbers: Billing questions: 433 -1835 Rate Category designation, technical, etc. 433 -0179 The rate categories are shown at right committee's draft SAO and forwards a recommendation for consideration by the Council. Tentatively the SAO is scheduled for adoption before the moratorium expires May 12. Between now and then, several workshops and public hearings will be held to explain the SAO and to give opportunity to express suggestions and opinions. It is the City's goal to notify every property owner, resident and business about the SAO. If you did not receive the bro- chure that was mailed last year on the sensitive areas issue, then please contact the Department of Community Develop- ment at 433 -1849 to add your name and address to the mailing list. Questions about the existing draft SAO or moratorium can be asked of the Depart- ment of Community Development at 433- 1849. Cascade View Modified by BRB The Cascade View Annexation has taken two steps forward with the Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval of an an- nexation area slightly smaller than origi- nally petitioned, and the City's endorse- ment of the modifications. The area being deleted lies in the north- west comer of the proposed annexation area. Residents argued to the BRB that emergency medical response would take longer than what they presently enjoy if annexed into Tukwila. The BRB decision to delete this por- tion leaves a substantial residential area and would bring both sides of Pacific Highway South into the jurisdiction of the Tukwila Police. This was an essential action for co- ordinated law enforcement along "the Strip". It is anticipated that the annexation proposal will be presented to Cascade View residents in a regular election on May 22, 1990. ANNUAL SERVICE ° CATEGORY; CHAR.GEIACRE': 1) Natural ' $3 20 2) 0% 20% impervious 80 i mperviou s 148` 20 4) 51 to! 70 %impervious 221' 00 5);71 85% impervious 266 40. 6) 100% impervious' 310 60 7)'Single= iamtiy residential $30 /parcel FEBRUARY 1990 A YOR'S 1990 STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS The City of Tukwila enters 1990 fac- ing opportunities for continued growth as well as continued progress. Our growth potential is represented by the upcoming Cascade View annexation vote and the prospective addition of 2,100 more citizens to our city. Cascade View appears to be a vibrant community, and if approved by the voters, will broaden our now diverse spec- trum of interested and involved residents. I must note, however, that the addition of Cascade View to our boundaries will bring requirements for additional staffing, poten- tial changes in our existing organizational structure, and a possible reordering of capi- tal and fiscal long -term priorities. With the impacts of the Fire District No.1, Foster, Riverton and Thorndyke annexations not yet one year old, we are still assessing, analyzing, and reacting to the demands created by this heretofore unprecedented expansion.I am proud to state that the City of Tukwila has met its initial obligations in providing service to these new residents. Our new citizens have learned that we are a responsive and effec- tive organization. As a result, hundreds of requests for assistance have been tendered to City Hall. Many of these inquiries re- ceived and processed concerned zoning violations and hazardous conditions that demanded immediate attention. We owe acknowledgment and a vote of gratitude to the fine work the Tukwila City employees have demonstrated in meeting this chal- lenge. As we are all aware, however, there is much yet to do. Neglected infrastructure inherited from King County, continued increases in our traffic volumes, and aggressive develop- ment on both a local and regional basis, translate to the need for careful planning and the initiation of major capital improve- ments. (continued on back page) A Quarterly Publication of the City of Tukwila Volume 11, Number 1 Newly elected Council President Joan Hernandez welcomes Tukwila's three new Councilmembers: Allan Ekberg, Steve Lawrence, and John "Wally" Rants. City Council Greets Three New Members Some new faces are brightening the City Council this year. Joan Hernandez has been elected Council president, and three newly elected Councilmembers began their terms this past January. Allan Ekberg is a lifetime resident of the Tukwila area. After graduating from Foster High School in 1977, Allan earned a business degree before beginning work at Boeing's Commercial Airplane Division. Allan and his wife Trish Camozzi Ekberg are proud parents of a new daughter, Karlin Marie. Active in the 1989 Riverton an- nexation effort and the pre - annexation zoning task force meetings, Allan's goals are to represent all of Tukwila, and to maintain and improve the high quality of life that Tukwila citizens currently enjoy. Steve Lawrence is a resident of the Foster neighborhood, where he lives with his wife Eileen and their two daughters. As a school teacher, Steve is active in educa- tion, and is now teaching at Seahurst Ele- mentary School. Steve was active in the annexation and pre - annexation zoning task force meetings for the Foster area. Inter- ested in keeping Tukwila a good place to live, raise a family, and safely walk or jog, Steve also puts apriority on cleaning up the crime on Highway 99 and making that a more desirable part of our City. Wally Rants developed and directed the Highline School District's award -win- ning Tyee music programs for many years. Now retired from teaching, Wally is still busy. He helps his wife SaraJane with her floral business in Tacoma, and Wally also likes to spend time on his boat. His goal in joining the City Council was to ensure the City govems wisely and makes the best use of its money to deliver excellent services to its citizens. He is also working now to balance the City's natural growth with the need to preserve the nature of the undevel- oped pieces in Tukwila. • Joan Hernandez, Council President . .. -026 Joe Duffie 244 - Allan: Ekberg:; ... 241 6904 Dennis Robertson 242 6373 Steve;Lawrence ;243.9266 ;: Clarence Mariwak :a33 8534 John' "Wally" Rants' :. 244 0588 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 190 • Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW,a!`' DATE: 23 JANUARY 1990 SUBJECT: SAO Dicussion Items I. PIPING OF WATERCOURSES The Council requested a discussion possible uses, other than the ones currently listed, that would require piping of a watercourse. The Uses and Standards section of the SAO tells an applicant what use will be allowed in a watercourse and also establishes design and construction standards for those permitted uses. To clarify the January 18 memo, the current Council draft is proposing to allow: 1. maintenance and repair of existing uses or facilities; including access roads, streets or utilities. 2. construction of new access roads, streets or utilities. (What about reconstruction or expansion of existing roads, streets or utilities ?) 3. non - destructive education, research, passive recreation or open space. 4. storm and surface water discharge subject to conditions. 5. watercourse enhancement, mitigation, or maintenance. 6. any use which has received exception approval per TMC 18.45.115. 7. diversion or re- routing subject to standards. 8. City of Tukwila flood control or water quality enhancement or maintenance. 9. Regional stormwater detention areas subject to conditions. Uses not specifically permitted outright are private uses of property according to the zoning. The council directed staff to retain the existing uses as listed in the draft, with the understanding that piping could occur for the above uses. The standards section of the SAO would then be updated to reflect the above and environmental and design concerns associated with piping. PIPING STAND - ' S / 1. 4 Af/I f r • � and length :+��! 2. The conveyanc standards of the 09 3q d . 0417117 = A 6/65 be degned to inimize crossings n p.e,Oalkx-xmolif - system shall be designed to comply with the torm and Surface Water Design Manual. Orr 3. The maximum water velocity shall not exceed four average feet per second; and for short sections may not exceed 8 -10 average feet per second. 4. The system shall arch culvert or be oversized for rebuilding of a stream bed and shall be provided with check dams to reduce flows. 5. When necessary to provide for fish passage, fish ladders shall be 1 foot vertical to ten foot horizontal. 6. Stormwater runoff shall be retained and infiltrated to maintain base stream flows and shall be detained to preserve the watercourse channels dominant discharge. 7. All construction must be designed to protect the watercourse and its buffer against erosion drainage, }restriction of groundwater movement, slidds or habitat disturbance. 8. Upon completion of construction, the area around the culvert must be replanted and enhanced acco to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. DISSCUSSION for Section 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS , 1. There is a PRD section of the Zoning CodeVrequires dedication of 20 % of project area for open space and allows it to be under one or multiple ownership which is contrary to the concept of a " common" tract. 2. The existing draft language the SAO allows the applicant the discretion of dedicating a common tract. 3. Since the PRD will become mandatory for short subdivisions, subdivisions, and multiple family developments the implied option is misleading. SUGGESTIONS: be: DEFINITIONS 18.45.090 Sensitive Areas Tracts 1. In development proposals for planned residential or mixed use developments, short subdivisions or subdivions, applicants shall create sensitive area tracts, in lieu of an open space tract, per the standards of TMC 18.46.080. 2. Applicants proposing development, involving uses other than those listed in (1), on parcels with sensitive areas or. their buffers, may elect to establish a sensitive areas tract which shall a) If under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership, which assures the protection of the tract;. or b) Held in common ownership by multiple owners who shall collectively be responsible for maintenance of the tract; or c) Dedicated for public use if acceptable to the City or other appropriate public agency. 18.06. A Sensitive Area Tract means a tract which is created to protect the sensitive area and its buffer, whose maintenance is assured, and which is recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots and subsequent owners. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW DATE: 18 JANUARY 1990 SUBJECT: PIPING OF WATERCOURSES The Council requested a discussion of possible uses, other than the ones currently listed, that would require piping of a watercourse. The Uses and Standards section of the SAO tells an applicant what use will be allowed in a watercourse and also establishes design and construction standards for those permitted uses. The current Council draft is proposing to allow: 1. maintenance and repair of existing uses or facilities; including access roads, streets or utilities. 2. construction of new access roads, streets or utilities. (What about reconstruction or expansion of existing roads, streets or utilities ?) 3. non - destructive education, research, passive recreation or open space. 4. and surface water management structures or regional water detention areas. 5. watercourse enhancement, mitigation, or maintenance. 6. any use which has received exception approval per TMC 18.45.115. 7. diversion or re- routing subject to standards 8. City of Tukwila flood control or water quality enhancement or maintenance. Uses not specifically permitted outright are private uses of property according to the zoning. There are three options for addressing these uses, one of which is #6 above Planning Commission review of a reasonable use exception. Option 1. Reliance on public review of a reasonable use exception Without piping as a permitted use, the likely development scenario would be consideration of diversion of the course (unless the watercourse involves a ravine, in which case filling and piping would be more economical) and then if additional area is needed, a request for a variance of the required buffer. If denial of a buffer variance and or re- routing leaves an applicant with an undevelopable property, then a reasonable use request may be made. The variance and exception procedures, require hearings and therefore would be more complicated, costly and time consuming than an outright permitted use or administrative exception process. Option 2. Revise to an administrative review of a reasonable use exception. An alternate procedure would be an administrative review that would allow piping if all alternate development scenarios have been exhausted and all reasonable use were denied. Criteria for . administrative approval would be similar to the criteria in the draft's existing reasonable use exception section. Option 3. Allow piping as a permitted use but subject to specific design criteria that address capacity, quality and fish habitat; similar to existing language `-A CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /SS• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, CLARIFYING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1544 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council, on November 20, 1889, passed Ordinance No. 1544 declaring a moratorium on development on properties described as sensitive areas, and WHEREAS, questions have been raised as to the Council's intent indefining "Development" and in describing the area affected by the moratorium, and WHEREAS, the moratorium appears to work unnecessary hardship on certain property owners or developers who had applications or processes pending on the effective date of the moratorium which applications or processes were not specifically excepted from the operation of the moratorium, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify and amend Ordinance No. 1544 to cure these uncertainties and hardships, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1544 was passed as an emergency ordinance effective immediately and to pr vent the hardships referred to, it is necessary that this ordinance be effective im sly. • NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY . OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: k It was and is specifically intended by the rail that the definition of " contained in Section 1.8 of Ordinance No. 1544 be construed as broadly as possible to indude processes relating to land use, specifically including but not limited to those mentioned in Ordinance No. 1544, SEPA applications and Board of Architectural Review applications. It was and is intended by the that the moratorium apply to all parcels containing a "sensitive area" and not that it th only to e ° �snsi ive area' itself. In furtherance of this clarification, Sections 2.A and D of Ordinance No. 1544 are amended to read in full as follows: A. No development shall be permitted to occur on any parcel of property in Tukwila, Washington, containing any area designated as a sensitive area or as open space dung the moratorium which is established by this ordinance. No permits allowing such development shall bra issued during such moratorium. D. All applications for development specifically , but not limited to, new pem�t applications, rezones, or plats (regular or ) on any property in T ukwila, Washington, described in paragraph A above, submitted during this moratorium shall be refused and not processed untl! this moratorium has terminated. Section 3. Specific Conditional Exceotio0s. There shall be added to Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1544 new paragraphs E, F and G as follows: E. In addition to Paragraph C above, all development for which there were specific applications pending on November 20, 1989, and which do not impact the "sensitive area" or its "buffer" as those terms are defined in the October 25, 1989 Sensitive Area Ordinance, may continue to be processed during the period of the moratorium provided the applicant and the property owner, if different from the applicant, execute for recording an agreement that all such continued processes be subject to the provisions of any Sensitive Areas Ordinance passed before the termination of this moratorium and acknowledging that such is continued at their request and at their risk and expense. The agreement must also state that it is understood that regardless of the continuation of such pending processes, application or requests for any other processes required for the project but not specifically applied for by 5:00 p.m. November 20, 1989, will not be accepted or processed during the moratorium period, unless•it is clear on the face of such applications that the process applied for will not impact such "sensitive areas" or 'buffers" except that under no circumstances will a new application for a building permit be accepted. For those who feel the moratorium on their property is careati • an undue hardship for financial, personal, or other reasons, they may • I • in writing to the City Council. A date for the Council to hear that • , , • will be set by the Council President. In considering the petition, the Council will bear in mind . the intent of the moratorium; the best interests . of the .City weighed against the interests of the individual; the circumstances and hardship caused by the moratorium; and the damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. F. An additional exception to the moratorium shall be granted to those 12,000 square feet or lesser sized R-1 properties which are already developed with a single family home. G. An exception process is hereby established for any property owner for whom the moratorium prohibits acting on an issue that constitutes a hazard or threat to the safety of people or property. 1. The applicant shah submit an inception request ' to the Director of Community Development, explaining the threat to or property, the expected results from inaction, and a plan for with the threat. 2. The Director of Community lopment shall consider the exception appeal, and may r sccienntlfc, technical or other reports for verification of the Mina 3. The Director of Community Development .shall respond to the request for exception within three business days of receiving both the exception application and any additional information requested . If immediate response is dictated try the circumstances of emergency, a more timely response will be given. a. In no case will an exception be given for wholesale clearing and/or grading actionn such as ring al of hazardous vegetation such as only _Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force imiately Ordinance No which establishes emergency development on on certain prooperty within the City. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this /R day of , , 1989. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: APPRO OFFI F THE C AT196INEY; By ED AS TO FORM: FILLED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 1.2 - /9 Y 9 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; /.2 , 99 PUBUSHED: - a'7 ' 9 EFFECTIVE DATE: i - / - 9e ORDINANCE NO.: /sso City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Flesher, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez. Representing the staff were Moira Bradshaw, Molly Headley, Darren Wilson and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 9 & 16, 1989 MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 -2 -CA - SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE - Planning Commission deliberation on adoption of an ordinance for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the status of the Sensitive Area Ordinance, thus far. She reported that the Council approved the moratorium ordinance and the establishment of a Citizen Advisory Committee for review of the SAO. Discussion ensued on the merits of a Citizen Advisory Committee at this stage of the SAO review and the role of the Planning Commission in this process. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPOINT JACK FLESHER AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued as to role of the Planning Commission in the SAO review process and the best way to communicate the concerns of Commission to the City Council. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND EXPRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS TO THE COUNCIL, AS DISCUSSED AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Ms. Bradshaw introduced Bob Benedicto, DCD Plans Checker, to explain the use of consultants in the plans review process. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Benedicto explained the plans review process and when a consultant's expertise is required. Ms. Bradshaw explained another alternative which is a three party contract. She discussed the merits of this approach. More discussion ensued on the Sensitive Area Ordinance and how much time and effort the Commission should spend on it in its present form. Also discussed was the role of the SAO Citizen Advisory Committee and Commission's role. The Commission felt that a new SAO ordinance needs to be drafted using the Planning Staff and input from the SAO Citizen Advisory Committee, they would then forward this information on to the City Council. MR. HAMILTON MOVED MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION TO REJECT THE PROPOSED SAO IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE HE FELT THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED HASTILY, AND NOT A LOT OF THOUGHT WAS PUT INTO IT AT THE TIME OF ITS DRAFTING, HE FELT THAT THE IMPACTS THAT IT IS GOING TO HAVE ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA ARE GREAT, AND AS BROUGHT UP AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PURCHASED PROPERTY YEARS AGO AND WHO HAVE COUNTED ON THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY TO BE THERE- -THEIR RETIREMENT STAKE, SO TO SPEAK, THEREFORE, HE FELT THEY DESERVE CONSIDERATION; HE FELT THE AMERICAN WAY IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY AND THIS IS NOT COVERED IN THE ORDINANCE ADEQUATELY; HE FELT ALSO THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT COVER THAT IF THE CITY WANTS THE PROPERTY TO BE A SENSITIVE AREA IN TERMS OF FOLIAGE OR IN TERMS OF WETLAND, THEY HAVE GOT TO BE PREPARED, IN HIS JUDGE- MENT, TO COME FORWARD WITH A PLAN FOR THE PEOPLE AS TO HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE HANDLED SPECIFICALLY, SO PEOPLE ARE NOT LEFT HANGING; HE FELT, AS ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT EACH AREA THAT WOULD BE DESIGNATED THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE A SENSITIVE AREA WOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT ON ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL MERIT, AND HE FELT THE SAO SHOULD STATE THAT - -YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH A PANACEA AND SAY THAT ITS GOING TO COVER ALL WETLANDS AND ALL GREENBELTS AND ALL HILLSIDES - -IT'S GOT TO BE A SPECIFIC SITE BY SITE EVALUATION; AND, AS ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING, HE FIRMLY BELIEVED THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN APPEALS PROCESS, FOR THOSE WHOSE LAND IS DESIGNATED AS A SENSITIVE AREA, AS THEY OUGHT TO HAVE A RIGHT AND PROCESS WHEREBY THEY CAN COME TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND HAVE THEIR PSEUDO DAY IN COURT WITHOUT HAVING TO ACTUALLY HIRE LAWYERS AND GO TO COURT. FOR THOSE REASONS, HE WOULD AGAIN MOVE THAT WE REJECT THE PRO- POSED ORDINANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SEND IT INTO THE HANDS OF THE COMMITTEE - -OF WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE A MEMBER; AND WHEN THIS COMMITTEE HAS GOTTEN THROUGH WITH THEIR EVALUATION AND IS PREPARED TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND OFFER THEIR PROPOSAL, THAT PROPOSAL WOULD BE OFFERED TO THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION FIRST, BEFORE IT IS GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL IN A FASHION THAT AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE NORMAL WAY OF DOING BUSINESS. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 3 THE MOTION PASSED WITH CAGLE, GOMEZ, KIRSOP, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTED YES; AND MR. FLESHER VOTING NO. It was determined after further discussion that the Planning Commission will next evaluate the SAO when the SAO Citizen Advisory Committee comes to them with a report. It was the consensus of the Commission to meet two nights per month to meet the work program needs of 1990. 89 - 8 - DR - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK - PHASE II A request for a determination on parking requirements for Phase II of Crystal Springs Park. Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report, recommending approval of the proposal without requiring addi- tional parking spaces. Don Williams, Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department Director, further explained the project, pointing out that the existing parking for Phase I is not fully utilized, therefore he does not see a need for additional parking for Phase II. Carl Stixrud, architect for the project, discussed the elevations in the area of the project. John Barnes, 15828 51st Avenue S. has a difficult time getting home due to the congestion on the street next to the basketball court due to the narrow width of the street at that point. He was concerned with parking in front of his property which would be created as a result of the addition of Phase II. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO REJECT THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PARKING PLAN IS INADEQUATE AND FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT A PLAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMIS- SION THAT REFLECTS ADEQUATE PARKING FOR FIVE OR TEN YEARS IN THE FUTURE, BASED ON REASONABLE GROWTH (USAGE) FOR THE PARK. MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEZ, KIRSOP, FLESHER, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTING YES. MR. CAGLE VOTED NO. 89 -10 -DR & 89 -3 -CUP - BECKER TRANSFER - Request for permission to build a parking facility for employee parking and semi -truck trailer parking. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 4 Ms. Molly Headley, staff representative, reviewed the design review portion of the request, recommending approval with two conditions which include deletion of the site's entry point off East Marginal Way and the placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas. Mr. Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc. represented the ap- plicant, reviewed the history of the operation. He pointed out on a site plan the relocation of the driveway which will reflect a distance of 80 -foot from the neighbor's house to the south. This site plan was entered into the record as Exhibit "A ". He asked that the Commission approve the entry on East Marginal Way. He further described a catch basin and street improvements planned for the site. Mr. Edwin Becker, owner of the operation also asked that access onto East Marginal Way be approved. Ms. Shirley Robinson, 13422 - 40th Avenue S. explained that King County allowed for spot zoning for this operation to go in. She asked the Commission to postpone the hearing on this proposal so other neighbors in the area would have an opportunity to testify. She also felt that his operation was an eyesore. She further stated that King County's requirements for his operation have been ignored and no amount of landscaping would improve the situation because it is lower than surrounding neighbors. Mr. Bill Scheffler, 4033 S. 128th spoke in opposition to the proposal. He felt that insufficient public notification was given which resulted in only a few given the opportunity to voice their objections to this request. He felt that this request would result in the expansion of this business to a truck leasing and sale business. He read from a report, entered into the record as Exhibit "B ", of prior King County action, and reported that the conditions of approval were never met. A letter in opposition to the request from Beverly A. Nicholson was entered into the record as Exhibit "C ". He also read into the record a letter of objection from Paul and Betty Gully, entered as Exhibit "D ". A letter from Janice Scheffler was entered as Exhibit "E" with an attached photo as Exhibit "F ". Allan Ekberg, 4123 S. 130th also wanted the hearing postponed so others could speak, as there was lack of proper notification of the hearing. He felt the proposed landscaping was not adequate due to the 13.5 foot height of the truck /trailers. He suggested landscaping be placed on a berm to increase the height of the landscaping and screening effect. He mentioned the noise and traffic impacts this operation would have. • Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 5 Barbara Davidsion, 4020 S. 128th, felt Mr. Becker kept his operation up and felt the neighbors were being unfair in their criticism of Mr. Becker. Mr. Gary Evans, 4020 S. 128th felt the noise of the Becker operation did not compare to the airplane noise. He also felt that there are not that many trucks parked there. Kathy Stetson, 13258 - 40th Avenue S. felt that this request constituted an expansion of his operation. She further stated that storm drainage was not adequately addressed, and expressed concern with traffic impacts on East Marginal Way. She felt there was not much confidence in him to abide by the Commissions wishes due to his past record in ignoring King County's condi- tions. Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering explained that the request would not result in expansion to a truck sales and leasing. It was for his business only that trucks needed to be purchased and sold. The sign, he stated, is located on the original location - -not the property currently in the review process for design review and conditional use permit. He assured the Commission that Mr. Becker would comply with all City standards. Mr. Pat Becker, Becker Trucking, stated that people top their trees used for landscaping for Christmas trees. Regarding noise, he felt their trucks made less noise the Detroit Diesels trucks. Mr. Mann reiterated the landscaping buffer will be adequate and tractors on the property will only be used to take trailers off the property. The Public Hearing was closed on the design review portion of the request. Molly Headley reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit and the criteria used in granting the permit and how this ap- plication addresses these criteria. She stated staff recommends approval for the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that the applicant agree to a Cash Assignment of 150% of the cost of landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance, to be installed per the BAR plan, and to be installed in six months. Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering, explained the street improve- ments and storm water drainage facility planned for East Marginal Way. He felt this request is a lower density use compared to other allowed uses. He stated the applicant concurs with all conditions imposed by the City. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 6 Allan Ekberg, stated that no permit was obtained for the sign for truck leasing and sales, and if they are allowed to park trucks on the proposed property, it will free up room to park more trucks on the original site - -thus potentially increasing their operation. It will provide a more intense use of their operation. He felt conditions should be placed by the City to prohibit expansion of his operation, truck leasing and sales should not be allowed. Wants the City to establish a baseline for the amount of trucks in their operation to ensure compliance. Jeff Mann assured the Commission Mr. Becker will accept whatever conditions the City wishes to place on their operation. The public hearing was closed and a short recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Discussion on the proposal ensued. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE BECKER TRANSFER AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MR. CAGLE AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDED THE BUYING AND OF VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. SELLING MR. CAGLE AMENDED THE MOTION TO ALSO INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO A CASH ASSIGNMENT OF 150% OF THE COST OF LANDSCAPING TO INCLUDE MATERIALS, LABOR AND MAINTENANCE, TO BE INSTALLED PER THE BAR PLAN, AND TO BE INSTALLED IN SIX MONTHS. AMENDMENT SECONDED BY KIRSOP AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 -3 -CUP KIRSOP MOVED AND FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW 89 -10 -DR - BECKER TRANSFER SUBJECT TO STAFF CONDITIONS. Conditions read as follows: 1. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit for review a revised site plan indicating the follow- ing: a. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way. b. Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas. KIRSOP AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF THE LANDSCAPING SCREENING WILL BE AT. LEAST 10 FEET, TO BE ACHIEVED BY INCREASED TREE HEIGHT OR BERMING. FLESHER SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Joanne Johnson, Secretary Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 7 89 -6 -SPE - METER SIGN CO - Request for special permission for a permanent wall sign of 20 square feet for A House of Clocks. Darren Wilson, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report for this request, recommending approval. Paul Ramquist, Meyer Sign Co. further described details of the sign. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 89- 6-SPE MEYER SIGN CO FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR A PERMANENT WALL SIGN OF 20 SQUARE FEET, BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO RE -ELECT FOR 1990 THE SAME SLATE OF OFFICERS AS THIS YEAR (MR. HAGGERTON AS CHAIRMAN AND MR. CAGLE AS VICE - CHAIRMAN). MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Ms. Bradshaw advised that the Council is considering amending the moratorium ordinance to allow continuation of some of the exist- ing applications. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for January 25, 1990. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Thursday, December 14, 1989 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AGENDA I CALL TO ORDER 11 ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 9, 1989 AND NOVEMBER 16, 1989 IV OLD BUSINESS Public Meeting CASE NUMBER: 89 -2 -CA: SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE • Public Hearing Testimony • Elect Planning Commission representative to Citizens' Advisory Committee (see attached resolution) • Discuss SAO schedule and work tasks V NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing CASE NUMBER: 89 -8-DR: CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE II • Determine parking requirement for Phase II of Crystal Springs Park CASE NUMBER: 89- 10- DR/89 -3 -CUP: BECKER TRANSFER • Obtain approval for Conditional Use Permit and design review of an employee auto and truck parking facility. Public Meeting CASE NUMBER: 89- 6 -SPE: MEYER SIGN COMPANY, INC. • Special permission for a permanent wall sign of 20 square feet: VI ELECTION OF OFFICERS VII DIRECTOR'S REPORT V111 ADJOURNMENT JOANNE JOHNSON . (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project_ 89 -2 -CA AFF Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on File Number SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE OF 0ISTR I "UT I0N hereby declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Other Other MONDAY. DECEMBER 11, 1989 , 19 . Signature/ 8�e�u -ux- CITY OFTUKFVILA 620( .SOUTIICENTERBOULE1':1RI), TUK1171.:1. a•:tSII/.VGTU.V miss December 1, 1989 John C. Strander 415 West Mercer Street #703 Seattle, Washington 98119 Subject: Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Mr. Strander: 171r)\'E a 12061 7 ;.: Ixnrr Thank you for reviewing and commenting on the above proposal. I appreciate the time you must have taken to provide the Commission with the detailed points you have made. Your letter was entered into the Planning Commission public hearing record as Exhibit I at their November 16, 1989 hearing. The City Council has established a committee to review some elements of the ordinance; therefore final recommendation from the Planning Commission will not be expected before March of 1990. ( ;rm 1. l'unlhasrn, ,tfaeor You made some good points that will be considered in the deliberations and redrafting by the Planning Commission. You also had some questions regarding the intent of the Draft SAO which I would like to try and answer for you. Vested development rights come from building or subdivision applications to the City. If a piece of property is rendered unbuildable due to the sensitive area overlay, development would be allowed without need of Board of Adjustment approval. It is unlikely that mistakes made in past developments can be undone. However the information becoming available on water quality will lead to enhancement efforts in our wetlands and watercourses and possible development of these types of ecosystems; recognizing that they are cost effective functional methods of water treatment. The regulations and standards would apply equally to public and private development unless noted otherwise in the ordinance. Section 17.20.020, paragraph 2, regarding tree plantings only refers to new subdivision of property. The sensitive area overlay zone does not itemize any specific vegetation controls except that a natural buffer of vegetation be retained adjacent Yours truly, Aw6,c,‘,‘ . sibi(F Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner to watercourses and wetlands and that vegetation should be retained where at all possible on hillsides. When and if development of property is proposed these performance standards would apply. The City does not have a clearing and grading ordinance which would more appropriately deal with concerns regarding regulation of vegetation maintenance, removal and planting. A clearing and grading ordinance is a part of the Surface Water Work Program that the City is implementing and is in the process of being developed. The concerns you mentioned, as well as others expressed by other members of the community, will be used to develop a draft for public review. The purpose of course is not to become intimately involved in individual landscaping of property but to educate and control destructive effects of vegetation removal such as clear cutting vacant land and to provide standards for vegetation removal and retention in responsible site development. Please remember that the legislative process is a mobile one and that the Planning Commission will be making changes to the draft copy you have and then the City Council will be reviewing and possibly changing elements of the proposal. Continued involvement is important to have an understanding of the final product. CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /s71 ' 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the current zoning and land use regulations of the City of Tukwila relating to certain areas within the City are inadequate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and the environmental quality of such areas, and WHEREAS, the City Council has referred the issue of further land use regulations for such areas (referred to as "sensitive areas ") to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearing, and WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible Officer for the City has made a determination that such further regulations would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a DNS with regard thereto, which determination is currently the subject of certain appeals, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a first public hearing on such issues on November 9, 1989, and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1989, voters approved a King County bond issue to authorize the acquisition of certain property located within the boundaries of the City of Tukwila for open space, and the Planning Commission and the City Council need adequate time for careful consideration of and input to the "sensitive areas' ordinance, and time to allow acquisition of the bond open space areas, and WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible Official for the City has determined that such a moratorium is exempt from SEPA procedures pursuant to WAC 197 - 11 - 800(20), and WHEREAS, after notice duly given, a public hearing on the issue of a moratorium was held before the City Council on November 13, 1989, at which time all those wishing to speak were heard, and WHEREAS, action must be taken immediately to avoid an imminent threat of public health, safety, and welfare and to prevent an imminent threat of serious environmental degradation pending final action by the City Council and King County. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions. A. "Moratorium" shall mean a time period of six months from the effective date of this ordinance during which no development shall be permitted. B. 'Development" shall include any clearing, grading, filling, building, or any similar or related land use activity whether or not any permit or prior approval is required, and shall include any activity or procedure for which apphcation must be made to any department or board of the City of Tukwila. C. "Sensitive Area" means any wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas, and abandoned coal mine areas, all as defined in the Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance dated October 25, 1989, on file at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. D. "Open Space" means those areas in Tukwila designated in the King County bond issue approved by election on November 7, 1989, a description of which is on file with the City Clerk which description is hereby incorporated herein. Section 2. General Requirements. A. No development shall be permitted to occur in any area designated as a sensitive area or as open space during the moratorium which is established by this ordinance. No permits allowing such development shall be issued during such moratorium. B. The moratorium established herewith shall be . temporary in nature, shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance, and shall run until midnight on May 13, 1990, unless sooner ended or extended by action of the City Council. C. The moratorium shall not prohibit development for which the necessary final building or subdivision or short plat permits or approvals have been obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance or for which completed applications for a building permit or for a subdivision or short plat have been filed with the appropriate officials of the City prior to such date. D. All applications for development specifically including, but not limited to, new permit applications, rezones, or plats (regular or short) in a sensitive area or open space area submitted during this moratorium, shall be refused and not processed until this moratorium has terminated. Section 1 Severability. If any portion of this ordinance is found or rendered invalid or ineffective, all remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. Penalty. The general penalties provided for in the Tukwila Municipal Code shall apply to any violations of this ordinance, and any person, firm, corporation, or association failing to comply with any of the provisions hereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage as an emergency ordinance in order to consider and adopt new land use regulations for sensitive and open space areas. PASSED BY THE CITY WASHINGTON, THIS „la DAY OF ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFI - OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: WITH THE CITY CLERK: /1- a c - 8 9 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; I I - a o- "9 PUBLISHED: // • .2 4 - $' 9 EFFECTIVE DATE: / l _ .tl ' Y 17 ORDINANCE NO.: 43 UNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, 1989. AfR APP" iir - 1 / 441 1, C r'•: n, • : yo i (Zik.A. 1111" 4'200 /124-.27Z. . 4, 4)4. 9, 5 fie0r1: 7Y'�. 7Y�.r d.; 414:14. / � 1 - 6.2 4)4.7111 S u13J: d24z icsLsr t-. P9 01i3 CITY OF TUMIiA CITY CLERK /3 % ..e L_/ CA C1.L f -1;c ‘1.4x4e*ct.e41,C-oxsUAAh co-2:6 Zoolt y ipt.)111 ezu.;,e_.tid)%e.tAe Ad4o.d4,G,:f•e•t.e/+ ? Uzi 19 si,3 a e 44. �t ., , rt . • L c7t4 ,ei!t4, a-)Lp Z;yae4b241.0 4et),U4, .Z4.44 f Qom. .. '6'Lit& 1Ale -•'€7 ■4444 Zat tOtt /64.Opez/ /elee) Jr, 4‘ ,14.4+ ,14/ .7.�..� w — PW,U' 4 a/xdi .hut► .4tscc�� �r•rC., 4LL ' a4EZ .06441444) 1,44)./ney, yr4-741, ati,x4A4),e4,A).,44.4:4g1+ (1) ItOV ,A4.-41t41! ; ad..A.e 4.1,c4"*.e.taLd PI .9 o#3 -444e) 44) (1) ,9eLLL7, ezia.".4_24e-t ,4 -17 ,eedyEA4.4,-, az Ai* ,ie ,5 ./i2ezLt, (3) et,L ,tolie 0,24; COCZt 04.adr C-10(4%. ) ■ LiZt aZt4e.t Alnit- ■a-st.e a 0. C. e,4 yoilues 1Zi 0.cdt 7 244444.t;,1,.,e,v , eidLowis) / ..1.1471-te.se.xt 01044)-/x..4-e a.ZZ: ted/244.3/.1," _444 azzaie. id:41 - )•144): /vierez ezzr,L,te !Li NOV 2 0 'q89 CITY C MYRA To ,20o . `J& . 98 /ff FROM : 74 Ad. ,t .A h L ie. o, . � l}900 62L ', 9f /‘ 8 Su P ,BT : D�IL��.�: a, �e��- rxOO�Q J ..tom 7 a/ Q, r old 2' ,d 7 /s °, vvtLa -tom. 0-72) �vtz.r. arr a y . ?ma) x.94;4) ,z eA .eJ eyfrte.z, ,ac/14.072*de.e.1). O . ...lexale i.ac tt- . � ov. /G, /y8y. 414) /lipffe,t) 72o1i / 8', /?7 R. JACK STEPHENSON BASIL L. BADLEY NICHOLAS R SCARPELLI, JR. JOHN M. MONAHAN RICHARD J. PADDEN TIMOTHY J. PARKER WILLIAM T. ROBINSON PALMER ROBINSON CHARLES N. EVANS STEPHEN C. SIEBERSON JOHN D. SPELLMAN CHARLES E. PEERY DANIEL W. UNTI STEPHEN L. NOURSE T. JEFFREY KEANE FREDERICK M. ROBINSON A. RICHARD MALONEY CLIFFORD A. WEBSTER JOHN C. MOORE STUART C. ALLEN JOHN W. WOLFS I ) OV 17 1989 President Tukwila City Council Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Moratorium on Development in Areas Identified in Proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Madam President: Yecro ©#,,e.s o CARNEY, STEPHENSON, BADLEY, SMITH & SPELLMAN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 2300 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 TELECOPIER: (206) 467.8215 CABLE: INTERLEX TELEX: 321270 CARSTEPH TELEPHONE: (206) 622.8020 November 17, 1989 DAVID W. BEVER DAVID C. BRATZ SHANE C. CAREW MARK E. CAVANAGH RONALD A. FRANZ JOHN P. GRIFFIN JAMES E. HORNE MICHELLE HITOMI HURLEY CATHERINE A. JOHNSON PATRICK R. LAMB JAMES E. LOBSENZ SYLVIA LUPPERT THOMAS G. MORTON RUTH NIELSEN IAN A. RODIHAN GARY P. TOBER ANNE WEHRLY ROBERT P. WILLIAMSON WILLIAM M. WOOD G/ JOHN C. HUSTON DONALD R MARINKOVICH TED R. KATTERHEINRICH THOMAS F. KELLY ELVIN R CARNEY (1904-1984) We represent Elmer J. White and Wallace Enterprises, a general partnership in which Mr. White is a partner. Our client owns ten (10) acres of property included within the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and which therefore would be subject to the moratorium tentatively proposed by the City Council and discussed at the public hearing on Monday, November 13, 1989. At that hearing, Robert W. O'Connell, Jr., P.E., of Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc., consulting engineers for Wallace Enterprises and Mr. White, pointed out that the property owned by Wallace Enterprises was originally in King County, and that efforts to develop the property had commenced more than 18 months ago with an application to King County for a grading permit. He encouraged the City to allow those persons who had made application with substan- tial compliance for existing building and grading permits to proceed with development of their property, and to re- strict the moratorium to the issuance of new building and grading permits, stating that that course of action would cause the least financial impact to developers and other persons affected by developmental costs, including ultimate Tukwila City Council November 17, 1989 Page two consumers; and that such a limitation would be fair to those persons who were originally in King County and have most recently become subject to the ordinances of the City of Tukwila; and would also accomplish the apparent intent of the City Council in avoiding a rush to the Building Dept. in anticipation of the adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and would avoid the unnecessary result of tying up development for persons who have made timely application for building or grading permits under the law in effect at the time their applications were submitted. Mr. O'Connell emphasized that an application for a building permit is usually not appropriate until the grading work has first been accomplished, which is indeed the case with the Wallace Enterprises property. Wallace Enterprises is thus in the situation of having applied for a grading permit and also of having initially sought it from King County when its property was then subject to the jurisdiction of King County. We assume its situation may not be unique, but it does require special review. Others at the hearing testified against any use of a moratorium for the reason that the moratorium would apply to all properties within the proposed Ordinance, when in fact the final ordinance will likely be more narrow in its scope, thus subjecting development of properties not included within the final ordinance to unnecessary delay, and necessarily, additional cost because of that delay. Based upon the testimony of those persons who appeared as proponents of the moratorium, we believe the City's objectives could likely be accomplished by a limitation of the moratorium to those specific areas identified as open space properties by King County, as proposed by one or more of the proponents of the moratorium. If the Council believes that course of action does not adequately address its concerns, and the City is still concerned about a rush to the Building Permit Dept., it could accomplish its objec- tive by limiting the moratorium to consideration of any new applications for grading or building permits and allowing those persons who already have applied for such permits to proceed in the normal course of business or adopt this Tukwila City Council November 17, 1989 Page three MCS:ee cc: Rick Beeler Larry Hard. Elmer J. White approach in conjunction with an absolute moratorium on properties identified as open space properties. Very truly yours, CARNEY, STEPHENSON, BADLEY, SMITH & SPELLMAN, P.S. Milton C. Smith E X E C U T I V E SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOV. 16, 1989 REGARDING SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE. ACTION TAKEN: Unanimously adopted motion recommending that the City Council postpone action on the moratorium until after receipt of their recommendation on the SAO. Closed public hearing. Continued to Dec. 14, 1989 to deliberate. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (New points not made previously) * Exclude specific properties. * No data supports the SAO. * Emergency is not defined in the moratorium. * City not borne burden of proof in SAO. * Staff can handle development; don't need SAO. Existing process works. * City has no rights to impose SAO. * SAO definitions not specific enough. * Protect the environment. * Need waiver process in moratorium. * Need process of appeal from sensitive areas designation. * SAO background reports and map were not officially adopted. * SAO gives too much authority to Director, DCD. * Start over and do it right. * Need 10 - 12 member citizen and professionals committee. * Current conditions aren't always "natural ". * SAO appears aesthetically motivated. * Damage to environment already done. Why do SAO? STAFF IMPRESSION: The Commission is willing to work with the Council Ad -Hoc Committee amendments until March when their recommendation must go to the Council in order to meet the moratorium May deadline. The Commission is willing to give their best shot at a recommendation to the Council. Specifics of the SAO will be less than what the Council wants. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor V DIRECTOR'S REPORT VI ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, November 16 1989 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall AGENDA I CALL TO ORDER II ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 9, 1989 IV NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing on Sensitive Areas Ordinance CASE NUMBER: 89 -2 -CA REQUEST: The City of Tukwila proposes the adoption of a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code, and amending the subdivision and environmental codes to reflect the proposal. Regulation will: 1. Designate as sensitive: a. watercourses, b. wetlands, c. slopes of 15% and greater, and d. abandoned coal mines. 2. Establish vegetative buffers for sensitive areas. 3. Create development standards for sensitive areas. TO: Gary Van Dusen From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 14 November 1989 Subject: Proposed consultant services for hillside development standards. Attached is the proposed scope of work to be discussed with the ad hoc council committee formed to review outstanding sensitive area concerns. They will be meeting on Thursday, 16 November at 5:30. s you recall, Mae Harris, Clarence Moriwaki, and Dennis obertson volunteered to meet to clarify and expand the scope of he SAO. The attached is a result of their request and attempts address their concerns. The time frame for the work would be through December and into the first half of January 1991. BACKGROUND GOAL CONSULTANT ROLE Tasks: Scope - Site Planning and Illustration Services Hillside Development 13 November 1989 Tukwila is concerned about hillside development and its attendant characteristics of stability, erosion, and aesthetics. Existing development standards are uniform throughout the city and are not tailored to the unique contour and high visibility of sloping property. A draft sensitive areas ordinance has been prepared and is in the public review process. The ordinance will be an overlay zone for property sloping 15% or more and proposes design, location and construction standards. Additional standards to augment the regulations are desired. Project goal is to create and illustrate realistic prescriptive regulatory standards which promote safe, unobtrusive and aesthetically harmonious developments which blend with the natural northwest hillside. To provide technical and illustrative skills in developing implementable land use regulatory standards and preparing illustrations which demonstrate the effect of the standards. Single family residential and apartments shall be used for examples. Elevation perspectives and cross - sections will be used to demonstrate different construction techniques and to develop regulatory standards. 1. Analyze the recent developments in Tukwila of Silverview and Mapletree single family subdivisions and Heatherwood and North Hills apartments to determine the following: *Number of buildings *Building footprint square footage *Ratio of bldg to site area *Driveway and parking lot square footage *Ratio of pavement area to site area *Undisturbed area *Retaining walls - height & length *Cut and fill square footage *Sloped areas 1 -14 %, 15 -39 %, 40% and greater `{ J 0 • Work Products Present information in a chart to compare results. 2. Meet with City staff and staff selected contractors to {gip discuss results from Task 1 and design aesthetic problems associated with developments. Meeting will summarize concerns and design goals. 3. Develop prescriptive site and design requirements using the sensitive slope standards of the draft SAO and the summarized G-L /O concerns from Task 2. Standards to be considered could include lot coverage maximums, height restrictions, landscaping requirements and alternative siting techniques such as clustering. 4. Prepare reproducible presentation off -site elevations /perspectives of the Silverview and Northhill sites. The number of perspectives and cross - sections shall be sufficient to provide choices to the decision- makers on each of the above standards developed. 1. Chart summary of items listed above in Task 1 of four developments. 2. Written summary of design problems with the four sites based on task 1 and meeting with staff and contractors. 3. Prescriptive zoning code standards that solve design problems. 4. Approximately 2 cross- sections of North Hill and Silverview sites and 4 elevation /perspectives to illustrate proposed design solutions. , Time Frame: Five weeks from start of contract. Project Cost: Include in your proposal cost estimates for above tasks, hourly rates for project personnel and project schedule. E X E C U T I V E SUMMARY November 13, 1989 ISSUE: PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE. The current draft of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( "SAO ") was presented in executive summary form to the Commission and public. The following are the highlights of the testimony and comments by the Commissioners: Councilman Morawaki led off testimony and expressed the Council's support of the draft ordinance. Upon questioning by the Commission he also stated that he represented the Council in his comments. This disturbed the Commission and led to the comment that if the Council has decided the issue already, what useful purpose is there in the Commission's review and recommendation. Complaints were expressed about the inappropriateness of his testimony. Three geotechnical engineers testified and offered free time to help us draft the ordinance. They also stated that no geotechnical support exists for limiting development on slopes exceeding 40% slopes. One said that "40 %" came from the limit on which soil could be plowed. The draft was viewed as generally better than that of other cities. Performance standards, not set numerical limitations, were advocated. From 1 to 2.5 years is needed for their free input. Emotionalism was warned against. Citizens advocated for a sufficient public input process instead of the currently percieved hasty process. More technical assistance was~also recommended. Aesthetics were viewed as the apparent real reason for the ordinance. The taking issue /challenge was raised. A wildlife biologist suggested that the required "wetland value assessment" takes too long (4 - 5 years). He also stated that the buffering requirements should be reevaluated to emphasize the amount of vegetation, not a specific demension. The Seattle landslide study, on which a lot of emotionalism about the SAO is based, was updated to apply mostly to hillsides artifically loaded with uphill drainage. It was recommended that hazardous areas be distinguished from sensitive areas. Page 2 An ordinance to decide the vesting issue was suggested. Recently the Bellevue Natural Determinants Ordinance was ruled a taking. Some support for the ordinance was expressed in order to give the City time to buy property per the King County open space bond issue. The SAO was viewed as too sweeping of an ordinance that put too much financial burden on property owners. , A second opinion of another geotechnical engineer was opposed. The Seattle Audubon Society and the Department of Ecology favored a 100 -foot buffer from major wetlands instead of the SAO 40 feet. The SAO concept was favored because it set rules where none now exist. Exceptions from SAO requirements were not favored. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED TO 8PM NOVEMBER 16, 1989. Time for deliberations was scheduled for 7pm December 14, 1989. STAFF IMPRESSION: 1. Morawaki's testimony cast a shadow over the public review process. 2. The Commission is not hurrying their deliberation and wants to hear everyone. 3. The offer of free geotechnical engineering advice and citizen requests for a task force may be irresistable for the Commission. 4. The Commission and 99% of those who testified support the SAO concept. 5. BOTTOM LINE - the SAO review process will be extended by the Commission. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Mr. Kirsop was absent. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Flesher, Knudson and Gomez. Representing the staff were Rick Beeler, Planning Director, Moira Bradshaw, and Joanne Johnson. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 1989 - Chairman Haggerton requested that the minutes of November 9th be considered for approval at the December 14th meeting, along with the minutes of the November 16th meeting. He requested that the November 9th minutes reflect that the meeting was recessed (not adjourned). Mr. Cagle requested the minutes reflect that Mr. Moriwaki responded to a question posed by both he and Mr Hamilton; and that the word "generally" be stricken from the record. Mr. Haggerton felt that the statements Mr. Moriwaki made regard- ing his views representing the views of the entire City Council were regretable. 89 -2 -CA - SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE - Public Hearing for adoption of an ordinance for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code. (Continued from November 9, 1989). Chairman Haggerton reopened the public hearing. A letter from METRO by Gregory M. Bush was entered into the record as Exhibit "G "; a letter from Earth Consultants by Robert Levenson was entered as Exhibit "H "; and a letter from John Strander was entered as Exhibit "I ". Mr. Bruce Solly spoke in reference to property located at 51st and 52nd Avenue, north of Southcenter Blvd, approximately. He felt that the City designated this property as sensitive in error, and asked that it be removed from the sensitive area map. He demonstrated what a 15% slope looks like. He did not want the development of his property delayed by the City Council's pro- posed moratorium. This would result in undue financial hardship. Planning Commission November 16, 1989 Page 2 Myrtle Robertson, 14859 - 51st Avenue S. questioned the City's rationale in designating a slope as a sensitive area. She felt that the development process would uncover any potential problems that might occur in development on a steep slope. She wanted her rights as a property owner respected and felt that the SAO re- presents a taking. She also stated that the City has not accepted offers made by professionals to assist in developing the SAO. Al White, attorney, 14202 - 149th P1. S.E. Renton, 98055 spoke in opposition to the SAO. He owns six acres on 56th and felt the City designated his property as sensitive in error and wanted it excluded. He questioned the rationale used by the City in designating his property as sensitive. He also questioned the legality of the draft SAO, and asked that there be input from professionals before it is adopted. He asked that a right of exclusion clause be incorporated for development already in progress. Responding to a question of clarification by Chairman Haggerton, Moira Bradshaw clarified the definition of streams and water courses. Teresa Louden, 16056 Pacific Highway S. explained that in her native Switzerland, all houses are built on hillsides. She felt the City should offer compensation to property owners for any economic impacts that would result from the SAO. She commented that the Planning Department can successfully handle sensitive issues in the development process. She further commented that the SAO interferes with the basic right of citizens to develop property to its highest and best use. She criticized the City for creating this hardship on citizens. Craig Hittle, 4631 S. 138th Street, Tukwila, spoke in opposition to the SAO. He questioned the definition of "watercourse ", "sensitive area" and "15% slope ". He expressed concern with the financial impacts the SAO will have on retired citizens, small contractors, and developers. He feared tax dollars will be spent on costly and lengthy court battles as a result of the SAO. He felt the SAO was vague and ambiguous and property already owned would be rendered useless. Walter Kaczynski, Spieker Partners, 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bel- levue, owners and developers of Tukwila Pond property, entered into the record as Exhibit "J" a preliminary channelization plan to be used in Phase II of Tukwila Pond. He outlined the develop- ment, thus far, of the area around the pond. He felt the exist- ing planning process works just fine the way it is and setback requirements from the pond are adequate. He recommended that this project be exempt if the SAO is adopted, and also that other projects be considered on a case be case basis. Planning Commission November 16, 1989 Page 3 Louise Strander, 15000 57th Avenue S. pointed out that her property is located across the street from the City's reservoir project. She commented that the slopes the City is using in this project exceed the 15% slopes in the SAO and the consulting engineer said that this was safe. She felt that it is therefore unfair to designate her property, which is located across the street, as sensitive. She felt that the quality of the soil should be considered in designating property as sensitive. She favored a slower pace in the SAO process, and that citizen input should be used, just as in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Catherine Harris, 5610 S. 141st Street described the topography of her property. She objected to a sensitive area designation for her property. She noted that the City Council did not officially adopt the wetlands inventory document used in the SAO draft. She favored allowing the voters to decide on designations of sensitive areas. She discussed methodology used in SAO. She favored a "do not pass" recommendation to the City Council and that they start over again, using professionals as well as citizen input. Marie Gardner, 14112 57th Avenue S. commented that her property will be rendered worthless if the SAO is passed. She felt that the SAO would prohibit her from removing trees on her property. She favored citizen input. Bruce Solly asked if staff is suggesting that an emergency exists. Mr. Beeler replied that there is no emergency. Ralph Hatton, 3935 S. 113th, favored an appeal process. He also suggested careful consideration be given in using the definitions for designation of property. He asked that a case by case method of consideration be used. He also asked that wetlands be deline- ated by borders and wanted a clearer definition of buffers. He also felt that professionals and citizen input be used in forma- tion of SAO. Dharlene West, 5212 S. 164th favored the SAO but felt it needs more work, such as input from professionals and citizens. She suggested 10 to 20 in this group of professionals. Phil Swanberg, 17809 - 51st felt the SAO needs further review. He felt the list of trees was narrow. He felt more options for use of the land should be offered by the City and the City should offer solutions and assistance. He further commented that quality of life as well as financial impacts should be considered as well. Planning Commission November 16, 1989 Page 4 Scott Clark, residing in Kent, but whose family lives in Tukwila, spoke in opposition to the SAO. He stated that our national system of government is a democracy. He didn't feel a majority has decided on what areas should be designated as sensitive, nor that a majority wants an SAO. A 5- minutes recess was called at 10:09. Bruce Solly felt the moratorium should come to the Planning Commission for review before adoption by the City Council. He felt the SAO map and moratorium are tied together. Cheryl Brown, Sterling Recreational Organization, 15820 Pacific Highway S. questioned the City's rationale in defining "streams" and "watercourses" and the impacts they have. She emphasized that they should not be penalized for the transportation of their neighbors' stormwater through their property. She favored a technical approach to determine where these sensitive areas are, and what they are, in the City of Tukwila. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:25. Chairman Haggerton announced that the next meeting is to be held December 14, 1989, at 7:00 pm where the Planning Commission will complete deliberations on the SAO and make a recommendation to the City Council. Discussion ensued on what action is appropriate on the moratorium ordinance. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL THAT THE COUNCIL WITHHOLD ANY ACTION ON THE MORATORIUM REGARDING THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE PENDING RECEIPT OF THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, PRESUMPTIVELY SHORTLY AFTER THE NEXT MEETING. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Beeler stated for the record that there may be some obstacles to overcome due to the closure of the public hearing by the City Council, but he would strive to convey their recommendation in the best way possible. Chairman Haggerton closed the meeting on 89 -2 -CA but explained that the deliberations on the recommendation would take place at their next meeting on December 14, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Beeler reviewed some of the issues the Planning Commission will be considering in December and items included in the work plan for 1990. Planning Commission November 16, 1989 Page 5 Joanne Johnson, Secretary ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p. Respectfully Submitted, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Flesher, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez. Representing the staff were Rick Beeler, Planning Director, Moira Bradshaw, and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 26, 1989 MINUTES AS PRESENTED. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 - - CA - SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE - Public Hearing for adoption of an ordinance for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, clarified the role of the Plann- ing Commission and hearing process. He further stated that this hearing would be devoted to testimony on the proposed Sensitive Area Ordinance only. Mr. Knudson felt that ample time should be taken and extreme care should be given in order that a fair and equitable decision be made in developing the ordinance. Discussion ensued on this issue, as - well as the City Council's upcoming meeting on a development moratorium. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the various aspects of the proposed Sensitive Area Ordinance. She entered into the record as Exhibit "A" the Sensitive Area Report, Executive Summary and Draft Ordinance. She then discussed the need for an SAO, what it would encompass, and the review process. Chairman Haggerton opened the public hearing at 8:36 pm. A letter from Dr. I. David Hong, MD, dated October 27, 1989, was distributed to members of the Commission and entered into the record as Exhibit "B ". A letter from Barbara Ritchie, Department of Ecology, dated November 8, 1989 was also distributed to the Commission and entered into the record as Exhibit "C ". Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 2 Clarence Moriwaki, 14951, 57th Avenue S., Tukwila WA, spoke in favor of the SAO and preservation of valuable sensitive areas. He felt any delay in passing the ordinance could result in valuable wetland resources being lost. He discussed how without this ordinance, the quality of life here could degenerate to the areas and rivers around Los Angeles. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Cagle, he stated he spoke for the City Council as a whole. In response to a question as to the compensation for the property owner affected, he felt that if it is indeed determined to be a taking, it could be appealed or at least they can develop the rest of their property just fine. John Koloski, engineer for GEO Engineers, 2405 - 140th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, spoke in support of the adoption of the SAO. He felt that the draft SAO developed by the staff was a good one with some modifications. He felt that the approach for develop- ment for areas identified as sensitive should be on a site specific basis not a "carte blanche" by ordinance. He felt that if the sensitive areas are for the general benefit of all, then these properties should be purchased outright. He advised against confiscation of property by ordinance. He offered his services in development of a good SAO. Terri Harris, 615 Second Avenue, Suite 535, Seattle, represented two groups, "Seattle Committee of Design Specialists" who would be users of this type of ordinance; and "Property Owners for Property Rights ". He criticized King County's ordinance and felt that experts should be consulted in developing a good ordinance that will stand up in Court. Ann Nichols, represented Segale, Inc., P.O. Box 88050, Tukwila. She felt that technical advise is needed as well as the input from a citizens advisory group in developing a SAO for the city. She felt that development alternatives should be given for the development of steep slopes, and other difficult sites. She further felt that some sensitive areas could be moved in order that the highest and best use of the site could be made. Al White, attorney and owner of a parcel located in Tukwila and designated as sensitive, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance, if passed, would render his prop- erty valueless and would therefore constitute a taking. He stated examples where he felt his land was unjustifiably desig- nated sensitive. John Welch, 270 S. 133rd, owns 12 acres on Pacific Highway S. located in the Cascade View Annexation area. He also spoke in opposition to the SAO stating that the passing of the SAO would adversely impact development of his property tremendously. Therefore, he will oppose annexation into the City of Tukwila. Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 3 A recess was called at 9:45 p.m. for five minutes. Cheryl Brown, represented SRO, at 15820 Highway 99. She submitted a letter from SRO dated November 9, 1989, which was entered into the record as Exhibit "D ". She stated that while she was sup- portive of the City's intent to improve the quality of environ- mental protection and to preserve the valuable natural charac- teristics of the community, careful consideration should be given in developing an SAO and its effects carefully evaluated. She pointed out discrepancies in designating their property as sensitive. She also felt that not much of their property would be left to develop after taking into consideration all the area that has been designated as sensitive. She favored using techni- cal advice and a citizen advisory committee in developing the SAO. Ken Raedeke, Raedeke Associates, 4106 Stoneway N., Seattle, WA 98103 is a certified biologist and did an assessment of the SRO property. He described the assessment process, methods used and felt that his study concluded the property was not justifiably designated as sensitive. Bob Levinson, 1805 - 136th P1. N.E., Bellevue, WA 98005, President of Earth Consultants also conducted a soils study of the SRO property and concluded that the soils are stable at that site and therefore felt it was incorrectly identified as sensi- tive by the City. He strongly suggested the City consult profes- sionals in drafting this ordinance. He pointed out weak areas in the ordinance and offered his services in developing a strong and creditable ordinance for the City and community. Gary Huff, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA represent- ed "Performance Income Properties" who has interests in property in Tukwila. He felt care should be taken so that the ordinance does not result in confiscation of property. He made reference to already existing regulations such as the Comprehensive Plan. Matt Cavanaugh, 6221 S. 151st P1., Tukwila is a professional engineer. He felt the draft ordinance was well researched and reasonable. In his professional capacity, he deals with land acquisition all the time. He felt that the City should not be afraid of adverse condemnation or a taking - -that this occurs often and should not be a deterrent to preserving Tukwila natural resources. Steven Wheeler, 6321 S. 151st P1., Tukwila, is actively working to preserve the wetland and sensitive areas in his neighborhood. He strongly supports the ordinance and feels time is of the essence in retaining these natural resources. He referred to the recently passed King County initiative which will ensure that Planning Commission November 9, 1989 Page 4 valuable wetland areas and other sensitive areas will be pur- chased in order to preserve them. M. Catherine Harris, 5610 S. 141st questioned the fairness of the SAO. She felt it is vague and ambiguous. She felt that in- dividual rights need to be considered, especially when this type of legislation severely impacts people who have planned their financial security around a particular use of their property, only to have it taken away by this ordinance. Joe Miles, Seattle Audubon Society, 619 Joshua Green Bldg., Seattle, spoke in support of the ordinance, however he felt it was not strict enough nor was it specific enough. He entered into the record as Exhibit "F" a letter from the Seattle Audubon Society dated November 9, 1989. He suggested a 100' setback for major wetlands and 50' setback for minor wetlands be incorporated in the ordinance. He further stated that too many exceptions will render the ordinance ineffective. Bruce Solly stated that he has interest in property in Tukwila. He felt this property has been inappropriately designated as sensitive. He felt that the City Council's action on the pro- posed development moratorium will prevent him from developing his property as planned. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to delay the ordinance until input can be obtained from a citizen advisory committee and that the moratorium be delayed until proper citizen notification takes place. He asked that in the future, the City make more of an effort to personally address a formal notice of action as impor- tant as this. Mr. Beeler clarified that the City Council would hold a public hearing on Monday evening on the proposed development moratorium with the following Monday evening for a scheduled vote. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Beeler reviewed some of the issues the Planning Commission will be considering in the near future. It was determined that the Planning Commission will continue the public hearing on the SAO until Thursday, November 16, 1989, at 8:00 pm. It was further determined that one meeting be scheduled for the month of December which will take place Thursday, Decem- ber 14, 1989 beginning at 7:00 pm. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was recessed at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Thursday November 9, 1989, at 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: Planning Commission Public Hearing CASE NUMBER: 89 -2 -CA REQUEST: The City of Tukwila proposes the adoption of a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code, and amending the subdivision and environmental codes to reflect the proposal. Regulation will: 1. Designate as sensitive: a. watercourses, b. wetlands, c. slopes of 15% and greater, and d. abandoned coal mines. 2. Establish vegetative buffers for sensitive areas. 3. Create development standards for sensitive areas. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday October 29, 1989 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners, File Dear Mr. Beeler: Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 November 8, 1989 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY , NOV 9 1989 Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance and the proposed sensitive areas overlay zone within the zoning code. Draft Ordinance Page 2, 18.06.938. The labels "major" and "minor" wetlands describe a wetland in a manner that may not be appropriate in all circumstances. Minor wetlands may be considered insignificant, inconsequen- tial or small. In fact, one minor wetland in Tukwila's in- ventory is greater than 10 acres and has three habitat types. Value laden labels sometimes make it difficult to justify protection of lower value wetlands to the public and to the courts. Based on the experience of other local jurisdictions who have used value laden labels and switched, we recommend more general labels such as Category A, B, and C. (See fur- ther comments on wetlands definition below.) Draft Ordinance Page 3, 18.45.010(1)(b). The definition for "wetlands" established earlier in the or- dinance describes marshes, bogs and swamps utilizing the regulatory definition of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Excluded from this definition are open water areas and water courses. While water courses have been picked up separately as a sensitive area, open water areas such as those found in the "major wetland ", Tukwila Pond, will not be covered. We recommend either substituting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's definition of wetlands which covers open water areas to six feet in depth, or defining ponds as sensitive areas. Draft Ordinance Page 4, 18.45.040(2). The proposed wetlands and water course buffer widths are too small to carry out the objectives in (1)(b). Most of the literature related to water quality impacts on aquatic sites illustrates that adverse impacts occur at distances less than 100 feet. Depending on the sensitivity of the wetland, Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 2 adverse impacts may also occur at greater distances. The literature related to wildlife habitat likewise indicates that greater distances may be necessary to protect the habitat needs of certain species. The departments of Wild- life and Fisheries should be consulted for an accurate as- sessment. A 100 foot buffer should be the minimum that is required ad- jacent to major wetlands in Tukwila, which may be adjusted upward based on the criteria outlined in part 4. The 25 foot buffer for minor wetlands should be adjusted upward, at least for those with a rating of 2. Twenty -five feet is inadequate to accomplish much more than a visual separation between a development and a wetland, and should be reserved only for those isolated wetlands with ordinary habitat value. Draft Ordinance Page 5, 18.45.080(2)(a). The proposed ordinance language will allow the city to autho- rize use and development in wetlands which is offset by "en- hancement" or "mitigation ". Based upon the limited studies of restoration and creation projects to date, there is scien- tific consensus that no wetland can be duplicated or repli- cated exactly because of the complexity of natural systems. From a scientific perspective, much is still unknown about how wetlands function, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Even less is known about how to restore or recreate certain wetland types and functions. Careful monitoring of wetland restoration /creation projects is rare, resulting in little . data to base specific cause and effect relationships. Conse- quently, those designing wetlands and those evaluating plans are operating with very limited technical guidance. Because of the uncertainty surrounding wetlands creation, it is important that mitigation be defined according to and fol- low the sequence outlined in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules definition of mitigation. As defined in the SEPA Rules, mitigation may include changing project plans or selecting alternative sites to avoid or reduce adverse im- pacts, using preferred construction or management practices to reduce on -site and off -site effects, or compensating for unavoidable wetlands losses. To ensure this, we recommend that the general provisions be modified to state: "No use or development may occur in a wetland or watercourse except where such use or development is unavoidable and unavoidable impacts have been compensated through deliberate wetlands creation, restoration, or enhancement." Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 3 The following definitions are recommended: "Mitigation" includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wetland impacts. This includes: - Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; - Minimizing unavoidable impacts by limiting the magni- tude of the action; and - Compensating for unavoidable, minimized impacts by re- placing or providing substitute wetland resources or en- vironments. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project induced wetland losses, and includes, but is not limited to, the fol- lowing: "Restoration" - Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by: a. Past alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland, or b. Recent permitted alternations or activities where restoration is a condition of the permit. "Creation" - Actions performed to intentionally estab- lish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly occur. "Enhancement" - Actions performed to improve the condi- tion of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. Finally, it is important that you establish clear standards for adequate mitigation that address location, timing, kind, and acreage. If you feel that it is more appropriate to as- sess mitigation on a site -by -site basis, the ordinance must express a clear goal for all mitigation proposals. We strongly recommend that you adopt a goal of achieving no overall net loss of wetlands, as defined by acreage and func- tion, and in the long -term, to increase the quantity and quality of the city's wetlands. This goal has been endorsed by Governor Gardner and has been adopted in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 4 If you have any questions, please call Mr. Bill Leonard of the Wetlands Section at (206) 438 -7161. BJR: cc: Bill Leonard Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section A F F I D A V I T I, JOANNE JOHNSON Notice of Public Hearing (I Notice of Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet ( J Planning Commission Agenda Packet [[ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [J Notice of Application for Q Other Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project File Number OF DIST hereby declare that: [] Determination of Nonsignificance ( J Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON BUILDING ON LAND IDENTIFIED AS SENSITIVE AREA 89 -a -cA Signature NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will he held on Monday, November 13, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. The City of Tukwila will hold this public hearing on a proposed ordinance placing a temporary moratorium on the clearing, grading, fill or development of any lot designated as a wetland, containing a watercourse, or on a slope of 15% or greater. The purpose of the short -term moratorium is to allow careful consideration of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance now being developed, as well as to preserve those lots that may be designated as open space if voters approve the King County Open Space bond. Maps are available for your inspection at the Department of Community Development (DCD), Tukwila City Hall. For further information regarding the proposed moratorium, please contact the DCD at 433 -1849. ‘4).67 7 What are sensitive areas? Sensitive areas include wetlands, water- courses, steep hillsides, and areas of potential geologic instability. The latter group includes hillsides over 15% with moderate or high landslide potential; areas with high seismic hazards, and areas that contain old coal mines. Why do we need an SAO? Most land in the flat and easily developed parts of Tukwila has already been developed. The remaining land is generally on hillsides, or has streams or ponds on the property. State law now requires us to provide protection for wetlands and watercourses. In addition, we must decide on the type of city Tukwila will be in the coming years. What does the SAO do? When a person wants to clear, fill or develop a sensitive area, he or she must comply with certain restrictions to protect the sensitive areas. On hillsides, applicants must study the soil stability to ensure development will be safe not only for their property, but also for the neighbors. Streams and wetlands (ponds) must not be filled, but are to be preserved and worked around. Will I be prevented from developing my property? All property owners can develop their property based on the provisions of the ordinance. The ordinance has allowed certain flexibilities and benefits beyond the normal development process if a sensitive area is involved. Every land owner will be allowed a reasonable use of their property, or can appeal if there is no reasonable use. Common Questions about the Sensitive Areas Ordinance Listed below are some common questions about the intent and effects of the draft sensitive areas ordinance. What can I do to my current home if it has a sensitive area? You can keep your current house that's built on a sensitive area. You are allowed to remodel your home as long as you don't build any further on the sensitive area. Will my sensitive area become open to the public? No. No public access is allowed on private property. Is the SAO being used to stop development and get free open space? The SAO does not stop development. Devel- opment is still allowed, but developments on sensitive areas that would damage the envi- ronment or potentially harm people or property will be carefully controlled. It is definitely not the intent of the ordinance to either stop development or to preserve open space at the expense of the private property owner. Is there any tax benefit for me if I have a sensitive area? The current draft allows property owners who do not develop their sensitive areas to pay a lesser tax on the portion of their property that has sensitive areas. The sensitive area can be taxed at the lower "open space" rate. How can I know jf there are any sensitive areas on nw property? The City has maps of the approximate location of sensitive areas. You can talk to staff and see the maps at City Hall any time on weekdays between 8:30 and 5:00. (0 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Common Questions about the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (continued) Does the SAO tell me what color to paint my house? No. The SAO does not address the color of your house or any other building. Who can 1 call for information? Technical information is available at 431 -3680. For a copy of the SAO, come to City Hall or call 433 -1800. How can 1 tell the Council what 1 think about the SAO? Whether you support, oppose or want specific changes to the SAO, the Council wants to hear from you. Letters and phone calls are welcome. Formal public hearings before the Council will be held April 22nd and 24th, with additional dates if needed for all the testimony. Will my opinion be listened to by the City Council? The City Council has drafted an ordinance that they believe balances the rights of developers with preservation of the environment. They have repeated many times their desire to pass an ordinance based on what citizens want. They will listen to your comments at the pub- lic hearing. 1 Definitions from the SAO "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities as defined in the Geo- logic Hazards Evaluation Report by GeoEngineers dated May 1990, on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and including the following: 1. Class 1 areas, where landslide potential is low, which slope less than 15 percent. 2. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is mod- erate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively perme- able soils. 3. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 4. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with map- pable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 5. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. "Watercourse" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construc- tion of such devices. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds, lakes and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered wetlands for the purpose of this Chapter. However, those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands as permitted by the City shall be considered wetlands. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433.1800 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION SENSITIVE AREA REPORT November 3,1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 BACKGROUND 4 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN 5 SENSITIVE AREAS 8 PROPOSED LEGISLATION 12 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 13 CONCLUSIONS 15 ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance B. Hazelnut * C. Sensitive Areas Brochure * D. Sensitive Areas Map * E. Wetlands Inventory * F. Jurisdiction Regulation Matrix G. Buffer Examples * Attachments B through E are not reproducible within this report format. Please review copies available at City Hall. SENSITIVE AREA REP( T INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to: • provide the background for the ordinance • explain the policy basis and purpose of the ordinance • define Sensitive Areas and the function of the ordinance • identify the effects of the Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) PLANNING PROCESS Page 2 The City Council adopted the Sensitive Area Ordinance project as part of the City's budget work plan for 1989. Existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan goals, policies and objectives were evaluated. Similar SAO ordinances in the Puget Sound Region were reviewed. Sensitive area information was studied. Wetland biologists were hired to inventory wetlands within the City and pending annexation area. City drainage maps were verified and a field inventory of watercourses was conducted. In September 1989, City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the inventory of sensitive lands and discussed basic regulatory policy issues. Consensus was achieved on the following issues and drafting of an ordinance continued. 1. Wetlands of less than an acre should be preserved subject to a major and minor cate- gory of wetlands with only minor wetlands subject to alteration and a city -wide goal of no net loss. 2. Existing wetlands and watercourses can be used for stormwater management subject to detention and sediment filtration prior to discharge into the natural system. 3. Watercourse relocation will be allowed subject to an approved plan prepared by a qualified professional if it is necessary to allow reasonable use of the subject site and the hydraulic and habitat capability is preserved or improved. 4. Culverting or piping of watercourses will be allowed for driveways when there is no other means of access and bridging must be considered as an option. 5. No transfer of a property's allowable density will be permitted from sensitive to non - sensitive portions of a site. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Due to the city -wide impact of the proposal, a broad informational process was planned. All businesses and residents of the City were mailed the City's September 1989 edition of the Hazelnut, a quarterly report on city affairs and upcoming events (Attachment B). An article on the Sensitive Areas project informed the community of upcoming review, and explained what the City considers to be sensitive areas and the proposed changes to the zoning code. SENSITIVE AREA REFC1T Page 3 A Sensitive Areas informational brochure was mailed to every property owner of the City. The brochure defined sensitive areas, explained the purpose of the legislation, and requested citizen involvement by advertising the public workshop and the Planning Commission public hearing. Notice of the Planning Commission Hearing was published in the Valley Daily News, the City's official paper. Coverage of the issue has also occurred in the local section of the Valley Daily News. Tukwila's Planning Commission, an appointed body of resident and corporate citizens, will hear public comments and make recommendations to the City Council. SENSITIVE AREA REP( :T .; BACKGROUND Pa e 4 Tukwila is a mature suburban city with development occurring on an in -fill basis or through redevelopment. The Puget Sound region is growing and the remaining sites in the City, which are difficult to develop, are rapidly developing. The abilities of the area's natural resources (wetlands and open stream systems) to serve the community's needs, are being depleted or functionally overburdened and need to be protected. Approximately 13% of the City's land area is vacant land. Many of these sites have some sensitive feature. As the more sensitive sites are developed, the need is apparent that unique standards applicable to steep hillsides and water resources are necessary to preserve the natural landform and water systems to control physical hazards, erosion and storm water treatment costs. Storm water quality depends on natural drainage systems. The Puget Sound Water Qual- ity Authority Management Plan and the Green - Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Water Quality Early -Action Plan are regional planning efforts which focus on the critical needs of the drainage basins within which the City is located. Recommendations, including local adoption of land use regulations, similar to those being considered, will be requested of the City as local solutions needed to solve a regional problem. Property owners of the City are financially responsible for storm water runoff. The pro- posed land use regulations are efforts to control and minimize the public costs of treating polluted storm water. Companion legislation which creates standards for clearing and grading of property is essential to achieve the purpose of the legislation, and is being prepared by the Tukwila Public Works Department. The local environmental process, referred to as SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) is an information gathering process intended to give decision - makers the environmental documents needed to approve, condition or deny any application for a permit based on environmental impacts. SEPA does not however provide standards to protect valuable resources and use of SEPA for this purpose leads to ad hoc land use regulation. Although the intent of the community is clear, the ambiguity of individual policies and the lack of regulatory language, which translates the goals of the city into development language, leads to inconsistent application of policies from development site to develop- ment site. SENSITIVE AREA REP( '.T Page 5 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN Land use planning leads from Comprehensive Plan (Plan) goals to implementing stan- dards and regulations. The following is an analysis of the Plan's policies and objectives and the purpose of the SAO ordinance. GENERAL GOALS General Goal 5 (page 12) ...Strike a balance between economy and environment. While the City should encourage development and strive to provide a healthy economic climate, it should be sensitive to the natural limitations and hazards imposed by the physical envi- ronment and the tremendous natural amenities which that environment affords. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT GOAL 1. (page 15) Gauge development of the land in a manner suitable to the natural environment. GOAL 2. (page 15) Use and preserve the natural features and resources of the physical environment in a wise and posterity - oriented manner. GOAL 3. (page 15) Protect and enhance the natural amenities and aesthetic resources of the Tukwila area for the public's welfare. These policies reflect the City's desire to preserve what exists naturally in the environ- ment. Objective 1. (page 24) Recognize the aesthetic, environmental, and use benefits of vegetation and promote its retention and installation. Policy 1. (page 24) Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabilization. Vegetative buffers are integral to the functioning of the natural systems which SAO protects and regulates. In addition, the aesthetic and stabilizing value of vegetation on hillsides is recognized. Objective a. (page 25) Promote the retention and preservation of certain highly suit- able areas for wildlife habitat and natural areas. Policy 1. (page 25) Strive to retain viable areas of wooded hillsides, ...wetlands, streams,.... for wildlife habitat. Objective 3. (Page 25) Recognize the advantages and opportunities afforded by the topography and plan its use accordingly. Storm water is polluted with fertilizers, oils and sediment, but the natural water systems of the City can filter pollutants as they travel through our watercourse system to the SENSITIVE AREA RE( 1T + Page 6 Green /Duwamish River. Tukwila should utilize the ability of existing natural systems to economically treat stormwater. Policy 1. (page 26) Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent. Steeply sloped land is unsuited for a wide range of uses and after a certain point only for very limited development. Policy 3. (page 26) Preserve and promote the quality of natural landform. Land should be used as it lies rather than significantly altered to conform to the desired use. Objective 4. (page 27) Realize the ability of natural streamways, ponds and marshes to handle storm runoff while acting as significant natural amenities. Policy 1. (page 27) Where possible keep streams in as natural a condition as is practicable. Policy 3. (page 27) Strive to achieve high water quality in the streams, lakes, and rivers of the Planing area. Policy 4. (page 28) Encourage the preservation of marshes and ponds for the retention of storm water runoff. Streams function as carriers of storm water and providers of amenities and habitat. Preservation reduces water pollution and buffers protect these streams from the adjacent construction activity and urban uses. The Residential Element of the Plan has a policy which discusses mutual cooperation between governmental jurisdictions regarding land use decisions. Water quality is a regional issue, the proposal would create minimum land use standards similar to other jurisdictions to improve and maintain water quality. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES ELEMENT Policy 12. (page 74) Minimize the adverse environmental impacts of existing and future roadways on the natural environment. The SAO minimizes environmental impacts by permitting only "essential" rights -of -way and utilities in sensitive areas. Objective 6. (page 85) Provide an adequate and cost - effective method of preventing property damage from local storm water. Piping stormwater creates higher runoff rates which damage downstream watercourses by scouring the banks, changing the course, and altering the vegetation pattern. SENSITIVE AREA REP( 'T C ` Page 7 Policy 2. (page ) Encourage a part structural, part non - structural storm sewer system. Natural constraints may force structural solutions, but nonstructural solutions are more beneficial. Objective 7. (page 87) Coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies for solutions to storm water control in the Green River Watershed. Water quality is a regional issue because our drainage basins are shared with King County, the Cities of Seattle, Sea -Tac, Renton and Kent. The waters we impact are not only Tuk- wila's. Consistent regulation of land use is necessary for solutions to the problems. Man -made drainage systems are expensive, require continual maintenance, heighten runoff rates, and raise storm and river flows. Nonstructural solutions control runoff at the source, reduce peak runoff rates and keep flows down. Existing rivers and streams are a less costly drainage systems. SUMMARY Policy 3. (page 87) Consider nonstructural as well as structural solutions to storm water control. Care of the environment is a major concern of all elements of the Plan, balanced with the desire for economic growth and regional cooperation. Clearly, the community wishes to preserve sensitive areas where at all possible. The City's current definition of an environmentally sensitive area is a State definition which says: "... an area designated and mapped by a city .... Certain categorical exemptions (from SEPA review) do not apply within environmentally sensitive areas. " Tukwila's current map of "environmentally sensitive areas" uses the designation of "Special Development Consideration" which includes the following: ..." areas of steep slopes, water surface and agricultural lands. This designation does not preclude development, rather it depicts areas where urban development must respond sensitively to certain environmental factors." Staff must interpret what is sensitive treatment of these areas and specify what documen- tation is needed to define appropriate constraints. The SAO would clearly articulate the City's priorities and informational needs and resolve the generalities of the Plan. SENSITIVE AREA RECRT SENSITIVE AREAS WETLANDS Page 8 Regulatory solutions are tailored for the location and type of sensitive areas in Tukwila. This section describes the sensitive areas of the City which are generally shown on Attachment D. The City hired the environmental firm of Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. to identify and describe the wetlands in the City. (Attachment E) A total of seventeen sites were identi- fied. Over half the sites are located within railroad, utility, and road rights -of -way. An overall rating of 1, 2 or 3 (with 1 being the highest value) was given to each of the sites based on the number of wetland classes, size of wetland, percent of vegetated buffer, per- cent of edge buffered, educational /recreational potential, and amount of disturbance. National agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency have provided the leadership on the issue of wetlands inventory, preservation and regulation. In January of 1989, the three federal departments reached a consensus on the definition and delineation of the edges of a wetland. The defi- nition adopted by the three has been proposed for adoption by the City. The function and value that wetlands perform for the public are widely known and gradu- ally becoming fully understood. A long term program to study urban runoff impacts on wetlands is currently being conducted by King County. In general, the following list characterize wetlands. 1. Flood storage and conveyance - Whether isolated or adjacent to watercourses, wet- lands prevent flooding by performing retention and detention services. 2. Sediment control - wetlands reduce flood flows and the velocity of flood waters which reduces downstream erosion and traps sediment. 3. Water Quality - Wetlands improve water quality by removing excess pollutants washed by rainfall from urban land such as soil particles, fertilizers pesticides and grease and oil from cars and trucks. Due to the density of our urban environment, each car and each lawn multiplied by hundreds of thousands creates a tremendous impact. 4. Food Production - The vegetation in wetlands becomes nutrients for the aquatic food chain both within the wetland and for areas downstream. 5. Habitat - Wetlands are obvious breeding, nesting, feeding and predator escape habitats for many mammals, waterfowl and reptiles, in addition, almost 35 % of all rare and endangered species are either located in or dependent on wetlands. SENSITIVE AREA REP( :T Page 9 6. Education / Recreation - Because of the important function these areas perform for the quality of our urban environment and the habitat function these areas perform, they provide unique aesthetic opportunities. WATERCOURSES Staff used existing City Drainage Basin maps to provide a general location, then inven- toried streams to provide a description of the type of topography and condition of the City drainage systems. The watercourses were generally found to be unobtrusive, inaccessible, sometimes trash filled and sometimes very pleasant. They all head to the Green /Duwamish River and spill into the river via pipes with flap gates. There are three creek systems which consist of multiple tributaries and several other watercourses whose names are unknown. 1. Gilliam Creek runs from the Lewis and Clark entertainment complex, along the SR 518 and I 405 freeway and outlets at the Green River on the upstream side of the I-405 bridge. 2. Southgate Creek runs through the Foster, Riverton annexation area under SR 599 and Interurban Avenue and outlets into the Duwamish on the upstream side of the 42nd Avenue bridge. 3. Mill Creek runs from undeveloped Riverton Hospital property under Pacific Highway, through Riverton and into the Duwamish River on the upstream side of the SR 99 bridge. There are two general characteristics of watercourses in the City: 1. deep ravines with rocky bottoms and steep gradients and 2. flat, grassy, shrubby channels that often follow roads, other transportation corri- dors or the base of hillsides. The first type of system tends to be wet while the second type was very often found to be dry during our dry season. According to residents in the neighborhoods, fish have until recently lived in Mill Creek and have lately been reintroduced by the Sabey corporation. Fish were also noted in a watercourse in the Fostoria Basin. All of the systems are channeled into pipe for some length of their journey due to the road system or due to development. The inventory was taken during August, when the watercourses are driest and when the cover of blackberry bushes and shrubs are thickest. Water quality, habitat, flow rates etc., were not measured merely observed. SENSITIVE AREA REP( :T ( Page 10 The definition, similar to those used by other jurisdictions, excludes the Green /Duwamish River because there currently exists a special overlay zone to protect and preserve the river. The definition, which includes a channel with a bed and banks, is not meant to include or protect storm runoff devices, but is intended to protect natural or altered tribu- taries of the drainage basin within the City. The function of watercourses are similar to wetlands. 1. Drainage - watercourses are the natural pre - existing drainage ways for surface water as it flows over land to Duwamish /Green River. 2. Water Quantity and Quality - Similar to wetlands an open drainage system versus a piped system will trap and filter the contaminants from the water. The land underneath and around a stream bed will also act as a sponge and storage area. 3. Water Flows - The natural debris, vegetation and meandering pattern will reduce the velocity of water flows. 4. Habitat - The Puget Sound region is an area known for its salmon and trout which use the watercourses to spawn. The watercourses also have a higher animal concen- tration then other areas due to the vegetation and water. SLOPES An inventory of slopes of 15% and 40% is shown on a 600 scale map of the City and is available for public review. The representational slope map is based on scaled maps that have contour overlays that were generated from an aerial photo survey of the City taken by Walker and Associates. The choice of regulated slope was based on the experience and expertise of agencies who have reviewed the hazards of development and erosion from hillside construction in the Puget Sound region. Generally, 15 percent is the maximum allowable grade for safe vehicular access. In addition, a study of 47 landslides, that occurred in Seattle during the winter of 1971 -1972, 44 occurred on slopes exceeding 15% . The remaining 3 occurred on slopes greater than 10 percent. The more difficult issue of what slope over 15% should receive some greater level of scrutiny or protection is more difficult to quantify. However, there is a consensus among the technical professionals who have developed other ordinances that at 40 %, a greater level of scrutiny is appropriate. 1. Hazards - There are various types of risks associated with development. On hillsides those risks have been categorized into landslides and erosion. A landslide is a rapid movement of a mass of soil. The following interactive factors affect soil stability: • topographic slope of the surface of land, and • the layering of the soil or rock underlying the surface soil, and SENSITIVE AREA REP( :`.T Page 11 • the ground or surface water on the site which provides lubrication to cause the soil mass to move. Erosion is the movement of small particles of soil. Hillside development will produce increased rates of erosion runoff due to the slope of the land. In addition, factors which affect erosion - vegetation and topography - in turn affect slope stability as out- lined above. _. 2. Aesthetic - The image and character of the City are defined by the valley and the val- ley wall. The majority of the valley walls are adjacent to transportation corridors through the City and serve as transition between the industrial /commercial and residential districts and between residential neighborhoods and freeways. Tukwila and its surrounding region are characterized by the wooded hillside, which provide a sense of place for their residents and usually defines the edges of neighborhoods. BUFFERS The function of buffers are delineated in Section 18.45.040 of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A). As urban areas increase in density the buffers for wetlands and water- courses have a heightened responsibility for control and filter of a greater volume of runoff. The buffer for top of slope is established to prevent loading of a slope which is sensitive to sliding and at the toe of slope to prevent disturbance and to allow for potential future movement. A summary of similar buffer and sensitive area regulation in other surrounding jurisdic - lions is shown on Attachment F. SENSITIVE AREA REPC.T IMPACTS OF LEGISLATION REGULATING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LEGISLATION Page 12 Prior the subdivision statutes of 1969, property division of land for sale and development occurred throughout the region without knowledge of or without thought to the natural constraints on site. The proposal therefore has two purposes in mind: 1. Regulating the future division of land to design lots which are developable while pro- tecting sensitive areas; and 2. Addressing the development of existing lots and creating standards for development of properties with sensitive land. The Subdivision Code, adopted by the Tukwila in 1977, has an Environmental Considera- tions section, 17.20.020, which discusses the unsuitability of certain lands for subdivision. The proposal is a refinement of that section to update and bring consistency between it and the new zoning overlay. In addition, it strengthens the City's concern regarding tree reten- tion and requires revegetation standards to implement policies regarding subdivision of wooded hillsides. SENSITIVE AREA REP( `.T PROPOSED ORDINANCE USE BUFFER Page 13 The proposal does not change the underlying zoning, or use of a property. The proposal is an overlay zone, which lays on top of the existing zoning. The proposal says that you must protect any watercourse, wetland, a landslide hazard area or a slope exceeding 40% which may exist on your lot. The proposal includes the category of slopes between 15% and 40% because some may meet the definition of a landslide hazard area. In addition, this category of land, if stable, should be developed in a manner which recognizes and preserves the unique character of hill- sides. Slopes between 15 and 40% are not by themselves prevented from developing but are subject to the development standards on page 7 of the Draft SAO. The proposal establishes buffers adjacent to the above protected areas. Setbacks are required of most structures from property lines. The proposal would require a similar setback from the edge of a protected sensitive area. Setbacks from property lines may be coterminous with sensitive area buffers. See Atachment G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Tukwila's existing environmental ordinance requires that a review of the environmental impacts of development occur before any approval is given to a project. Certain types and sizes of development are exempt from this administrative procedure; however, exemp- tions do not apply if a property is located in an environmentally sensitive area. The proposal outlines in the Environmental Ordinance, Section 21.04.140, the type and detail of information that is necessary for environmental determinations. EXCEPTION An approximate map of the location of sensitive areas will be adopted as part of this ordi- nance. However, the precise location and makeup of sensitive earth conditions cannot be known until a detailed assessment is completed on a site -by -site basis at the time of devel- opment. There is the potential that the proposed standards of protection and buffering could prevent use of a property. While it is recognized that land use regulations can greatly affect property development, a taking of property rights does not occur unless there is no reasonable use left for a property owner. Therefore, administrative remedy for prop- erty owners so affected is developed in Section 18.45.120. If the proposal prevents a use of property, what will be the remedy we provide to that owner? The least intense use of land generally allowed in the Zoning Code is a single family residence. Although a single family home may be disruptive to the sensitive area and not meet the use and buffer standards, it would be the least destructive of uses gener- SENSITIVE AREA RERT Page 14 ally allowed. The lands affected by the ordinance are primarily in residential districts and therefore the exception process would provide a reasonable use for property owners. The exception to this are the wetlands located adjacent to the railroad rights -of -way on the valley floor. Standards such as for Mitigation Plans and the Sensitive Slope Conditions, page 12 and 7 respectively in the Draft SAO, attempt to control and minimize the impact. The alternative would be an administrative procedure that would establish procedure and criteria for monetary compensation for affected property owners. The choice is one of public cost to administer and buy affected areas versus the secondary costs to the community by allowing some form of development to occur in a sensitive area. SENSITIVE AREA RE `.T CONCLUSIONS Page 15 Balancing the competing community goals of environment and economic growth is the legislative challenge. The SAO provides the best environment to meet water quality stan- dards, provide for wildlife habitat, assume reasonable risk levels, ensure the aesthetic vision, while maintaining acceptable service levels. The SAO is based on the administrative experience of surrounding jurisdictions who have implemented similar standards and regulations for several years. The draft regulations however reflect Tukwila's unique natural systems, codes and operating procedures. It is expected that during the legislative process, variation in the Draft SAO will occur. Policies may be revisited due to public testimony and specific site analysis. Adjustments to the proposal will be made based on the information of interested agencies and commu- nity members. Q V' Orden a disc f Th e. � u6/ 1 , k t- CITY OF TUKINILA C- Henri r19 WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the current zoning and land use regulations of the City of Tukwila relating to certain areas within the City are inadequate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and the environmental quality of such areas, and WHEREAS, the City Council has referred the issue of further land use regulations for such areas (referred to as "sensitive areas ") to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearing, and WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible Officer for the City has made a determination that such further regulations would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a DNS with regard thereto, which determination is currently the subject of certain appeals, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a first public hearing on such issues on November 9, 1989, and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1989, voters approved a King County bond issue to authorize the acquisition of certain property located within the boundaries of the City of Tukwila for open space, and WHEREAS, a moratorium on all development Planning Commission and the City Council consideration of and input to the "sensitive allow acquisition of the bond open space areas, WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible Official for the City has determined that such a moratorium is exempt from SEPA procedures pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(20), and WHEREAS, action must be taken immediately to avoid an imminent threat of public health, safety, and welfare and to prevent an imminent threat of serious environmental degredation pending final action by the City Council and King County, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions. A. "Moratorium" shall, mean a time period of six months from the effective date of this ordinance during which no development shall be permitted. B. "Development" shall include any clearing, grading, filling, building, or any similar or related land use activity for which any permit or prior approval is required or for which application must be made to any department or board of the City of Tukwila. C. "Sensitive Area" means any wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas, and abandoned coal mine areas including, but not limited to, those areas shown on Exhibit A hereto. 126T Page 1 in such areas will allow the adequate time for careful areas" ordinance, and time to and D. "Open Space" means those areas in Tukwila designated in the King County bond issue approved by election on November 7, 1989, a description of which is on file with the City Clerk which description is hereby incorporated herein. Section 2. General Requirements. A. No development shall be permitted to occur in any area designated as a sensitive area or as open space during the moratorium which is established by this ordinance. No permits allowing such development shall be issued during such moratorium. B. The moratorium established herewith shall be temporary in nature, shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance, and shall run until midnight on May 13, 1990, unless sooner ended or extended by action of the City Council. C. The mortatorium shall not prohibit development for which the necessary final permits or approvals have been obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance. D. All applications for "development" specifically including, but not limited to, new permit applications, rezones, or plats (regular or short) in a sensitive area or open space area submitted during this moratorium, shall be refused and not processed until this moratorium has terminated. Section 3. Severability. If any portion of this ordinance is found or rendered invalid or ineffective, all remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. Penalty. The general penalties provided for in the Tukwila Municipal Code shall apply to any violations of this ordinance, and any person, firm, corporation, or association failing to comply with any of the provisions hereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage as an emergency ordinance in order to consider and adopt new land use regulations for sensitive and open space areas. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, this day of , 1989. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: 22$T MAYOR, GARY VAN DUSEN Page 2 Published by the City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 The Tukwila library was once used as a City Hall and an early grade school. Important land use changes "Sensitive Areas" being defined City planners are drafting a new section for the Comprehensive Plan that establishes City policies on development of sensitive areas like wetlands, water- courses and slopes greater than 15 and 40 %. The Planning Commission and City Council will hold Public Hearings on this policy in order to pass an ordi- nance this Fall. It is not too early to let us know what you think the City should be doing. At issue is the preservation of environmentally and aesthetically valu- able land. It also includes development on sites that are potentially dangerous. The Department of Community Devel- opment is preparing the background for the new ordinance. Wetlands are marshes, swamps and transition areas between land and water environments. Water is usually at or near the surface or shallow water covers the ground for all or part of the year, producing habitats for distinct plant or animal life. Preserving wetlands provides op- portunities to enhance the visual "land- scape" of the City, while affording us all with possible recreational opportunities like boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, and observation of wildlife. It also aids in flood control by storing or slowing flood Tukwila library made landmark Recently, Puget Power presented the City with a plaque honoring the building now housing the Tukwila 11- brary as part of their State Centennial landmark project. The historic structure was built in 1920 as a two -room schoolhouse for about 40 children in grades 1 -6. In 1946, the three elementary schools were consolidated at Showalter, and the City bought the schoolhouse to serve as the City Hall. The other two grade schools have been torn down. It became home for the Tukwila library in 1978. waters and filtering out sediments, ex- cess nutrients, and toxic chemicals be- fore entering watercourses. Watercourses are channels where water runs perennially or intermittently that consist of a bed, lower and upper banks, and include vegetation which provides food, shelter, breeding and rearing areas for birds and animals (called riparian zones). This includes rivers, streams, and creeks. Some 86% of all wildlife animals occupy these riparian areas during all or part of their lives, according to the US Forest Service. Hillsides and ravines and other slopes where large masses of soil are moving, or have moved in the past or may move in the future, will be included in this ordinance. Development would be restricted on slopes greater than 40% with highly erodible soil. In the past these hillsides have been cut to produce a level building area, destroying the hill- side, and leaving the properties below in danger from falling materials and in- creased surface water runoff. The "Sensitive Areas Ordinance," as it is being called, will provide an important part of the zoning ordinances for the expanded City of Tukwila, and will contribute to a more attractive and livable City for us all. 7 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID TUKWILA, WA PERMIT NO. 12698 Work begins on North Hill reservoir The Public Works Department is especially busy these days with three major projects underway. The City is building a 2 million gallon reservoir to maintain its own emergency water supply and eliminate peak flow charges from the City of Se- attle. The project evolved from a 1982 Comprehensive Water Plan analysis and subsequent bond levy in 1986 when citizens voted to fund the protect. The Council recently approved the low bid for the project submitted by Skaar /Seabord. The final costs are expected to raise water bills 7% begin- ning in 1990. Other projects currently in prog- ress: a road overlay project along Tukwila Parkway from the S-line bridge to An- dover Park West and the Interurban Avenue improvement project in front of the Foster Golf Links. METRO announced 11 will increase its sewerage treatment charges that appear on residential waterbllls to $11.60 /mo beginning January, 1990. 1990 budget talks start in October The City Council will take its first look at the 1990 proposed budget at the end of September. It will be the first time the Council will see the impacts of the recent annexations over a 12 -month period. Finance Director Alan Doerschel will submit a budget that includes the newly approved policemen and firemen hired to protect the expanded City. He also will show what projects and pro- grams might be dropped or delayed with these new priorities. The Council will discuss the im- pacts of the proposed budget during committee meetings over the following several weeks (the public is always wel- come to attend and comment at commit- tee meetings) before formal discussion and public hearings are held this Fall. The budget is usually adopted at the first regular meeting in December. "Keep Tukwila small," says survey The 1989 Tukwila Citizen's Survey shows that most people returning sur- veys want to maintain a "small town" feel even with the new annexations. Nine areas of City services were included in the survey this year including: budget priorities, parks and open space, library, public safety/fire, annexations, general services, and community involvement Nearly a third of the responses came from the Tukwila hill, with the rest equally spread throughout the newly annexed areas. Budget priorities There appears to be considerable interest in enforcing zoning codes. The extensive task force debates for pre- annexation zoning and the adult enter- tainment controversy seems to be re- flected heavily from survey respondents. More than 52% of the respondents rated this as Very Important. Most residents preferred putting the City's money into services rather than capital projects. Police /Fire Nearly one -third of the respondents have needed police services this past year. Of those, more than 80% ex- pressed satisfaction with the service. The respondents identified Burglary and Drugs as the top two categories for pollee attention. Control of gang activity also figured significantly in the preferences. Of less critical importance were vandal- ism, prostitution, and traffic. The fire and emergency services also received high praise from local residents. They favored spending money to maintain high quality services, particularly aid and fire staffing. Annexations Only 26% of the respondents fa- vored continued annexation, and 70% had no suggestions for how the City should accommodate demands for serv- ice in these areas. Services More than 62% said the City should continue to fund street improvements from the general fund. Any improve- ments in business district streets should be paid for by Local Improvement Dis- tricts (LIDS). History book project stirs emotions The City is sponsoring a Tukwila Much of this work can be done at home history book as part of the Washington or with a group of people and does not State Centennial celebration. The book require any special training or expert- will be the first -ever compilation of local ence. history from the days of Indian tribes She is looking for local residents along the Duwamish River to the most with public works or engineering back - recent annexations. grounds to help piece together the high - Many citizens are working on this way /street construction. Retired farm - very exciting project, gathering stories, ers and dairymen are needed to recount photographs, letters and drawings from the days when agriculture preceeded long -time residents. The City hired a shopping malls and office parks. Any - professional historian, Dr, Kay Reinartz, one with some interest or training in to assemble the information into a book. tracking down the Mystery Mayors and The book will be generously illus- early pioneer families are encouraged to trated with maps, drawings and photos, join in, too. and will be available in both hardcover, The book is more than a collection "collector edition" quality, and softcover of facts and statistics. It will include editions. Pre - publication orders are now personal histories, thoughts and feel - being taken at 20% off the post - publica- tugs about why this area Is so special to tion prices so many people. This is a true community activity. If you would like to help with the We urge all of you to share your memo- project, contact Darlene Crostick, the ries, documents, pictures and other volunteer coordinator, or Dr. Kay Re- memorabilia with the committee. Any inartz, at the Research Center in the object loaned for this project will be Tukwila Community Center, 241 -7144. returned after the book is completed if To order a book at pre - publication you so desire. prices, send $16.22 for the softcover, Dr. Reinartz is looking for more $32.43 for the "collector's edition" to volunteers to help with telephone calls, Ticket to Tukwila, c/o City Hall, 6200 reviewing land plats, typing, inventory- SouthcenterBlvd.,Tukwila,98188. Add ing, cataloging, tabulating early census $3.50 ifyou want the book mailed to you. information, and researching early Books may be picked up at City Hall churches, schools farms and dairies. after publication early next year. Local citizens take the "hands on" approach to recycling at Tukwila Days. City expands recycling plan Tukwila produces more than 21 tons of solid waste every year. Fortu- nately, many Tukwila residents already recycle glass, cans and other materials around their homes even though dispos- ing of this material Is inconvenient for them right now. The City of Tukwila is planning a city-wide recycling program under a grant from King County. The City will spend the rest of 1989 studying the extent of the problem in the City, where the solid waste comes from, what it consists of and how best it might be recycled. Six pilot projects in residen- tial and commercial areas and a City employees program are already under- way. The Solid Waste Management Re- port will be used to design a program that permits homeowners, apartment dwellers, and the business district to recycle the waste more efficiently. It also examines the costs and potential reve- nues from reselling recycled materials. Three- quarters of Tuukwila's waste comes from the business community and their 44,000 employees. Many businesses are already recycling at least one item, but the amount of material they could recycle is much greater. City employees have been recy- cling paper, aluminum cans, glass, yard waste, oil, tires, and metal scraps since May. Six business and apartment com- plexes have been participating in an effort that allowed considerable com- ingling of recyclables during the sum- mer. No specific program has been out- lined yet. The Mayor and staff will begin drafting a program for the City Council's consideration throughout the Fall. The City will conduct public hearings to let citizens help shape this very important policy. A city-wide plan is hoped to begin early in 1990. This is another in a series of bulletins that update and inform Tukwila citizens and property owners about the City's efforts to protect against improper development in environmentally sensitive areas. A Citizens Advisory Committee spent the first three months of this year drafting a Sensitive Areas ordinance. Copies of their proposal are available at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard just east of City Hall. The Citizens Committee met with geologists and biologists and found their input helpful in understanding the is- sues and concerns. The City then hired provessionals to provide additional analysis of the geologic and coal mine hazard areas and of the wetlands and watercourses. These reports are available for review at DCD. ENVIRONIIAENTALLV SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA INTRODUCTION PUBLIC MEETINGS ETING NO. 1 Wednesday, May 30,199 7 00 p m. in the ity Council Chambers , . ;. •at`Tukwila City Hall PFAKERS: Dr Donald Tubbs, Geologist • • from GeoEngineers, Inc Subject 'Geologic Hazards Mr Steve Johnson, Principal from Johnson : n :Architecture and Plannin Ms Becca Hason, Partner from The Portico Group Subject:: "Hillside Design" FUTURE MEETINGS City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor The following two meetings are your opportunities to hear from the people who have studied Tukwila's natural environment. EETING NO 2 • Thursday, May 31, 1990 7 :00 p.m: in the City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall SPEAKERS:!'. Members of the Tukwila Citizens Advisory Committee Subject: "Proposed Draft Sensitive Area Overlay`Distric Ms. Dyanne Sheldon,; Wetland. Ecologis from Jones & Stokes Associates, •Inc Subject: "Wetland and Watercours F unction and Protection" .... ....... ................. Planning Commission hearings will be held in late July 1990. Detailed notices will be sent prior to the hearing dates. If you have any questions regarding the Sensitive Areas Ordinance or these hearings, please call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680. MORE ABOUT TUKWILA'S SENSITIVE AREAS... City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID TUKWILA, WA PERMIT NO. 12698 T«o:oductiow This brochure is sent to you to make you aware of an upcoming ordinance being considered for adoption by the City of Tukwila. It is called the "Sensitive Areas Ordinance ". This information is to help you become informed about the ordinance and express your views about New regulations are being designed to protect natural features that are sensitive to development and to give property owners standards and consistency in the development process. The intent of the regulations are to protect people and property from the adverse consequences of development on areas prone to landslides, erosion, and abandoned coal mines and to protect streams and wetlands. What is a sensitive area? Any site which contains an abandoned coal mine, wetlands, watercourses and hillsides with slopes that are fifteen percent or greater and land which buffers these areas. Do we have any wetlands besides Tukwila Pond? Tukwila Pond is the largest wetland in the City, but there are numerous others. The majority are within railroad and highway rights -of -way but there are others within the neighborhoods and parks of the City such as Fort Dent and Minkler Ponds, undeveloped Crystal Springs Park, and several residential areas on Tukwila Hill. What is a watercourse? A watercourse is a channel with a bed and bank through which water flows continuously or occasionally. It does not include artificial channels but includes streams and creeks. There are at least three stream systems and tributaries in the City — Gilliam, Southgate and Mill. These watercourses act as drainage channels for Tukwila. All our water flows to the Green/Duwamish River. What will be the effect of the new regulations, if I want to use my land? The regulations create a Sensitive Area Overlay District. It is similar to other zoning districts, such as R -1 single family and C -2 commercial zones, used by communities to protect uses and create standards for development. Similar to current practice, knowledge of the zoning and procedures for use and development of land must be checked at City Hall. The City has mapped the sensitive areas identified through aerial photographs and field inventory and marked the zoning map to show the approximate location of these sensitive areas. The three major elements of the new sensitive overlay district are to: 1. Require a study of the property to determine the boundaries and characteristics of the sensitive feature; 2. Establish protected areas and setbacks from the feature; and 3. Provide exceptions for existing and new uses to allow everyone reasonable use of their property. Why is 15% chosen as a steep slope? For safety reasons, fifteen percent is the maximum slope allowed for roads and driveways in the City. Any greater slope has a history of slides and will require reconfiguration of the hill's natural form. HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL 6:1 4:1 2.5:1 1:1 ERCENT SLOPE How can I use my land if some of it is designated a sensitive area? You are allowed the underlying use of your land, such as a single family home or office, except on the portions of your property in the protected areas and their buffers. There are also a limited number of permitted and conditional uses such as horticulture, agriculture and recreational camps. Ga L /0t4eateeaceitt How may I comment on the proposal? 1. Come by City Hall, review the proposal and map, and speak with Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner, in the Department of Community Development. 2. Mail written comments to: Dept. of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Planner. Attend a public workshop at City Hall to review materials and ask questions of City staff. Wednesday, October 25, 1989 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Public Hearing Before Planning Commission Date: Thursday, November 9, 1989 Time: 8:00 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington After receipt of all testimony, the Planning Commission deliberates and makes a recommendation to the City Council. Further review and hearings will occur before the Tukwila City Council prior to ordinance adoption. 0 zd" = E ca _ o a � '1ST CLASS U.S. Postage PAID Permit #315 Seattle, WA City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Stalirnit c. 0 •1 wien 6 10111 7. 411.111eCIPMEM: =Elmo qbpdan __Imemosimw 11PCZNIIIIME driwarammilmi 0011111'1112 • MEPIENNEEr e take atm d °brim t N L II 931/1 i 1111KIL EU ul ti - NOIIIKICEk mewl . ) r i t l ' t it it , ;,, ,ir e iN t mgi um ERN ta 101 rem i* i ft n Wm,” mid El !!!tii Aillatt• il I ,.,. AT LV ItikRisiASPJE tw 7F,Fis,` k itEepliol illik -inikrommb, .. 1.111111111.11.1 111°44 1111111 111 1111111 1111111 4- • 1111 1111111 Ilitirial9RIMPEIEnr11 IIPYimaaelm1111M111 1 i Mamma:3M 1111116.:::7 1 MILMED111111111111 11191191141 lir • 1 C 1111i ma eg ill 11171 IINERBilitY II ‘ MI 1.111 1511 I I i NMI MIIII Em 1 um !u E 1 NM, • I I ' ritillilks= riiii 1 limulE16 ill la r_inglo rt lo • • I" 9 = 0,..1.! ' 4. • Ililt Te711; 11 11 1 :;4 1 1; r14\ 11a- \ MOM IWIlilfAIII % :I POPAIIWIle MI BARRI?. . 1\7 1r.:4113 1 1101111 111 n 1 1 A t IF:6mm 1 . at. • UNSTABLE AREAS o WETLANDS -It STREAMS Rainier Bench 4. 4. 4, r WETLANDS INVENTORY Gary Van Dusen, Mayor • Rick Beeler, DCD Director Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Manager Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1808 -136th PI, N.E. Bellevue, Wa. 98005 October 1989, CITY OF TUKWILA Development Department Planning Division 5 Nel/t) ./A)UarrOl tielfer) 5 /9v Figure TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES C: INTRODUCTION 1 METHODOLOGY 1 RESULTS 1 Habitat Types 2 Size 2 Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated 2 Percent Edge Buffered 2 Education /Recreation Potential 2 Disturbance Rating 4 Overall Wetland Rating 4 (Available by site upon request) TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORIES Table Page 1 Summary Matrix of Tukwila Wetlands 3 2 Overall Ratings for Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila 1 Locations of Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila Following Ent INTRODUCTION Wetlands are considered to be valuable resources due to their functions in water pollution control, wildlife habitat, flood control, and as aesthetically pleasing open space. For these and other reasons, federal, state, and many local governments have developed regulations and policies aimed at protecting wetlands. The City of Tukwila has recently become interested in identifying wetland resources within the City, and arranged to have this wetland inventory conducted. The wetland inventory was conducted in order to determine the presence of wetlands; no attempt was made to identify exact wetland boundaries. METHODOLOGY The wetland inventory for the City of Tukwila involved two stages; review of literature, and field investigation. The literature review was conducted by reviewing available resources, including: • Aerial photographs (1986, 1" =200') • King County Wetlands Inventory (King County, 1981) • U.S. Soil Conservation Service soils maps (SCS, 1970) • U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (Renton, Des Moines, and Seattle South Quadrangles, 1973, 1:24,000) • National Wetland Inventory Maps (Renton, 1988; Des Moines, 1987; and Seattle South, 1987, 1:24,000) All potential wetlands identified using these sources were visited to determine actual site conditions. In addition, City staff were interviewed to determine locations of other potential sites not identified using the sources listed above. In the field, a wetland determination was made by examining soils, vegetation, and any obvious hydrologic features. If the site was determined to be wetland, a data form was completed. The form is based on the Black Lake Wetland Inventory Field Form, and is reproduced in Appendix A of this document. The form was reproduced from A Guide to Conducting Wetland Inventories (Washington State Department of Ecology 1989). Due to the level of detail of the study, wetland boundaries were not determined in the field. Exact wetland boundaries should be determined at the time of a permit application. Approximate wetland boundaries were determined based on field visits and aerial interpretation; these approximate boundaries were transferred to assessors maps. Because landmarks that are obvious on aerial photographs are generally not present on assessors maps, the wetland locations shown on the assessors maps are very approximate. RESULTS Fifteen wetlands were identified during the inventory. The locations of these wetlands are shown in Figure 1. Although Tukwila is, for the most part, highly urbanized, wetlands in the City exhibit a diversity of habitat types, including open water, emergent marsh, shrub swamp, and forested swamp. Based on aerial photographs, many wetlands �' '�� X119 s =-iii! 9 = v� �-- I5 �. i? } 1 C� s yo. . '�Nl7Y�Eit aiiNiiiiM -111 � ©.�.�► i ce ..., A'' ,.. " :111119 lii. irrEMI® '' Ilk. � • EiR_er.vRL��__ _ o�ww `•. _ N� S .55 ,• Milai ilk?! , _,,, f \\. o TO M MDY x 1111 U SEATTLE,TACOrMA INTERNATIONAL " � .1 AIRPORT- it.. a.) Figure 1. Locations of Inventoried Wetlands "BEACH Mal .00 NIOM..t LION :Pt ME; RILLIA within the City have already been filled and converted to other land uses. Completed data forms for each of the 15 inventoried wetlands are presented in the following pages. Table 1 summarizes information about each wetland. In addition to the 15 inventoried wetlands, additional wetland habitat likely exists along the banks of the Duwamish Waterway /Green River. Due to limited access to private property along the river, and the small size of these areas, the entire river was not surveyed. The river has been dredged, and banks along the majority of the river are steeply sloping and vegetated with upland species, such as blackberry. However, there may be areas along the river where banks are not as steep; in these areas, emergent marsh or scrub shrub communities may be present. Information in Table 1 allows for comparison between the different wetlands in Tukwila. The following section describes information presented in each of the columns in Table 1. Habitat Types Open water, unconsolidated bottom (mud or exposed, unvegetated ground), emergent marsh, scrub shrub, and forested swamp are wetland habitat types. These habitat types are based on the U.S.F.W.S. classification scheme (Cowardin et.al. 1979). A dot in one of these columns indicates that the particular habitat type is present in the wetland. Size The approximate acreage (0 -5 acres, 6 -10 acres, or greater than 10 acres) of each wetland is listed in this column. Acreage figures are very approximate, since they are based on transfer of information from field visits and review of aerial photographs to assessors maps. No flagging or survey work was conducted in the field. It is possible that wetlands that fall close to the edge of a size class have been placed in the wrong size class. Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated This column gives an estimate of the percentage of land within 1000 feet of the wetland edge that is vegetated. This information is based on review of aerial photographs, and can be used to get an idea of the amount of urbanization in the vicinity of a particular wetland. Percent Edge Buffered This column presents an estimate, based on aerial photographs, of the percentage of the wetland edge (within 20 feet of the wetland) that is vegetated with tree or shrub species. Studies have shown that buffers surrounding wetlands protect the wetland and provide additional habitat and protection to wildlife species using the wetland. Education /Recreation Potential A wetland with a "yes" in this column indicates that educational or recreational opportunities may exist at the site. Education potential includes opportunities for 2 TABLE 1. SUMMARY MATRIX OF TUKWILA WETLANDS OW = Open Water UB = Unconsolidated Bottom EM = Emergent Marsh SS : Scrub Shrub FSw = Forested Swamp LEGEND % 1000 ft. veg. = percentage of area within 1,000 feet of wetland edge that is vegetated % edge buf. = approx. percentage of area within 20' of wetland edge vegetated with trees or shrubs Ed. /Rec Potential = potential for wetland to be used recreationally or educationally (see text) Disturb. Rating = Relative amount of disturbance in and around wetland (see text) WL # OW HABITAT UB EM TYPE SS FSw Size (Ac.) , % 4' • •5 2' • 5 2' • • 5 10' ti • • 0 -5 25 100 • • • 0 -5 75 15 • • • > 10 0 60 ' • • • 0 -5 50 80 • • 6 -10 20 60 • • • >10 0 0 _ . • • 5 -10 70 YES N T CO Cr) Cr) • 0 -5 80 • 0 -5 0 75 • • • 0 -5 100 • • • 0 -5 100 l TABLE 1. SUMMARY MATRIX OF TUKWILA WETLANDS OW = Open Water UB = Unconsolidated Bottom EM = Emergent Marsh SS : Scrub Shrub FSw = Forested Swamp LEGEND % 1000 ft. veg. = percentage of area within 1,000 feet of wetland edge that is vegetated % edge buf. = approx. percentage of area within 20' of wetland edge vegetated with trees or shrubs Ed. /Rec Potential = potential for wetland to be used recreationally or educationally (see text) Disturb. Rating = Relative amount of disturbance in and around wetland (see text) interpretive trails or viewing points; recreation potential includes opportunities for trails or passive recreation such as bird watching. The potential for these activities was determined based on potential for safe access to the site and character of the wetland. No attempt was made to evaluate other aspects of feasibility of developing these resources. Disturbance Rating Wetlands within the City of Tukwila were assigned a "disturbance rating" based on the relative amount of disturbance in and adjacent to wetlands. The scale is from 1 (least disturbed) to 3 (most disturbed). A wetland with a rating of 1 is relatively undisturbed, and has undeveloped buffers surrounding at least portions of the site; disturbances do not extend into the wetland. A wetland with a rating of three (3) is bounded on all sides by developed areas, fill, transportation corridors, or displays evidence of other disturbances such as garbage dumping. Wetlands with a rating of two contain a combination of disturbed and undisturbed areas. This system of rating is a relative scale, comparing Tukwila's inventoried wetlands with each other. It is important to note that, on the whole, all wetlands in Tukwila are subject to relatively high degrees of urbanization and associated disturbance. These ratings are also very subjective, and are based on visual observation of sites and review of aerial photographs. It is likely that unseen disturbances (such as polluted water runoff) affect the wetlands; these unseen disturbances are not reflected in this rating. Overall Wetland Rating Wetlands were assigned ratings (1 = highest wetland value, 3 = lowest wetland value) based on degree of disturbance, diversity, buffer, potential for other uses, and wildlife habitat; an overall wetland rating based on a summary of these separate elements was also assigned. Again, these ratings were assigned based on a comparison of inventoried wetlands in Tukwila with each other. Table 2 presents a summary of this information. These ratings are very subjective, and should be used for general evaluation purposes only. It is possible that, with more detailed information, ratings could change. [Wetland # Disturb. Ratina Diversity Buffer Habitat Rec. Overall Ratina r CSI MerMCO . Cr) Cr) M M Cr) M NNN Cr) 03 CO C7 N Cr) N T N N N N N Cr) Cr) Cr) M CO M c) cn Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) C) ti co p) O r N r r r N T T N C) T N T T T (1,1 T N N T N C) T CV T I N T T T T T C) Cr) N T T N N CO et in CO 1%. T r r r .1-- N T Cr) Cr) Cr) N Cr) N Cr) N r N N N T T N Cr) 07 T N C) Cr) C ) T N M Cr) Cr) * Wetland ratings are discussed in text TABLE 2. OVERALL RATINGS FOR INVENTORIED WETLANDS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA* I 1 1L 0801100T1081. INOS1 RRE05 01 51NIi (OUNn MAT NRE 10110001(0 OR SArulnTED PY GROUND OR SURFACE 1000(0 RI 04 FREOUFNCI. TAO 00000/100 50(FIr I ENO TA SUPPnpr. A10 MAT (INNER 001180111. CIR(005ERNCE VI SUITOR!. A PREVIR Of 01(0ETA111* 1YDI CALL SE WRWIEO FDA 11•1 IN SA01RA1 ED 11111 C CHOI I I OHS. GENERALLY (0010(' 540411PS. NNR5NE5. DOGS. AND SIMILAR WVEAS. [4.11 A( 4ML KIM CMONTY NUMBER l WIMP( 011f5TAAlINO RA(1110* 11. AR5 ENDANGERED. (NkER1ENEO. SENSE ti V( OR POTENTIAL 1 0DIT011 (100 1NE5E SPECIE b. MLR GREATER THAN S ACRE NI-600 OPEN 0101(80 Ile 1. AREA GREATER *HAM OR MIRE TO 10 0(8(5 ARO WITH 000 04EN 1r 0104 w.1(R) nv . n. YRESEMrE 0r RARE NMI 0550[1 Alf IONS. NIIMII(R 2 ':INN111CNllr (0001.15, o. 1YEAE1R 014RN 1 ACRE IN 512E NI TN 2 UP MOPE WEILAND LLNS51:5t N. 1.155 MAN I0R 1.01.AL TO 1 *)CRC IN ' :ITC RIM 1 HR NUR* RE r LNNII It H55E':1 . *40(001( IRAN 2 ALOIS IN SIZE NITN ONLY 1 WETLAND CLNSSt OR D. ({15111(1 or SPECIES RECOGNIZED EA' 1111 51AIL AS IM1011RNr, M0N0EP 3 Lou CONCERN PN11045, 0. ERICA 1E55 THAN UV CARL II) 1 KIM 41EN 2 OP (EWER 4611100 CLASSES. b. AMER LESS (ANN NV 1.000411 III ACRES IN 5(2E. 1. 81018E8 1 410(1 01805 510011 11410E R 100 F1 1N015T08BCII BUrrEP. .. (1018(0 2 4Ef(WDS SAKE 1101*[ R co Fr I 01111(00. NUMBER 3 Ir 5001111 11RLIE N 25 FT UM115PWBFII 001110. limit %EFENIRON, TORSI IRENS 40181 SURFACE Nn1E1 FLAN 511FRICIFNILY 10 P000011 A 10111000 10101110111 OP 010. A DEFINED CHANNEL 000 BED 05 INDICNI(.0 BY I1YWNULII ALLY smart, SIDINCN1S TAE REI1IVAL Of VEGETATIVE LITTER UP LOOSELY ROOTED VEGETATION BY FINE NI HON OF MOVING WATER. NEED 0101 100N0A10 RATTER YEAR 0101011. "01110 1I n0) DOES NAT 101 I 01 11VIWIFIV4 DITCHES. C01115. •:10111 LAUER RUNOFF IN Af1ER ARTIFICIAL u111E8C0URSE5 1NLE55 TREY ARE USED 10 CANVEY CLASS 1 OR 2 510CFN5 THAT *0(1.1.18RE0 N41(00LLY DRAW TO IDNSTRUCCION. SHAKES SWILL DE LIWil11EREU SIPE)n5 RHEA NYIN 001L1.5E5 DONE PUR510001 10 R DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 1'11(101(0 FORMATION INF R DEFINED CHRNIl1L 0010(0 DEVELOPMEN1. CINSSIE(C - NrIO L EL ASS 1 - ALL 5101(1005 IIOENIIRIEII R5 '511012EL10ES OF ENE 5(011 WOE8 KIND CO 5NOR(LI1 MASTER PROGRAM. (HISS 2 - ALL 5001005 5NLLER EARN CLASS t 5(01(1015 THAT FLOW YEAR ROOM 0000(00 8E085 01 1011010011 018181011 W WE USED BY S01000105. 11055 3 - ALL STREAMS MIT ARE INTL RAIrt ENr W EPIEIEVI•L DURING YEARS IF NORMAL RAINFALL NH) NRE ANT HI1(0 DIY SNIMUNIOS. •'0222 01•0(85 11 AS5 1 • 100 FT OF TATIRNL VEGETATION UN EALN 50101. of (HANNA. 00YBE 8E0E100 TO 50 Ft IN MOAN RHO AURAL EIWIRI101ENT5. 110155 2 - UNCONSTRAINED BY A03441(NT 5(05111VE AREAS. SO Ft OF 01110001 VE4ETA1(011 EXCEPT IN (1055 2 USED BY SDLMONI05 '(81EN0 TO 100 Ft). ALL STREAMS AOJACENI TO RIPARIAN NI FLAWS SMALL RIPLY WETLAND 0)00(0 8E04.11810081. 0111 518EAM5 WITHIN 25 F1 OF 001 P SLOPES BN(RIER 1N1N Ile EOURL 10 110; MIT LESS EARN 400 THE /11LLU0ING BUFFERS APPLY0 0. WERE OVERALL SLOPE (00(10S 100 110 IN 010817000101 LENOIN INCLUDING 511811 BENCHES AND 110001.15, (01 DUFFER SHALL (Krum 12 11. 0). 0118E OVERALL SLUFF IS LESS 11000 (00 ET. 10) BUFFER SHALL IN THE 08(81(8 OFT •1011 MINION 100 04,1 SERER. (10551 •25 Fr BEYOND NE 10P Of SLOPE. gg(f OE71R11I01, 51NSI1IVE SLOPES ARE O1 1(000 HS ANY GROWN) DIRT R15E5 10 Ft 00 MORE FOR EVERY 25 F1 W 0100/2001/01. 005T010E. 110 PERCENT) 50.3 PINUP - SU• 1800 10P, FOE AND 5(0E5. Nf1_1. DErEND non, 101E .IfY 0r NC101YlNV H0'. NAI DEI'ElW(O N /111'0111 11111 HI I tn11 role REMANDS. •2j q[FENIr1018( NJOV untERLoiNsF.5 • 115(10 NY NIA{. NI011R 4N1(RCO(I11S(S - NIIINI0I 51{101105, 01111N0GC, AND IPRITNIII001 0111 N(': 014410 TWIN NN.Inb. SC 104(15 RAMP NIITEPC011 " - 11 NINON NN11F*A14.16, EAU 9({101(1081 IMO LIP UT 0[0000011* 0005 OE ENT 1**I.00N1■ TABLE EIIV :1 (0351! (YPJ1 id kV SEVE81 OEV1LO10ENI LIMA rOT(U115 1. SUITES i0„ HAD OVER. 2. SLOPES 2S•10)0, C.LN•.1 0 INND' CLN55 3 11R10101RKE HAZARD, IAn •:(110401 EVASION AA111VU. 1. 1001115 NI THIN THE IAA YR 0 LN10NOY SEVERE DEVIL0IOLOI L1MI10110Ni t. SIIINP1 153 SLOPES 15.25*). CLASS .1 14005110E 0NLNRO.1.1056 ] ENP0N0UR1.F NN0NR0. 000 5E0001E (005100 001014005. ., ;LOPES I5 "I4. 010'.5 3 10 010700(1. 01448 '.1.'EAI EF*0.l l0M 01.111PA ., 001*015 25..1.X. E001.5 1 100/■000011 N0(H011, AND 5(0)181 1005101/ 100,1010■ 4, SLOPE :5-010 0010 '.,IL'ERI 10 5(1101 NAZ11R0. RE11NN05, non 1 1 0 55 0 EIIR1N011REE 0100111RD. MODERATE DEVELOPMENT I IMI0 AT IONS 1. SLOPE: 1S-00n. CLASS 3 F0VINUUIIIIE HAZARD, IMO* SFUERF (R05InN HAZARD S 0. 54011'. (5 -2';A. 0.15: 2 LANDSLIDE Nn2A0D, AND 511(11 ERASION 0102410 '0. :LOT(!: 13 -05), CLASS 2 EORTHODAKE AN0APV. ono SEINPE FPOSIHN HAZARD H, SCN'.0N11L 1111100105. IMO CL015 1 (110101010041 WIZARD. 510101005) 14(1105 NI ININ TOE 100 YR 11000 ((10111'. CLASS 3 (AA1IIINIAK( HA211P0 0000 1•114500111 110110104D5. G. LINOS IN INC INTENSIVE R0UIIER VLCNHVGE HULA. 101 10vER0.E - LANG 1001 •:AN OE CIAIE8EO WITH SIRIICIURFS NNO IMPERVIOUS 508100115. VOW •;101 RE 010 •,t VCVIT :.55 n • *05 111(010 ( (1L2 9110(8Irian, 1001 1111 000 1.101 ORS WI( DFVELOPCO 0 0000111. 0(1 1011111)0 FAIR *1111040(5, 000(101(0 081211110 RRCIIST KENT BELLEVUE MOB CREEKS DEFIN11(QN ILL Lot I.RS 11111( THAN 00,140 CRC04 " ; HN' GENERALLY IM(L1101N1 TN 1'10.10N1014 01'10(10100 0 1.011115E 0D RINIff NS CORNED NY NATURE. 11R R, RL1C0(0 BY IIIINNN A.1IVIIY NNO *EIERHLLY 1005151101{. 1r R C40NII1I 111101 *' 111.14, BANKS. OR 5100.5 511140I0141101L11' 1H1010011111 113 00110 NLVNL NITA 5001101'4 NAIroS. NITN 51101E REHIN 0RITY, 110101'11110' NMO 040k1WILY (1014 OR DRAIN FROM 0111,01 10 LONER I AMO5, IMVIK DEFINITION, 004 01010 1IINSTITOT1000 N •YONNG 001.110" 401(00 0. A 004300 0N0 0110100 [PTEI. 11 INCLUDES INF NATILM LOAD of 0NL RNVINF 4000 TIN. OAVINE 5(01:410015 TA N POINT NAM THE SLUFF5 ARE LEC5 T11r1N 158. DEF1NIf1WI 111 0,100 111 not 005 1EVEIIPED 101E 1(11104104 roAr, '.lo4*liFIFRT ION( LOU 01020401, R40F11',T 1. 51)10E5 IS -254 011040 0144,5 tl 150111' 0H2VR0 AND * 10(1'1 2 (10010 O00 1100100()4 11001010 OP .. 00114PE5. 15.250 04I101 040155 2 5 LIOF AN0 SLIPPAGE AND *INS'.. 1 FI •1111101 .00111*, ARL110 no 0. 5100105 l5 3500 41101 0..0055 2 0.11'1010' AND 0LN55 3 EVIISInO• HAZARD 00ENI UY. 1. 45•150 FEET 100001 1110 TAP 110 N RAVINE IN NNI(N N 010300 011 0100)01 STREAM 005511 1000010.44( *004 S. 30-50 FF FROM INF AIDA MATEY. MHPK Or n 100E. 1. 1.1-10 (1 FROM ANC NIGH CAPER MIRK OF A 10E. RANI HAZARD AREN5. 1. SLOPES 15.25k WIN ELMS 2 5010E RAID 5)1PPRGE ANO CL055 l I R05(001 HAZARD AREA! W 5101(5 15.250 WITH C11155 3 SLIDE ATM SLIPPAGE AIM CLASS 3 EA051UM AMIPR0 AREAL W 3. SLOPES 25 -100 WITH CL1055 3 1 E1501C AN0 CLASS 3 ER05InN 001100400, OR A. SLOPES 25- 1113 NIIR it A55 3 HAZARD* APEHS. SEVER( NNZRRO AREAS; 1. SLOPES •011 AND OVER; Ile 0. SLOPES 05-110 *,IOM CUM 3 51(101 11110 5LIPPARE. CLASS 3 5E550(1 0020*0. 0010 C1055 3 EROSION HAZARD NPCA5t OP 3. ALL RAVINES, OR 1, 15 FT SETBACK FROM THE 101• OF nMY RAVINE. 140E (0I OF R 011410E 15 10E01 ENE SLOPE 15 GENERALLY 1E55 11400 1500 DR 5, SO F( SETBACK FROM FIE NIGH 401(0 0NPR OF ANY 0A3R CREEK% OR 25 11 SE(DACK 0RIN 1411 NIGH Nn1ER MARK OF ANY MINOR 1IIEE0t OR 2. IU F1 SE1B0CK DRUM 1010 TOP OF ANY 10(01NW.E 011111. H. NIL 11110005 AS DEFINED 101' U.S. FISH AHD 00110111E SERVICE. 5.12151111123/ 101 COVEPW.0 RES(RICII0015, M0NIMI1N ANOINT OF IMPEW ':1101 ACC, AI 1.04A0. 1. 104 1 FAIRS: ' Z. J. 1. JA:: *,III', 400111 408110)00 0{100 * .1. IAY, J. 0111.11 10010)00 0R1051 .1. 3. ..... 1. 5(V(0E HA7RR0 0111(050 1 1. :. 1, 1, 5. 6. 7, 100 0A IMAM 911(811(001, 110154 5ERS1TIVE ARIA 0000051((5001 FN.111EEN 0100151RINL AND 0011(0(10 S•51En5 11010E ENE MATER THOLE IS 1(518110 AI 08 001.1100 THE 50010(1 OR 1404 L000 IS CART A 0 0Y IIAII Lou I•11EP. CLASSIFICATION, 1. TYPE A - ALL HERMITS RELATED BY 100(4(1 HYDM1LINiY (A A TYPE A OP 1911 (I RIPARIAN CIRRI DI1P. 0 . TYPE 0 - 4E1LHNOS 101111 NN ARCH (NCE40(41, 1200 50. FT NNILN MVE NO HYD40L11A1C0L IELATIINSNIP ELI A CVPC N OP PTE B RIPARIAN (88IDOR. 3. 10111 T • 111100105 WITH NN ARC*, 01' LESS TARN 7200 50. Fr WHICH NAVE NO NY0001001001 NlNf1W5NIP 1H R 1 N OP TYPE n 41(88100(0 ((0010001. $1 FMQwPj1 SETOFF lS TYPE N • 50 FROM 101E 4ET10000 BINIMORRY. TYPE b " (00110 111( 1.100300), H01001n'V1', MUM KFINIFIOPIL < RIPARIAN CORRIDOR) SIN5111VE AVERS THAI 180111/)1 N VI GE IR/1IN 10MN10011Y (01EGN01(0 NITN 110 1411E1 1 0015E ((05( 1011111 PROVIlE': 1000. 114E1.1E0, 0140EE0(00 AND 0140 AYERS TAP 1101 *0111( 0000 10RR(5Ik10*. AHl0NL5 ,AA AIPOS. 402741 10.112Y1 TYPE 0 - RII0011AM rO0RlOn05 RAP 00011 AN E5101041510(0 11000 PLAIN 115 0E5(60NTEO BY NE 1(DFk1L ER810.8CY MAN05(0(001 WIEMCY */FAA' 50 FROM TOP OF BAN' 08101040. 11000 11450(00[1 PRIIGRRM 01( 11051 REACHES UR SLNMEN1S RN(CN SCONE 10 OR LESS IN IIR' ((10 OF 8F1.1 P'10 CWMREN(NSI RE WATERCOURSE INVENTORY. TYPE 0 - RIPARIAN COIAIOUPS NOT RATED R5 rYPI A AND REN.NE5 THAI' SCORE WINED. 11 -611 0M 100 (III Or 80111131E ( 1A0(01000RSE 10000(0100. 1YPE E - RIPARIAN 101E0005 4401 1101E0 05 1I/PE N OR 1YOE B INCLU0(04 ALL 5EASONAL UR INIERMI1TE111 (1)0015 11111CH ARE FED BY WWNDWAI(R SEEPAGE UP SI0RWR0ER RUNOFF. £I MOIRO, 5E TBALY5 1•PE A • 20' FRUn 1HE (000)000 NAND41*Y. TYRE 11 • 10• F001 INE C0IRRIDW BOANORRY. 001 0. - 15' F000 1011 CORRIDOR BOUNDARY. MINA Dj11Nif1 DAL 111115E NILL5IOE5. RAVINES. •110 01NER SLOPING LINO 101105 *,MERE LARGE M55E5 OF 501L EI10110 NAVE MIIVE0 IN 1141 PAST. AREA LIKELY 10 MOVE 10 ENE (0(AE. OP 001E PRESENTLY 0001(80. 51040(5 001EEOI00 150 ARE CONSIOEREO 10 131 5E11511(010 RRE01S. 31ANCATIO5, 50100105 - 000000 100 5118E5. FOP OF SLOPE - 50' FROM 101E 10P O0 SERE OE506N1TE0 AS R PROTECTED 011EA AWING R 51100E 0I0FERENCE FRAM TOP f0 001000 00 Al LEAST 10'. TOE W SLIPE•75' FRO*) TOE 00 SLOPE WHERE 01150801E OR POTENTIAL 1A55. SLOPE 00VINE111 OCCURS AS OEIE001000 BY THE 0(00(110 OF STORM 8 SURFACE EWER. 25' FROM TOP OF BAN' ATTACHMENT F STREET 1- w W cc NOT TO SCALE ADJACENT LAND SLOPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 15% BUFFERS CROSS SECTION 40% OR GREATER SLOPE 1 nal \ . 40' FROM EDGE 5 ,D - 1 J _ OF BAN( 50' FROM TOP OF 40% OR GREATER SLOPE SLOPE VARIES I l l BUFFER 25' 75' FROM TOE OF HISTORIC OR POTENTIAL SLIDE AREA 30' 1— w W cc PLAN VIEW 8' ADJACENT LAND SLOPES 5 , LESS THAN 15% 30' a I LS . MT ATTACHMENT G SENSITIVE AREAS SLOPES SENSITIVE AREAS WATERCOURSES SENSJTIVE AREAS WETLANDS City of Tukwila WETLAND INVENTORY /t4 SAY 199D 2geam. 6'9 ell b65oc07 s� teatof CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Prepared for: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 September 1989 Prepared by: Jones .& Stokes Associates, Inc. 1808 - 136th Place N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Eagt INTRODUCTION 1 METHODOLOGY 1 RESULTS 1 Habitat Types 2 Size 2 Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated 2 Percent Edge Buffered 2 Education /Recreation Potential 2 Disturbance Rating 4 Overall Wetland Rating 4 TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORIES LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Summary Matrix of Tukwila Wetlands 3 2 Overall Ratings for Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Locations of Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila Following Eagt INTRODUCTION Wetlands are considered to be valuable resources due to their functions in water pollution control, wildlife habitat, flood control, and as aesthetically pleasing open space. For these and other reasons, federal, state, and many local governments have developed regulations and policies aimed at protecting wetlands. The City of Tukwila has recently become interested in identifying wetland resources within the City, and arranged to have this wetland inventory conducted. The wetland inventory was conducted in order to determine the presence of wetlands; no attempt was made to identify exact wetland boundaries. METHODOLOGY The wetland inventory for the City of Tukwila involved two stages; review of literature, and field investigation. The literature review was conducted by reviewing available resources, including: • Aerial photographs (1986, 1" =200') • King County Wetlands Inventory (King County, 1981) • U.S. Soil Conservation Service soils maps (SCS, 1970) • U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (Renton, Des Moines, and Seattle South Quadrangles, 1973, 1:24,000) • National Wetland Inventory Maps (Renton, 1988; Des Moines, 1987; and Seattle South, 1987, 1:24,000) All potential wetlands identified using these sources were visited to determine actual site conditions. In addition, City staff were interviewed to determine locations of other potential sites not identified using the sources listed above. In the field, a wetland determination was made by examining soils, vegetation, and any obvious hydrologic features. If the site was determined to be wetland, a data form was completed. The form is based on the Black Lake Wetland Inventory Field Form, and is reproduced in Appendix A of this document. The form was reproduced from A Guide to Conducting Wetland Inventories (Washington State Department of Ecology 1989). Due to the level of detail of the study, wetland boundaries were not determined in the field. Exact wetland boundaries should be determined at the time of a permit application. Approximate wetland boundaries were determined based on field visits and aerial interpretation; these approximate boundaries were transferred to assessors maps. Because landmarks that are obvious on aerial photographs are generally not present on assessors maps, the wetland locations shown on the assessors maps are very approximate. RESULTS Fifteen wetlands were identified during the inventory. The locations of these wetlands are shown in Figure 1. Although Tukwila is, for the most part, highly urbanized, wetlands in the City exhibit a diversity of habitat types, including open water, emergent marsh, shrub swamp, and forested swamp. Based on aerial photographs, many wetlands 17 n.,r TOM Got?' ..wwa waw A . • litt% N SEATTLE TACOMA INTER ONA ARPORTJ I , },, rec S ,LO. St "BEACH tutent cow Lake Was Figure 1. Locations of Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila 2 within the City have already been filled and converted to other land uses. Completed data forms for each of the 15 inventoried wetlands are presented in the following pages. Table 1 summarizes information about each wetland. In addition to the 15 inventoried wetlands, additional wetland habitat likely exists along the banks of the Duwamish Waterway /Green River. Due to limited access to private property along the river, and the small size of these areas, the entire river was not surveyed. The river has been dredged, and banks along the majority of the river are steeply sloping and vegetated with upland species, such as blackberry. However, there may be areas along the river where banks are not as steep; in these areas, emergent marsh or scrub shrub communities may be present. Information in Table 1 allows for comparison between the different wetlands in Tukwila. The following section describes information presented in each of the columns in Table 1. Habitat Types Open water, unconsolidated bottom (mud or exposed, unvegetated ground), emergent marsh, scrub shrub, and forested swamp are wetland habitat types. These habitat types are based on the U.S.F.W.S. classification scheme (Cowardin et.al. 1979). A dot in one of these columns indicates that the particular habitat type is present in the wetland. Size The approximate acreage (0 -5 acres, 6-10 acres, or greater than 10 acres) of each wetland is listed in this column. Acreage figures are very approximate, since they are based on transfer of information from field visits and review of aerial photographs to assessors maps. No flagging or survey work was conducted in the field. It is possible that wetlands that fall close to the edge of a size class have been placed in the wrong size class. Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated This column gives an estimate of the percentage of land within 1000 feet of the wetland edge that is vegetated. This information is based on review of aerial photographs, and can be used to get an idea of the amount of urbanization in the vicinity of a particular wetland. Percent Edge Buffered This column presents an estimate, based on aerial photographs, of the percentage of the wetland edge (within 20 feet of the wetland) that is vegetated with tree or shrub species. Studies have shown that buffers surrounding wetlands protect the wetland and provide additional habitat and protection to wildlife species using the wetland. Education /Recreation Potential A wetland with a "yes" in this column indicates that educational or recreational opportunities may exist at the site. Education potential includes opportunities for 2 WL # OW HA'Si UB T AT EM TYPE SS FSw in and . :around la :see text) interpretive trails or viewing points; recreation potential includes opportunities for trails or passive recreation such as bird watching. The potential for these activities was determined based on potential for safe access to the site and character of the wetland. No attempt was made to evaluate other aspects of feasibility of developing these resources. Disturbance Rating Wetlands within the City of Tukwila were assigned a "disturbance rating" based on the relative amount of disturbance in and adjacent to wetlands. The scale is from 1 (least disturbed) to 3 (most disturbed). A wetland with a rating of 1 is relatively undisturbed, and has undeveloped buffers surrounding at least portions of the site; disturbances do not extend into the wetland. A wetland with a rating of three (3) is bounded on all sides by developed areas, fill, transportation corridors, or displays evidence of other disturbances 3,: as garbage dumping. Wetlands with a rating of two contain a combination of dist t r..,. undisturbed areas. This system of rating is a relative scale, comparing Tukwila's wetlands with each other. It is important to note that, on the whole, all wetlands are subject to relatively high degrees of urbanization and associated disturbance:." 4 ratings are also very subjective, and are based on visual observation of sites and revie aerial photographs. It is likely that unseen disturbances (such as polluted water run'o affect the wetlands; these unseen disturbances are not reflected in this rating. Overall Wetland Rating Wetlands were assigned ratings (1 = highest wetland value, 3 = : lowest wetland value) based on degree of disturbance, diversity, buffer, potential for other usesand wil d�e habitat; an overall wetland rating based on a summary of these separate elements was assigned. Again, these ratings were assigned based on a comparison of inventoried wetlands in Tukwila with each other. Table 2 presents a summary of this information. These ratings are very subjective, and should be used for general evaluation purposes only. It is possible that, with more detailed information, ratings could change. Wetland 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 `. 10 Disturb. Ratina 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 OVERALL RATINGS FOR INVENTORIED WETLANDS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA* Diversity 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 discussed in text TABLE 2. Buffer 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 Habitat 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 Ed./ Rec. 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 - 3 Overall Ratina 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 . ,. 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 Wetland Location Between I -5 and RR Tracks. N. of Boeing Access Wetland No. 1 Quad Name Seattle South ' 1 S 3 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Unmapped Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Special Modifiers TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY 1 Date /Time August 21. 1989 / 10:00 a.m. Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Spiraea douglasii Dominance Types Salix sp. Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Undisturbed: No activities within wetland. Telephone poles are in wetland. III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River E. Stream G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass 50 C. Brush /Shrub 20 D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 80 50 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Railroad tracks are along west side of wetland and I - 5 is along east side. Uplan Y' shrubs are present along the east side of the wetland. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountains) or R D. Valley E. Canyon G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches Small trees and shrubs scattered throughout E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures phone poles H. Canopy Cover sparse I. Other VII. Comments. Wetland is situated in a depression between I -5 and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and receives surface water runoff from these areas. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Wetland would benefit from enhanced shrub or tree buffer. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? FS D. 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? A. B. C. B. E. 13 4 c. c. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? (less veg. than drawing) B XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different A. Similar D. )1�41r•kt Vn11�•JwL1tA•� -1•.Y Wetland Upland B. E. C. F. a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland El Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland b. Upland Wetland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Herbs Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Horsetail (Equisetum arvense) Shrubs Red -osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera) Willow (Salix spp.) Hardback (Spiraea douglasii) Rose (Rosa sp.) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Birds Purple Finches Wetland Location S. Boeing Access Rd. Between I -5 and RR to W. Wetland No. 2 Quad Name Seattle South ,1 4 4 ', S Soil Type: Name and No. Unmapped Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 1 3 T 23N R 4E Date /Time August 21. 1989 / 10:40 a.m. Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Solanum ducamara Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Salix sp. Dominance Types Dominance Types II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Disturbed with filling and clearing III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. E. Stream >w bitc western edge (cottonwood dom.) G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass 15 20 C. Brush /Shrub 10 80 D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial 5 I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) (air traffic as well) 70% 2 North end of the wetland has been filled and driven over recently. Transportation corridors include railroad tracks. I -5, air traffic from Boeing Field. and traffic helicopters. V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain or or Ridge 9. • 7 4' D. Valley E. Canyon ',we. , }fie., i:�Yi::r:'r r:Sti G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high small dead branches C. Rock outcrops D. Perches shrubs E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover sparse I. Other VII. Comments. Wetland has been disturbed by placement of some fill. Vehicle tracks run through the site. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Remove fill from wetland and develop dense shrub buffer. IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? CID B. C. X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? FS D. A. B. E. 4 C. 80 %+ 60 -80% border /patches 40 - 60% border /patches 20 -40% border /patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. A. Similar D. Wetland Upland B. E. C. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland gg Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland W etland b. Upland Wetland F. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Herbs Water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) Marsh pepper (Polygonum hydropiper) Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Lady's thumb knotweed (Polygonum persicaria) Shrubs Willow (Salix spp.) Hardhack (Spiraea douglassii) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Spikerush (Eleocharis sp.) Soft Rush (Juncus effusus) Soft - stemmed bulrush (Scirpus validus) Saltgrass (Distichlig sp.) Wetland Location South of Boeing Access Road, west of RR tracks Wetland No. 3 Quad Name Seattle South S 3 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. Indicate FWS Wetland Classification TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Date /Time August 9. 1989 / 11 :00 a.m. Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types SaIix sp. Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers 1 II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Filling on edges (old fill) III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake E. Stream B. Reservoir F. Ditch C. Pond G. Estuary D. River IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass 10 20 C. Brush /Shrub 40 D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial 40 I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 20 K. Disturbed 40 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Surrounded by filled /disturbed areas and RR tracks. Truck container storage on fill area to south. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain( or Ridge .vr}•w:...`.vv v { :: JG� 4 ( �f•' r. �{•y i { 4 T D. Valley E. Can G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high dead cottonwoods and Oregon ash with small branches still intact C. Rock outcrops D. Perches trees and shrubs E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover sparse I. Other VII. Comments. Wetland is surrounded by disturbed areas and fill. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Vegetate bank on south side of wetland to minimize erosion. IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. m C. X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? 80 %+ 60 -80% border /patches 40-60% border /patches D. B. E. B. 4 C. 20-40% border /patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland 111 Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland Wetland Similar 0. .• t v Wetland Upland B. E. J. I. 8 4.411. fr Wetland Upland 5 C. F. Wetland Upland Trees Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Herbs Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Shrubs Willow (Salix spp.) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Birds Song sparrow Wetland Location North of Boeing Access Road. west of railroad Wetland No. 4 Quad Name Seattle South S 3 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Unmapped Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Date /Time August 21. 1989 / 11:20 a.m. Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Spiraea /Salix Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers 1 II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Undisturbed: fill around edges III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River E. Stream ` t G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass 80 C. Brush /Shrub 20 20 D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 80 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Wetland is west of Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Surrounding area is highly disturbed and vegetated with weedy species. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Canyon F. Flat, Level Plain Oth till /generally flat-lying VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches some willow Salix and hardhack Spirea in wetland and maple trees the north end of wetland E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover sparse I. Other VII. Comments. Wetland is fairly diverse, but purple loosestrife is beginning to invade. Wetland receives runoff from roads and railroad tracks. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Develop forested or shrub buffer around perimeter. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? cip X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? D. B. C. B. C. 80 %+ 60 -80% border /patches 40 -60% border /patches E. 20-40% border /patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? B. 4 C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. B. B. C. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different C. a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland W We etland b. Upland Wetland Similar )ltiiLl n�4iLwLu.j �i•..dA �•t•.Y Wetland Upland E. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Herbs Marsh pepper (Polygonum hydropiper) Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Shrubs Willow (Salix spp.) Hardhack (Spiraea douglassii) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Soil Type: Name and No. Unmapped Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Wetland Location Between Pacific Highway and 99 Quad Name Des Moines S 9 T 23N R 4E Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 1 Date /Time August 21. 1989 / 1:00 p.m. Wetland No. 5 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Phalaris arundinaceae Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River Some fill within wetland has created hummocky topography III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). E. Stream It ch drainage to Duwamish G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass 40 80 C. Brush /Shrub 10 20 D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 50 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. SR 99 to west: wetland situated between major roadways. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Canyon F. Flat, . Level Plain er: roadways and associated fill VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches alder and willow trees and shrubs E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover 30% - primarily alder I. Other VII. Comments. Lowest portion of wetland dominated by cattail with some patches of standing water containing duckweed. Reed canarygrass is present on upper transition area. West side has nice forested buffer dominated by red alder. An open field is present east of the wetland. This area is disturbed and is dominated by mixed grasses, Scot's broom, alfalfa, teasel, horsetail, tansy, clover, and plantain. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Wetland could probably be enlarged by removing fill from east side, or east side could be planted with upland tree and shrub species to create more buffer. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. C) X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches D. A. 0 B. E. ER 4 C. C. 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland I Wetland b. Upland Wetland Similar �t���tr•ytLnL�•,i�.•.. etr �.. • .Y Wetland Upland B. E. C. C. F. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Red alder (Alnus rubra) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Birch (Belulk sp.) Herbs Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Shrubs Willow (alix spp.) Hardhack (Spiraea douglassii) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Duckweed (Lemma minor) Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Birds Barn Swallow Redwinged Blackbird Wetland Location Between I -5 and Interurban Street Quad Name Des Moines S 9 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Unmapped Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. Indicate FWS Wetland Classification TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Unconsolidated Bottom a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 1 Date /Time August 21. 1989 / 2:30 p.m. Wetland No. 6 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other receives roadway runoff III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River E. Stream G. ry Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub 10 D. Forest 20 100 E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 70 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Railroad and I -5 to west and east. respectvely. Forest with young red alder immediately adjacent to wetland on both sides. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Canyon F. Flat,, Plain Oth roadway and railroad fill VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover 0 I. Other wetland entirely unvegetated VII. Comments. This wetland is a small depression that holds water seasonally. Matted leaves and deep mucky soil were saturated at the time of site visit. The surrounding upland is dominated by red alder with Indian plum and common snowberry. Ground cover species include horsetail and blackberry. It appears that water quality in the wetland is very poor. At the time of the site visit, a low flow of water was discharging into the wetland through four small (2 ") pipes; high iron flocculent was present on the substrate surface for approximately four feet from the point of discharge. Soils are anaerobic throughout. Water discharging from the pipes is also likely to be highly anaerobic and to have low pH. Low pH will limit plant growth. Some trees along edge are dead or unhealthy (sparse leaf growth). This may be in indicator of a pollutant in the water that has a negative impact on plant growth. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Improve water quality. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? B. C. O C� X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? A. B. 80 %+ 60 -80% border /patches 40-60% border /patches D. A. B. C. 20-40% border /patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? C. No Vegetation XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? I*1 B. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different D. A••-ftee V Wetland Upland B. E. 5 c. c. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland 1 Wetland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland Wetland Similar F. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Wetland Location East of I -5. south of 144th Street Quad Name Des Moines S 23 Soil Type: Name and No. Mapped as Urban Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass T 23N R 4E Date /Time August 21. 1989 / 4:00 p.m, Wetland No. 7 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Spiraea douglasii Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Typha latifolia Dominance Types Eleocharis sp. Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Undisturbed III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River E. Stream F. Ditch G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass 10 C. Brush /Shrub 10 D. Woods _ 5 E. Agriculture F. Residential 50 G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 25 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Residential streets and single - family homes in surrounding area. 2 40 60 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Canyon F. Flat, Level Plain + ?the wetland is in depression surrounded by developed residential areas VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches black cottonwood and Oregon ash around edge E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures fenceposts H. Canopy Cover 10% I. Other VII. Comments. Wetland is a mosaic of scrub shrub dominated by hardhack, and emergent marsh dominated by cattail or spikerush. Wetland currently has nice buffer around most sides consisting of black cottonwood trees. Some portions of the buffer are dominated by Himalayan blackberry. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Enlarge wetland by converting upland grass area (southeast corner) into wetland. 3 D. A. B. E. B. IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. EN C. 4 X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? C. 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? Ea XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different A. Similar D. Wetland Upland E. C. C. a. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland 1 W We etland b. Upland Wetland I 3 r R' -Y N,. Wetland Upland F. Wetland Upland Trees Herbs Shrubs Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Lady's thumb knotweed (Polygonum persicaria) Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Marsh speedwell (Veronica scuttellata) Curly dock (Rumex crispus) Parentucellia (Parentucellia sp.) Willow (Salix spp.) Hardhack (Spiraea douglassii) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Burreed (Sparganium) Sedge (Carex sp.) Spikerush (Eleocharis) Rush (Juncus sp.) Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Birds Barn swallow Wetland Location Fort Dent Park Wetland No. 8 Quad Name Renton S 24 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Newberg Silt Loam Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Open Water a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 1 Date /Time August 22. 1989 / 3:20 p.m. Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Salix sp. Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers H. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other No activity within pond III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir D. River A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub D. (Isolated trees) E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) Pond i in F D n Park- ni kin an E. Stream F. Ditch G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland 2 75 25 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. ther r - cre ion . I 85 10 5 r nii .r 1111 r available. Edge of pond is primarily maintained grasses with scattered trees and a few shrubs. Railroad is parallel to east side of pond. V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Canyon G. Other >.... .......:............,. ........................ VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. VII. Comments. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover <5% I. Other The edge of the pond is very steep; this limits opportunities for emergent vegetation to become established. Water in the pond was very murky at time of site visit, which occurred less than 24 hours after heavy rainfall. Extensive duck use has led to water quality problems and bank erosion. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Water quality in the pond could be improved by regrading the edge of the pond to create a more gently sloping bank, and planting native wetland plants along the bank. This would help to minimize erosion. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. LI C. C)i X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? A. B. C. 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches D. L.E.J 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? B. 4 C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different A. Similar � \tip �ii•ytL e•L��.ry.•_N,.•��• Wetland Upland B. E. art Wetland Upland C. FCT a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland re Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland W etland b. Upland Wetland F. Wetland Upland Trees Black. cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Birch (Betula sp.) Herbs Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Shrubs Willow (Salix spp.) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Rush (Juncus sp.) Birds Canada Goose Mallard Barn Swallow Cedar Waxwing Wetland Location Tukwila Pond. south of Southcenter Quad Name Des Moines S 26 Soil Type: Name and No. Mapped as Urban Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Open Water a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class Emergent a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Wetland No. 9 T 23N R 4E Date /Time August 22. 1989 / 4:30 p.m. Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Willow sp. Dominance Types Spiraea douglasii Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Polygonum persicaria Dominance Types Solanum dulcamera Dominance Types Lythrum salicaria Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir D. River E. Stream F. Ditch G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 10 15 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Business offi e surr n s m. s ilk of h-. silt An 2 15 60 25 r P.rk W ns .len 4.iv the east side of the wetland. Human access to the pond is limited. A sparse buffer of cottonwoods provide some visual screening between buildings and roads and the wetland /pond. V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Cam on G. Other VII. Comments. VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches shrubs, dead branches. tall cottonwoods E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures fenceposts 2 -3' above water level H. Canopy Cover 2% I. Other The wetland consists of a large open water pond surrounded by emergent marsh and scrub shrub. In the southeast portion of fie site, reed canarygrass is dominant, although a narrow canal dominated by spatterdock runs across the emergent marsh. The site is surrounded by developed commercial areas. Vegetation at the edge of the pond is dominated by smartweed mixed with bittersweet nightshade and purple loosestrife. Approximately 35 percent of the pond has a band of willow at the edge of the emergent marsh. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Allow or develop stronger shrub /tree buffer around site. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? B. C X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? A. B. 80%+ 60 border/patches 40-60% border/patches E. C. C. 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? A. C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different A. Similar D. �K.hfi••tifunl�•.li.i•..etA• •SnY Wetland Upland B. E. a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upl an W etland b. Upland Wetland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland C. Wetland Upland F. Trees. Black cottonwood (Jopulus trichocarpa) Herbs Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Marsh Speedwell (Veronica scuttellata) Lady's thumb knotweed (Polygonum persicaria) Spatterdock (Nuphar polysepalum) Shrubs Willow (Salix spp.) Hardhack (Spiraea douglassii) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Birds Barn Swallow Redwinged Blackbird Wetland Location 62nd Avenue So. Quad Name Des Moines TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY ' ' S 23 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Mapped as Urban Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Emergent Marsh a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class Forested Swamp a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 1 Wetland No. 10 Date /Time September 5. 1989 / 10:00 a.m. Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Cornus stolonifera Dominance Types Salix sp. Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Ranunculus repens Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Salix sp, Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Undisturbed III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake E. Stream B. Reservoir F. Ditch C. Pond G. Estuary D. River = > -rek A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland 2 50 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. 80 15 5 Single- family and multi - family residences on roads north and south of wetland. Wetland is generally surrounded by upland deciduous forest. Tukwila trail travels along west boundary. V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B Mountains) or Ridge D. Valley E. Canyon F. Flat, Level Plain G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high a few ±10' tall. 1.5' dbh B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches several big -leaf maple and alder trees around edge of scrub shrub E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover dense shrubs - salmonberry. dogwood and willow I. Other nice forested buffer VII. Comments. The wetland is located east of 62nd Avenue South where 62nd turns into a trail. Shrub swamp is dominated by a combination of willow, salmonberry and red -osier dogwood. The wetland occurs in a depression on a hillside and appears to be fed by at least one small creek. A small emergent area dominated by creeping buttercup is present at the east end of wetland. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Limit further encroachment on buffer. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? VATI 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches D. B. E. C. C. 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? A. 4 C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different A. Wetlaandd Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland Wetland Similar a. Wetland Upland D. )1 \4 t,•4f vn1 fu .1,e - •.Y Wetland Upland E. C. C. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Red alder (Alnus rubra) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Herbs Skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) Water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) American brooklime (Veronica americana) Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) Shrubs Vine maple (Acer circinatum) Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) Willow (Salix spp.) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Coastal shield fern (Drysopteris arguta) Lady fern (Athyrium felix - femina) Wetland Location Beacon -Coal Mine Road Quad Name Des Moines h ' S 14 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Mapped as Urban Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Emergent Marsh a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Date /Time September 4. 1989 Wetland No. 11 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Salix sp. Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River The site is currently being filled. III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). E. Stream G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub 10 D. Woods 10 60 E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial 1 I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) � 40 (RR, roadway) Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. The wetland is situated between Beacon Coal Mine Road to the east and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to the west. The Seattle rendering plant is west of the railroad tracks. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain or Ridge D. Valley E. Canon ;Fla G. Other A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 5 dead cottonwoods approximately 2' dbh 1. Less than 25' high (1) 2. Greater than 25' high (4) C. Rock outcrops D. Perches branches on tall trees. some dying cedars E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover 70% shrub, tree vegetation I. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. VII. Comments. Roadway from gravel pit runs into southern end of wetland. Garbage has been dumped here historically. The wetland is currently being filled with soil, concrete and wood. The middle portion of the wetland narrows to a drainage ditch dominated by reed canarygrass. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Remove fill and develop a vegetative screen between railroad tracks and wetland. IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? B. C. X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? D. A. B. 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches E. 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? Fif.4 C. C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. A. Similar D. 0%J i r •••11 Wetland Upland LE XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different a. Wetland Upland 12 Wetland Upland Wetland Upland b. Upland I Wetland b. Upland I Wetland Upland Wetland E. C. re 1 i 4, 4.• 4 ;'::'. t ' 4 . 4 1 V.rft*:41'AN- Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) W. Red Cedar (Thuja plicata) Herbs Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Shrubs Red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Willow (Salix sp.) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Sedge (Carex sp.) Duckweed (Lemma min r) Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Coastal shield fern (Drysopteris arguta) Birds Red - tailed hawk American robin Song sparrow Chickadee Quad Name Renton Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney TUKWILA I. Indicate FWS Wetland Classifica ion A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Forested Swamp a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Emergent Marsh a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Special Modifiers ND INVENTORY Wetland Location West of Longacres. . etween railroads Wetland No. 12 S 25.26 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Puget Silty I lay Loam (Hydric) 1 Date /Time September 5. 1989 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Salix sp. Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Azolla sp. Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Spiraea douglasii Dominance Types Salix sp. Dominance Types II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Undisturbed III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River E. Stream G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub D. Woods E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport. Corridor(s) 100 100 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Majority of the wetland is between two sets of railroad tracks. V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Canyon G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches large willow trees E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover ± 60% I. Other VII. Comments. The wetland is a large system adjacent to railroad tracks. Willow trees and red - osier dogwood are dominant in forested portions of the wetland. Ground layer is mostly unvegetated; the area is probably seasonally flooded. Scrub shrub portions of the wetland are dominated by willow; emergent areas are dominated by common cattail. The west edge of the wetland has been disturbed and is now dominated by water fern. The railroad tracks divide the wetland. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Leave undisturbed. IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. 41 X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? B. 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches D. E. B. 4 C. C. 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? C. • .• XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? Similar D. Wetland i Upland B. B. E. C. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different C. F. a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland OE Upland Wetland b. Upland I Wetland b. Upland I Wetland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Herbs Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Common cattail (Typha latifolia) American brooklime (Veronica americana) Marsh speedwell (Veronica scuttellata) Water fern (Azolla sp.) Shrubs Red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) Willow (Salix spp.) Hardhack (Spiraea douglassii) Lady's thumb knotweed (Polygonum persicaria) English plantain (Plantago lanceolata) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Spikerush (Eleocharis) Rush (Juncus sp.) Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Birds Marsh Wren Downy Woodpecker Bushtits Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Wetland Location End of Minkler Road Quad Name Renton S 25 T 23N R 4E Soil Type: Name and No. Mapped as Urban Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Open Water a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class Emergent Marsh a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class Scrub Shrub a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass Date /Time September 5. 1989 Wetland No. 13 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Spiraea douglasii Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Undisturbed III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir E. Stream F. Ditch G. Estuary IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water 30 B. Grass 10 30 C. Brush /Shrub 10 30 D. Woods 25 40 E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial 10 H. Industrial I. Recreational _ 5 J. Transport. Corridor(s) 10 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. City building on northwest portion of wetland. Duwamish (Green) on east side of wetland. Green River trail is on east side of wetland. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge C. Hill or Hilly Area D. Valley E. Canyon G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches trees on edge of wetland E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures control structure to Green River H. Canopy Cover I. Other VII. Comments. Wetland is a pond surrounded by emergent and scrub shrub vegetation. The site is used by ducks and other waterfowl. Emergent areas dominated by cattail and lady's thumb knotweed. Scrub shrub areas are dominated by willow or hardhack. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Increase the buffer on the east side of the pond. IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. A. A. B. X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? B. 80 %+ 60 -80% border /patches 40-60% border /patches E. 20-40% border /patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? 4 C. C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A. D. Wetland Upland B. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different E. 5 C. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland Ea Wetland Upland b. Upland I Wetland b. Upland I Wetland b. Upland Wetland Similar F. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Trees Red alder (Alnus rubra) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Herbs Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Lady's thumb knotweed (Polygonum persicaria) Shrubs Hardhack (Spiraea douglassii) Willow (Salix sp.) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Birds Mallard Common Coot Soil Type: Name and No. Unmapped Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. Indicate FWS Wetland Classification TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Wetland Location Near Crystal Springs Park Wetland No. 14 Quad Name Des Moines ' 4 S 22 A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Forested Swamp a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 1 T 23N R 4E Date /Time September 5. 1989 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Alnus rubra Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other Undisturbed III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake E. Stream B. Reservoir F. Ditch C. Pond G. Estuary D. River ?`eepi IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub D. Woods 30 80 E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational 50 J. Transport. Corridor(s) 20 20 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. Wetland is between Crystal Springs Park and South 160th Street. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain(s) or Ridge D. Valley E. Canyon F. Flat, Level Plain G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches red alder trees E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures H. Canopy Cover 80 - 90% red alder I. Other VII. Comments. Wetland is fed by seeps that ultimately feed into a control structure. Most of the wetland had been fenced by the Washington Department of Transportation. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. Leave undisturbed. 3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. D. A. X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? B. E. 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? 4 C. C. C. XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? A{ B. XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different A. a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland b. Upland Similar D. ��1.���1�•�111/RV ��.Y L.�r IS A.t J ��U Wetland Upland B. E. Wetland Upland C. C. Wetland Upland Trees Red alder (Alnus rubra) Herbs Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) Skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) Water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) Pig -a -back (Tolmeia menziesi) Indian plum (Oemelania cerasiformis) Shrubs Sahnonberry (Rubus spectabilis) Red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Coastal shield fern (Drysopteris austriaca) Wetland Location at on -ramp for I -5 from Martin Luther King Way Wetland No. 15 Quad Name Seattle South ' , S Soil Type: Name and No. Unmapped Crew Members Sarah Cassatt Betsy MacWhinney I. TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY Indicate FWS Wetland Classification A. System Palustrine Water Regime(s) 1. Class Emergent Marsh a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 2. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3. Class a. Subclass b. Subclass c. Subclass 3 T 23N R 4E Date /Time September 5, 1989 Subsystem Common Name Dominance Types Typha latifolia Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Common Name Dominance Types Dominance Types Dominance Types Special Modifiers II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site. A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial powerline corridor D. Recreational E. Transportation F. Other III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify on sketch). A. Lake B. Reservoir C. Pond D. River E. Stream G. Est IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of edge, and distance from wetland edge. • Approximate % of Total % of Edge Surroundings w /in 20' Habitat /Land Use within 1000 ft. of Wetland A. Water B. Grass C. Brush /Shrub D. Woods 50 75 E. Agriculture F. Residential G. Commercial H. Industrial I. Recreational J. Transport, Corridor(s) 50 25 Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above. I -5 and Martin Luther King Way on west side of wetland. 2 V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site (identify on sketch). A. Cliff or Bluff B. Mountain or Ridge 11111. * Ufily Area D. Valley E. Canyon F. Flat, Level Plain G. Other VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland. A. Snags - more than 18" dia. 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high B. Snags - less than 18' dia 1. Less than 25' high 2. Greater than 25' high C. Rock outcrops D. Perches some shrubs E. Logs - Floating Embedded F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge G. Artificial Structures powerline poles H. Canopy Cover <20% I. Other VII. Comments. Small emergent wetland under powerline corridor, dominated by common cattail. A few clumps of willow are present. VIII. Enhancement Opportunities. None recommended -3 IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland? A. X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened area) on the wetland? D. A. Fi37 B. 80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches E. 20-40% border/patches less than 20% XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types within the wetland? 4 C. C. C. • •, XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND vegetation types bordering the wetland? XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation? Different Similar D. Wetland Upland B. E. c. c. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland a. Wetland Upland b. Upland 1 Wetland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland Wetland F. Wetland Upland Wetland Upland • Trees Red alder (Alms rubra) Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Herbs Common cattail (Typha latifolia) Reedgrass (Phragmites communis) Shrubs Willow (Salix spp.) Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns Soft rush (Juncus effusus) Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433.1800 • Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will hold Special Meeting in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Wash., on Monday, October 30, 1989, at 5:30 p.m. to consider the following: A Resolution fixing a date for a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing a moratorium on all development on certain property within the City. Any and all persons are invited to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on same. CITY OF TUKWILA Maxine Anderson City Clerk CC: Anh Do, South Seattle Times Leonard Saari, Valley Daily News 10/27/89 - Date Mailed To: City Council From: Lucy Lauterbach Date: October 27, 1989 Subject: Options for Placina a Moratorium on Development The City Council has several options for putting a moratorium on development while the City adopts a sensitive areas ordinance. The purpose of a moratorium is to ensure the City takes the time to carefully consider all the elements of the ordinance and what should and should not be included, without worrying about developers who might try to develop quickly before the City adopts any sensitive areas ordinance. We have to follow certain procedures in order to put a moratorium in place. Apparently moratoriums can be challenged if they're not done properly. The most legally defensible position the City could take would be . to go through the Planning Commission hearing process, and then to act on the Planning Commission's recommendation. This would be difficult because of the Commission's workload and their time constraints, so the City Attorney and I are recommending the Council hold a public hearing yourselves as part of your decision process on the moratorium. The City Clerk needs two weeks (ten days) to advertise a public hearing. Therefore, the City Council hearing on a moratorium will be November 13. One issue the Council should decide is the degree of notification for the public hearing. Because of the interest shown at the . public meeting on sensitive areas held October 25, and because :a moratorium has serious implications for some citizens, it would help us in a court challenge if we send a public hearing notice to all residents to advise them of the public hearing. If you disagree, please discuss this at your October 30 meeting. It should be possible for the Council to adopt the moratorium ordinance after a discussion on the same evening of the public hearing. I should also tell you that there are already permits in for development of several lots which are currently designated as being in a sensitive area in the draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. CITY OF TUKWILA A RESOLUTION OF THE MY OF TUKWIIA, WASHINGTON, FIXING A DATE FOR. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ALL DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council has asked the Planning commission to consider and make recommendations concerning restrictions of development on certain types of sensitive areas within the City, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on such issues on November 9, 1989, and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1989, the residents of King County will vote on a bond issue which, if passed, will authorize the acquisition of certain property in the City of Tukwila for open space, and WHEREAS, it is neceuary for the City Council to take immediate and emergent action to preserve the status quo of these properties pending final action by the City Council and the vote of King County residents. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CM OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A public hearing on the iuue of whether a moratorium should be declared on all developinent on sensitive areas and open spaces shall be held before the City Council on November 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Maps are available for inspection at the Planning Department at Tukwila City Hall during regular office hours. 11. WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. / ° Section / Noice, Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publication as required by law. PASSED BY THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF TUKWILA, W HINGTON, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF THIS SO gt DAY OF 1989. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: erson, CITY OF TUKWILA . TO: Gary Van Dusen FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw.. ' Subject: SAO Date : 27 October 1989 Public Workshop - 25 October There were approximately 40 people who attended. After a brief introduction to the proposal, we had a comment and question period. The most vocal participants were those who owned or had an interest in the property just south of Mapletree Subdivision. Their comments were that the City had no right to regulate sensitive areas when 2/3 of the City has already been developed. Regulations should apply uniformly to all properties and nonconforming uses should be made to comply with proposal. If the Corp regulates wetlands and allows up to one acre of fill, why are we getting involved. We should allow all these areas to be piped, hooked up to oil /water separators and then taxed for any additional cleansing. John McAbee, owner of the "Macadam Wetland," stated that the City caused the wetland on his property to increase, by allowing the Church to pave their parking lot. Mrs. Strander and Mrs Gardner did not want their properties on 57th and 56th Avenue S. respectively designated as sensitive. Mrs. Strander said if its okay to build a reservoir across the street, then her property must be okay. She also wanted to continue to trim and maintain the trees on her property. The soil stability of sloping property does not depend just on percent slope and requiring huge engineering studies is not reasonable. John Welsh, Property Owners for Property'Rights, a property owner in Cascade View, questioned whether ordinance was for safety or open space reasons. Property owners should develop the ordinance. SEPA requires the economic issues to be addressed. Planning Commission Workshop - 26 October The Planning Commission was briefed on the draft ordinance and the concerns expressed by those at the public workshop. The Commission's concerns were as follows: 1. If we designate wetlands, slopes greater than 40 % and watercourses as protected, we should not turn around and allow development of these areas if the entire lot would be rendered unusable by the ordinance. We as a community should be prepared to buy the lot. 2. The concept and details of mitigation for filling in of minor wetlands were discussed. 3. 40% slopes is not a category we should be protecting, its possible to safely develop them. 4. Concern was expressed about the potential negative impact this ordinance would have on permit processing times. 4. The Planning Commission would like to conduct a detailed review of the ordinance. 5. The study requirements looked like an attempt to obstruct and delay development. 6. The 1:1 ratio for tree replacement in trees was considered unreasonable. AMERICAN BOARD Or PSYCHIATRY & NEUROLOGY October 27, 1989 City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6200 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Proposal for greenbelt for slopped area Gentlemen: Thank you very much for the public hearing that is being scheduled soon for the proposal for formation of the greenbelt area on the slopped area and where there is some sort of a natural stream in some part of the season. I am not certain as to whether my property applies to this or not, I suspect it may, but I am very much against this proposal. On the slopped area, the apartment can be built to prevent further erosion. There is a tremendous need for increased housing in the King County area. This would be tantamount to potential confiscation of the land. In addition, I am very concerned about the down - zoning to a single residential from RN 900, in my case, and I have been quite unhappy, but without any recourse sofar. King County's attempt to greenbelt area has been defeated or at least postponed. In fact, I think there should be a judicious increase in the land utilization in the higher density areas, if the single residential area has been deteriorating. In short, thank you very much for my receiving of the strong opposition for formation of the greenbelt area of the slope, as well as the inclined area with the seasonal streams. lb Q(0 NNQ/� , 1 Gv 5i �.1�` Cv�Ulitl-Kc Sincerely, 1. DAVID HONG, M. D. CABRINI TOWERS, SUITE 707 901 BOREN AVE. SEATTLE, WA. 98104 TEL.. (206) 587.5747 PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE Olov A. 1989 i City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 26, 1989 Chairman Haggerton called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Members present were Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Kirsop, Knudson, Gomez, and Flesher. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw, Vernon Umetsu and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. CAGLE MOVED MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AS PRESENTED. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. SENSITIVE AREA DRAFT ORDINANCE comments received from the public at held on Wednesday, October 25, 1989. for adopting the Ordinance. AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A SEPTEMBER 28, 1989 MEETING - Moira Bradshaw reviewed the informational workshop She reviewed the process General discussion ensued on the merits of the ordinance. A portion of the November , 1989 Planning Commission meeting is to be devoted to a work session on the ordinance. MULTI - FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS - Vernon Umetsu reviewed the concepts contemplated for the changes to design review process which include more specific standards, design review criteria, and design guidelines. A brief discussion ensued on these concepts. A Planning Commission workshop is scheduled as well as a public hearing in December. STATE FARM - Vernon Umetsu discussed the conditions of approval placed on the design review of this project on May 12, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Condition 6 stated that the building facade /colors are to be specified by applicant and approved by the Board. Mr. Michael Glanz, architect for State Farm, 16212 Bothell Way, Suite F -146, Mill Creek, WA introduced samples of brick and glass to be used in the design of this project. He pointed out five combinations to be considered. Cif i of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1206) 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor CASE NUMBER: REQUEST: V DIRECTOR'S REPORT VI ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, November 9 1989 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall AGENDA I CALL TO ORDER II ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 26,1989 IV NEW BUSINESS 89 -2-CA The City of Tukwila proposes the adoption of a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code, and amending the subdivision and environmental codes to reflect the proposal. Regulation will: 1. Designate as sensitive: a. watercourses, h wetlands, c. slopes of 15% and greater, and d. abandoned coal mines. 2. Establish vegetative buffers for sensitive areas. 3. Create development standards for sensitive areas. Explanation of proposed moratorium on Sensitive Areas. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, October 26,1989 8:00 p.m. - Conference Room #3 in City Hall AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ATTENDANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 28, 1989 IV WORK SESSION A. Sensitive Areas Ordinance (see attachments) B. Multi - family Design Standards (see attachments) V DIRECTOR'S REPORT VI ADJOURNMENT � City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To: Planning Commission From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 19 October 1989 Subject: Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) The City Council requested a draft copy of the proposed SAO to review at their 23 October Committee of the Whole meeting. Although staff has included 15 and 40 percent in the draft copy, the issue of percent slopes to include in the ordinance is unresolved at this time. A copy has also been included in your packet to give you an opportunity to study the proposal prior to Thursday's meeting. As you have probably received one yourself, you are aware of the brochure that has been sent to all property owners within the City of Tukwila as well as to appropriate environmental organizations. A public workshop will be held on the 25th of October to discuss the issues and proposed standards. Staff will then review the SAO with you on the 26th of October to prepare for the 9th of November public hearing. There are five basis elements of the proposed legislation: First, defining what the City considers a sensitive area and restricting development of those areas. Second, requiring special study prior to development of these areas. Staff has incorporated the study requirements and criteria for mitigation in the Environmental Ordinance (TMC 21.) Exemptions from SEPA, single family homes for example, do not apply in sensitive areas. Third, establishing buffer areas adjacent to the sensitive areas to protect them from the adjacent development. Fourth, creating special construction and development standards for these areas. Fifth, providing opportunities for variance from the standards. PLANNING COMMISSION SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE OCTOBER 19, 1989 To facilitate review of the attached ordinance, letters in the margin refer to explanatory paragraphs below. A. Amends the Subdivision Ordinance to bring the existing section on unsuitable land up to date on sensitive area regulation and essentially stipulates conformance with the regulations to be established by the SAO. B. Amends the Zoning Code's definition section to explain what are sensitive areas and other terms used within the ordinance. C. Creates a Sensitive Area Zone which overlays on top of existing zoning districts. Similar to the Shoreline Zone it creates special standards and regulations unique to the sensitive areas. D. Requires buffers adjacent to sensitive areas to protect their functions similar to the required river environment adjacent to the Green /Duwamish. E. Restricts use within watercourses and wetlands and establishes criteria for development within these areas for those uses permitted. F. Restricts use on sensitive slopes and establishes standards for uses allowed. G. Establishes conditions for development in the vicinity of abandoned mine areas. H. Establishes an exception process for s *existing development *existing lots of record *use restrictions on sensitive slopes I. Amends the City's Environmental ordinance to define sensitive areas per the new ordinance and to establish specifications for special study in these areas. SUBDIVISION CODE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE The draft SAO modifies the subdivision and environmental ordinances and creates a new section in the zoning code. In brief, the effect of the SAO is: Unsuitable Land - Property shall not be divided unless the proposed lots meet SAO requirements. Trees - In new subdivision or short plats, where trees are removed, there shall be a 1 for 1 replacement. ZONING CODE Definitions - Adds new language to the Zoning Code defining the sensitive areas and including new concepts of lot coverage and essential rights -of -way and utilities. Sensitive Areas include the following: • Abandoned Mines • Landslide Hazard Areas • Slopes 15 percent and greater • Wetlands • Watercourses Buffers - No alteration or structure will be allowed within buffer areas. For each sensitive area there will be the following minimums: Wetlands: 40 feet for major wetlands 25 feet for minor wetlands Watercourses: 25 feet if adjacent land slopes less than 15% 40 feet if adjacent land slopes 15% or greater Steep slope (40% and greater): 50 feet from top of slope Historic or potential mass slide area: 75 feet from toe of slope Uses - Only the following uses shall be allowed within subject sensitive area: Wetlands and Watercourses: • essential utilities • essential roads • public use and access Sensitive Slopes: Between 15 and 39 percent -- underlying uses of zoning district (Le., R-1, R-3, P-O) 40 percent and greater — • minor landscaping alterations • pedestrian trails and picnic areas • public and private utility corridors ��t Exceptions - • Existing development shall not be considered nonconforming with respect to the sensitive area overlay • Existing residential development will be allowed to apply for one variance to expand into the sensitive area or its buffer not to exceed 20 percent increase in square footage. • Existing lots of record, if denied a reasonable use, will be allowed a single family dwelling subject to standards of overlay zone. • Minor wetlands and watercourses may be altered and relocated subject to performance standards • Slopes exceeding 40 percent may be developed if variance is approved through the Board of Adjustment. Recording - • Site plans delineating sensitive areas and buffers shall be recorded with King County Records upon development of property • Signs shall be posted identifying the sensitive areas when a sensitive site is developed. Assurance Devise - Performance or maintenance devises may be required when a sensitive site is developed or when a sensitive site or buffer are approved for alteration. ENVIRONMENTAL CODE Funding may be required of the applicant for the City to hire a qualified professional to review applicant's study. Page 2 Environmentally sensitive areas shall be the areas defined by the Zoning Code Sensitive Area Overlay Zone Special Studies are necessary for review of developments in sensitive areas but exempts single family dwellings from study requirements where sufficient technical information exists a. b. c. d. g. DRAFT NO. 1 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Whereas the Tukwila City Council finds that an ordinance is necessary to implement the objectives and policies addressing development impacts to water resources and areas of natural hazards identified in the Natural Environment, Open Space, and Utilities Elements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Whereas the Tukwila City Council finds that procedures and standards are necessary: To protect sensitive areas by regulating their development To minimize the impacts of development on the natural function and values these areas perform for the community and region. To protect the quantity and quality of water resources. To minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and to maintain wildlife habitat. e. To provide for the protection of trees and woodlands located in sensitive areas and in their buffers and for the revegetation of these areas when developed. f. To protect the public against avoidable losses and damages from: (1) Landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. (2) Maintenance and replacement of public facilities. (3) Property damage. (4) Subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts. (5) Cost for public emergency rescue and relief operations. To alert appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers and lessees of the natural limitations of the physical environment. h. To provide city officials with information to condition or deny public or private projects in order to protect sensitive areas; and expedite governmental review processes. i. To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as revised in 1984. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SUBDIVISION CODE Section 1. Chapter 17.20.020 Amended Chapter 17.20.020 Environmental Considerations of the Subdivision Ordinance, TMC 17, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to flooding and poor drainage based on a review by the Public Works Department, the administrators of the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Area Overlay zone, TMC 18.45 and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. Land shall not be platted unless the proposed lots can be shown to meet the requirements of both ordinances. 2. Trees. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and if removed, replaced at a 1:1 ratio with specimen deciduous and coniferous trees in significant stands. A tree removal /retention /revegetation plan shall be submitted at the time of preliminary plat application and shall be subject to Planning Commission and City Council preliminary plat approval. The plan shall show at two foot contour intervals, the existing ground elevations and proposed elevations for planned improvements. The approved plan shall be a part of the grading permit application for installation of plat improvements. October 25,1989 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 2 ZONING CODE Section 2. Chapter 18.06 Amended. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility, utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Landslide hazard areas. "Landslide hazard areas" means those areas subject to a severe risk of landslide due to: 1. A combination of the following factors: a. slopes greater than fifteen percent; and b. impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel); and c. springs or ground water seepage during the wet season (November to February). 2. The location of a landslide feature which has historical movement. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. "Lot Coverage "means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface other than outdoor pools, which will not allow for the percolation of water into the underlying soils such as buildings, compacted gravel, asphalt and concrete. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas "means wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas and abandoned coal mine areas. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer "means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.775 Steep Slopes. "Steep Slopes "means the ground that rises ten feet or more for every twenty -five feet of horizontal distance, thus having a slope of 40% or steeper, that has an elevation change of more than 10 feet and square footage of greater than 500 square feet. 18.06.855 Tree. "Tree"means any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi- stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. 18.06.935 Watercourses. "Watercourses "means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. "Wetlands "means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. They are further categorized as follows: 1. Major wetlands shall be those that rated a 1 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory 2. Minor wetlands shall be those that rated a 2 or 3 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory or are less than an acre and have two or fewer wetland subclasses. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 A new chapter 18.45 is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION ZONING CODE Section 3. Chapter 18.45 Established The purpose of this overlay district is to establish special standards for use and development of land based on known hazards, and to minimize the disturbance of development to the natural character of the City's wooded hillsides and to preserve and enhance the quantity and quality of water in Tukwila's watercourses and wetlands. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Pae3 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: a. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps or b. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following: • Abandoned coal mines • Landslide hazard areas • Slopes of 15% and steeper • Wetlands • Watercourses The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on or adjacent to a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. 2. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 3. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER DESIGNATION 1. Minimum Buffers a. General: Any structure and any land alteration must be setback out of the buffer areas as required by this section; Buffers in general are required in order to: (1) Minimize long -term impacts of development adjacent to Sensitive Areas, and (2) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, and b. Watercourse and Wetland Buffers are specifically required to: (1) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and room for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (2) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 4 (3). Stabilize banks, and (4) Intercept fine sediments, and (5) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (6) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. c. Steep Slope Buffers are specifically required to: (1) Protect slope stability, and (2) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control, and (3) Screen hillside development. d. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are permitted. e. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. 2. Wetlands Buffer a. Major Wetlands: 40 feet from the wetland edge. b. Minor Wetlands: 25 feet from the wetland edge. 3. Watercourse Buffer a. Watercourses which are located adjacent to land which slopes less than 15% or which have intermittent water flows shall have a 25 foot buffer from the top of each bank. b. Watercourses which are located adjacent to land and which slopes 15% or greater shall have a 40 -foot horizontal buffer from the top of each bank. 4. The buffers for wetlands and watercourses may be required to be increased by Tukwila when the area is particularly sensitive to disturbance or the development poses unusual impacts as identified in the special study. The standards listed above will be the criteria for expansion of the watercourse and wetlands minimums. Examples include: a. The development proposal involves the production, use storage or sale of hazardous materials or is a use which has significant environmental impacts. b. The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington; c. Special study identifies the presence of salmonids within the watercourse and or adjacent land which is a landslide hazard area or subject to severe erosion. d. The adjacent soils are subject to severe erosion such as severely erodible. 4. Slopes a. Top of Slope: 50 feet from top and sides of 40% slopes and landslide hazard areas and having a grade difference from top to bottom of at least ten feet. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 18.45.060 PROCEDURES 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 5 b. Sites where historic or potential mass slope movement occurs shall have a 75- foot buffer from toe of slope. c. Slope Buffer Modification: The Director of DCD and the Director of Public Works may waive or modify the slope buffer if the applicant demonstrates that: (1) The proposed construction method will, as demonstrated in the required geotechnical analysis, improve or not adversely impact the stability of the slope and reduce erosion potential, and (2) The proposal uses construction techniques which minimize disruption of the existing topography and vegetation, and (3) The proposal adequately addresses, without long term monitoring, the existing geological constraints of the site including soils and hydrology. 1. When an applicant submits an application for any development, subdivision, short plat or land use review which approves future construction or use it shall indicate whether any sensitive areas or their buffers are located on or adjacent to the site. If a sensitive area is identified and sufficient information to evaluate the proposal is not provided with the application, the applicant will be required to provide special studies as part of the SEPA process and per the specifications of 21.04.140. It is intended that sensitive area studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be completed prior to the design of a proposal. 2. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. 1. General: Only the following uses may be located within a Sensitive Area or its buffer. Each permitted use is subject to the applicable standards of this Section. 2. Wetlands and Watercourses a. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland or watercourse except as specifically allowed by this section or through approved enhancement or mitigation plans. Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. b. Essential Utilities (1) Essential public utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland and watercourse disturbance by laterally drilling at a depth of at least four feet; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and the watercourse against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, aesthetic loss, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential public utilities, wetlands and watercourses must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. c. Essential Roads (1) Roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Pane 6 (2) Roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the aesthetic and hydrologic quality of the wetland and any interrelated watercourse habitat. Where feasible, crossings must be by bridging the wetland and watercourse and must allow for combination with other essential public utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. d. Public Use and Access (1) Public access must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Parks and Open Space Plan trail linkage program: and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or watercourse or their buffers required by Section 18.45.040 except as required for necessary maintenance or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive facility developed in a wetland and /or watercourse must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Consolidated area for nesting, breeding, and rearing must be preserved in the wetland and /or watercourse area and their buffer required by Section 18.45.080 to protect sensitive plant and wildlife species; and (8) Dredging or filling within a wetland and or watercourse may occur only for the following purposes: (a). Maintenance of an existing water body or water corridor, or (b) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in sensitive area study or (c) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City, or DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 (d) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila. 3. Sensitive Slope Conditions a. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites with slopes exceeding 15 %, except for those portions of a site where slopes exceed 40% and portions that are landslide hazard areas. The standards of this section and the geotechnical recommendations of the required special study apply to each use or development in these areas. b. Limited Exemption: Slopes 40% and steeper with a vertical elevation change of up to 20 feet may be exempted from the provisions of this section based on Tukwila review of a soils report that demonstrates that no adverse impact will result from the exemption. (Slopes of less than 10 feet in elevation change need no soils report.) DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 7 c. Restricted Uses: For those portions of sites or sites that are unbuildable due to this section the following uses may be permitted subject to the procedures and standards of this chapter: (1) minor landscaping alterations (2) pedestrian trails and picnic areas (3) public and private utility corridors d. Disturbance Limitations (1) Basic Requirement: Development on property including a slope equal to or greater than 15% must: (c) Consolidate development to produce the least amount of coverage by buildings and other impervious surfaces. e. Revegetation: Where any portion of a sensitive slope is cleared for development, it shall be replanted with an equal mix of specimen evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater of vine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. f. Location: (a) Consolidate all areas of disturbance on the areas of least slope, preserving areas of significant environmental features, such as but not limited to an area of vegetation valuable for habitat or aesthetic reasons, a ridgeline which constitutes an area -wide visual amenity, and (b) Minimize changes in grade, cleared area to areas of proposed impervious surface, and volume of cut or fill on the site. (1) Development must be located to minimize disturbance and removal of vegetation; and (2) Structures must be clustered to retain as much open space as possible and the natural topographic character of the slope; and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 (3) Structures must conform to the natural contour of the slope. The foundation must be tiered to conform to the existing topography of the site; and (4) Development must be located so as to preserve the most sensitive portion of the site and its natural landform or to protect vistas from public spaces. g. Design DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 8 (1) Development must minimize the footprint of buildings and other disturbed areas. The least number of buildings is desirable in order to consolidate the development; and (2) Development must retain consolidated areas of natural vegetation; and (3) Development must be designed with a foundation type that is compatible with existing slope conditions and that minimizes topographic modification. Where feasible, earth retention measures should be incorporated into the structure; and (4) Standard prepared building pads; i.e., slab on grade, resulting in grading more than ten feet outside the building footprint area are prohibited: and (5) Development must be designed to minimize the amount of impervious surface; and (6) Use of common access drives and utility corridors is required where feasible; and (7) Development must be designed to minimize lot coverage and must, with the exception of detached single family structures, incorporate understructure parking and multi-level structures where permitted; and (8) Roads, walkways and parking areas must be designed parallel to contours with consideration to maintaining consolidated areas of natural topography and vegetation. Access must be located in the least sensitive area feasible; and (9) Use of retaining walls which allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas is preferred over graded artificial slopes. (10) Change in grade, cleared area and volume of cut or fill on the site must be minimized; and h. Construction Types (1) Use of foundation walls as retaining walls is preferable to rock or concrete walls built separately and away from the building. Freestanding retaining devices are only permitted when they cannot be designed as structural elements of the building foundation; and (2) For slopes exceeding 40% use of pole -type construction which conforms to the existing topography is required where feasible. All structures must be tiered to conform to the existing topography and to minimize topographic modification; and (3) Piled deck support structures are preferred for parking or garages over fill - based construction types. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 4. Abandoned Mine Areas a. Development of a site containing or adjacent to an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when all significant risks associated with the abandoned mine working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. b. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical engineering special study. 18.45.120 EXCEPTIONS 1. Provisions for existing development: DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 9 a. General: All residential and commercial development located in wetlands, watercourses and /or their corridors or on steep slopes and in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. (1) Residential Development: A residential development described above may be expanded into a Sensitive Area or its buffer through the variance procedure outlined in 18.72. Only one expansion through the variance procedure will be allowed and that expansion will be limited to a 20 percent increase of total square footage. 2. Provisions for existing legal lots of record a. Development of a single family dwelling shall be allowed, if application of this chapter denies all use of property provided construction shall occur subject to the procedures and standards of 18.45. b. Minor wetlands and watercourses that prevent all use of existing property, may be altered and relocated if special study demonstrates that alteration/ relocation can meet the performance standards of 21.04.104(a)(4). 3. Provisions for variances: The Board of Adjustment shall review requests for variance from the standards of this chapter unless exempted by 18.45.120(2) or unless specifically waived elsewhere within this chapter. The use restriction on steep slopes shall use criteria of this paragraph as well as the criteria and procedures of 18.72. It is the applicant's burden to: a. Demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards and criteria of this Chapter, and b. Provide a geotechnical and stability analysis as required by the City which indicates engineering design acceptable to the City, and c. Provide other information necessary for the analysis as required by the Director of Public Works, and d. Provide an engineering solution that does not rely on life of project maintenance not normally performed in building and site maintenance. e. The City may require the applicant to fund a qualified professional, selected and retained by the Department of Public Works, to review the analysis and design. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 f. If the Directors of Public Works and DCD determine that the applicant complies with the above, Protected Area status no longer apply to the subject sensitive area; however the standards for development shall be applied. 4. Provisions for emergencies that threaten the public health, safety, and welfare. The restrictions and related requirements of sensitive area use shall be exempted by Tukwila provided due diligence is used to minimize damage. 5. Hold Harmless: Property owners who submit development applications to the City for expansion or reconstruction or construction in a Sensitive Area or its buffer, shall execute a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney which releases the City from liability for any damage arising from the location of improvements within the Sensitive Area or its buffer. 18.45.160 RECORDING REQUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this Chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, steep slope, landslide hazard area or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by Section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provisions of this Chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. The boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and the adjacent developable land must be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.180 ASSURANCE DEVICE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE Section 4. 21.04.030 Amended. DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 10 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City may require a performance or maintenance assurance device in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter and adequate protection of a Sensitive Area and its buffer for up to two years after construction completion. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the director of DCD may require an assurance devise, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies that do not appear until after the monitoring program has ended. Section 21.04.030 is hereby amended to delete WAC 197 -11 -748 Environmentally sensitive area. Section 5. Section 21.04.040 Amended. Section 21.04.040 is hereby amended to add: (6) "Sensitive area" means wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas and abandoned coal mine areas as shown on the adopted zoning maps and as defined in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.06. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 Section 6. Section 21.04.130 Amended. Section 21.04.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Special studies as described in 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 11 Section 7. Section 21.04.140 Amended. Section 21.04.140(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) If the site is a sensitive area, then the following special study will be required. The DCD Director and Public Works Director may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a use or application. The following exceptions shall generally apply: • Single - family residential permits for lots created by subdivision after 1985. • No alteration of a sensitive area or its buffer is proposed. Special studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. All studies shall contain the following information unless it is already available in the permit application: (a) Map of the project at a 1:50 or larger scale, including: i. reference streets and property lines. ii. existing and proposed easements, rights -of -way, and structures. iii. contour intervals not to exceed 5 feet; 2 feet may be required for sites with varied topography. iv. hydrology — show surface water features both on and adjacent to the site; show any water movement into, through, and off of the project area; show stream and wetlands; show seeps, springs, saturated zones. (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) v. field location of tops and toes of 40% slopes and embankments (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) vi. location of buffer, proposed building(s) location, and other paved areas. vii. location of trees and description of vegetation on site. (b) Written report detailing i. how, when, and by whom the study was performed (including methodology and techniques). ii. description of the project site and its existing condition and artificial features such as utilities, paving, cuts and fills. iii. the total acreage of the site in sensitive areas and their associated buffers. iv. the proposed action and potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to the sensitive area features (see definitions). v. the mitigation measures proposed to avoid or lessen the projects' impacts during construction and permanently. When alterations to the sensitive area or its buffer are proposed, include a mitigation plan. vi. weather conditions during and prior to study if relevant to conclusions and recommendations, including seasonal factors which could reduce stability of site before, during or after construction. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 12 (2) Sensitive Area Study - Wetlands: In addition, for wetland studies, include the following: (a) On the map i. the edge of the wetland as flagged and surveyed in the field using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. January 10, 1989 ii. the edge of the 100 -year flood plain. iii. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. iv. when alteration of wetland is proposed, the vegetation of the wetland according to the Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior (b) In the report i. description of the wetland and the general condition of the wetland using the Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System. ii. determination of actual use of the wetland by any endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species of plants or wildlife as listed by the federal government or the State of Washington using both scientific and common names and their relative abundance. iii. a list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observations. iv. description of the soil types within the wetland using the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. v. description of the proposed buffers. (3) Sensitive Area Study - Watercourses. In addition, for watercourse studies, include the following information: (a) On the map i. the location of the ordinary high water mark and the top of channel bank. ii. the toe of any slope 15% or greater within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark. iii. the location of any proposed stream crossing, utility easements, or trails. iv. the edge of the existing 100 -year flood plain. (b) In the report i. characterization of watercourse (riparian) vegetation ii. description of the soil types adjacent to and underlying the stream, using the Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. iii. determination of the presence or absence of salmonids. Reference sources including the State Department of Fisheries Catalog of Streams and Salmon Utilizations, Metro Stream Resource Inventories, or State Wildlife Department Game Fish Distribution in Selected Streams. Electrofishing on site or the equivalent may be necessary if no existing documentation is available. iv. When a stream alteration is proposed, include existing stream width and flow, stability of the channel, type of substratum, estimate of infiltration capacity and biofiltration function, presence of hydrologically linked wetlands, and analysis of fish and wildlife habitat, and proposed flood plain limits. (4) Mitigation Plans for Alternations to Wetlands and Streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 13 (a) Baseline information: This is quantitive data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. i. For wetlands, the information should define habitat values (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures), functional values (e.g., wetland value assessment procedures of Adams and Stockwell, 1983), or document pertinent resource characteristics such as habitat area or species counts or density (e.g., mean number of eelgrass shoots per square meter). ii. For streams, habitat value, functional value and habitat evaluation are also necessary. At a minimum the following levels of analysis should be included: • Reconnaissance and evaluation - information required for the special studies, additional visual survey of the stream system and /or other pertinent information. • Habitat Trend Analysis - in some cases a more detailed analysis may be required. For this type of analysis current reference is Platts, W.S. et. al. 1987, Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management, General Technical Report INT -221, U.S.F.S., Intermountain Research Stations. • Extended monitoring - in an abnormal rainfall year pre - development monitoring may be necessary to provide adequate baseline data. (b) Environmental Goals and Objectives: These are written goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (c) Performance Standards: These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: i. maintain stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient; ii. restore native vegetation unless expressly waived by DCD; iii. create an equivalent channel bed; iv. create equivalent biofiltration; v. replace habitat value unless expressly waived by DCD; vi. replace horizontal alignment (meander length). (d) Detailed Construction Plan: These are the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (e) Monitoring and /or Evaluation Program: This component outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. It also describes the experimental and control site survey or sampling methods. A protocol shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (f) Contingency Plan: This section identifies potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 14 (g) Performance and Maintenance Bonds: Monetary agreements per Section 18.45.160 to ensure fulfillment of the mitigation project, the monitoring program, and 1 determine during the review and contingency measures. (5) Sensitive Area Study - Steep / Unstable Slopes (a) On the map: i. subsurface exploration locations. ii. the drainage plans for discharge of storm water runoff from developed areas iii. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. iv. the location of soil borings and cross- section locations at intervals to be determined by the Director of Public Works. (b) On the cross - section: i. existing and proposed grades at 2 -foot intervals. ii. structural elevations. iii. profiles should extend beyond property lines where necessary to evaluate conditions impacting the risk of instability on the site or adjacent sites. iv. known and inferred subsurface conditions. (c) In the report: i. discussion of any evidence of past or existing instability, significant erosion or seepage on the slope and on any information that could affect the future stability of the site; ii. a discussion of the nature and extent of any colluvium (heterogeneous mass of rock detritus or soil material emplaced primarily by gravitational process on or at the foot of slopes) or slope debris near the toe of slope in the vicinity of any proposed development; and iii. review of available literature regarding site and surrounding area. iv. a geologic description of site (exploration logs identified on the site plan) indicating the soils and stratigraphy of the site v. recommendations for foundation, site grading and earthwork. vi. recommendations for management of surface and subsurface drainage, including analysis of groundwater activity for various times of the year, and include in stability analysis. vii. recommendations for appropriate building setbacks, grading restrictions, vegetation management and erosion control for any proposed development in the vicinity of the steep slopes. (6) Sensitive Area Study - Abandoned Coal Mine: The study shall be prepared by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer who has demonstrated experience in evaluating hazards associated with abandoned coal mine workings. (a) on the map: i. obtain the best available mine maps, reference the date and source and show; ii. the extent and depth of all subsurface mine workings iii. the location of all mapped entrances, air shafts or other surface openings (b) based on an evaluation of the site in its present condition, show i. the location of any observed surface openings ii. the location of any observed pits, swales, depressions which could indicate subsidence or collapse iii. the location and nature of any mine related debris on the surface iv. the location and character of any spoils or tailings. v. the character and stratigraphic orientation of any bedrock exposures DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 15 (c) in the report: i. discuss the geologic setting of the site including the depth of Pleistocene overburden, the nature and orientation of the bedrock units and the location and thickness of all coal seams. Include at least one cross- section showing the geologic setting, extent of workings and proposed development. discuss the potential for discharge of noxious gases in the vicinity of the subject site. iii. discuss the potential for sudden collapse, void openings, or other threats to health or safety associated with development. iv. recommendations for any development setback restrictions based on an engineering evaluation of potential hazard from subsidence over large areas as well as localized collapse. v. recommendations for mitigation where possible to support with study data and engineering design. Section 8. Section 21.04.270 Amended Section 21.04.270 (1) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Zoning Code - TMC Chapter 18 Section 9. Section 21.04.300 Amended Section 21.04.115 Environmentally Sensitive Areas is hereby renumbered and amended to read as follows: (a) Sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 or hereinafter amended designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. The Categorical Exemptions within Part Nine, WAC 197 -11- 800(1); (2) a through g; (3); (6) a and b; (14) a, c, and d; (24) a through g;and (25) d, f, h, and i are inapplicable within sensitive areas. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 0 COMMENTS: City Of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 FAX TRANSMISSION DATE /TIME: WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 25, 1989 1:00 PM TO: VALLEY DAILY NEWS (Name) (Company Name) (FAX # JOANNE JOHNSON FROM CITY OF TUKWILA FAX #: 433 -1833 PHONE NO: A13-18A9 SUBJECT. PUBLIC NOTICE PAGE(S): 1 (+ Cover Sheet PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1989 EDITION OF THE VALLEY DAILY NEWS. ?Kriioductiow This brochure is sent to you to make you aware of an upcoming ordinance being considered fr. - adoption by the City of Tukwila. It is called ti._ Sensitive Areas Ordinance". This information is to help you become informed about the ordinance and express your views about it. New regulations are being designed to protect natural features that are sensitive to development and to give property owners standards and consistency, in the development process. The intent of the regulations are to protect people and property from the - adverse • consequences of development on areas prone to landslides, erosion, and abandoned coal mines and to protect streams and 'wetlands. What is a sensitive area? Any site which contains an abandoned coal mine, wetlands, watercourses and hillsides with slopes that are fifteen percent or greater and land which buffers these areas. - --- Do we have any wetlands. besides Tukwila Pond? Tukwila Pond is the Largest wetland in the City, but there are numerous others. The majority are within railroad and highway rights -of -way but there are others within the neighborhoods and parks of the City such as Fort Dent and Minkler Ponds, undeveloped Crystal Springs Park, and several residential areas on Tukwila Hill. What is a watercourse? A watercourse is a channel with a bed and bank through which water flows continuously or occasionally. It does not include artificial channels but includes streams and creeks. There are at least three stream systems and tributaries in the City — Gilliam, Southgate and Mill. These watercourses act as drainage channels for Tukwila. All our water flows to the Green/Duwamish River. What will be the effect of the new regulations, if 1 want to use my land? The regulations create a Sensitive Area Overlay District. It is similar to other zoning districts, such as R -1 single family and C -2 commercial zones, used by communities to protect uses and create standards for development. Similar to current practice, knowledge of the zoning and procedures for use and development of land must be checked at City Hall. The City has mapped the sensitive areas identified through aerial photographs and field inventory and marked the zoning map to show the approximate location of these sensitive areas. The three major elements of the new sensitive' overlay district are to: 1. Require a study of the property to determine the boundaries and characteristics of the sensitive feature; 2. Establish protected areas and setbacks from the feature; and 3. Provide exceptions for existing and new uses to allow everyone reasonable use of their property. Why is 15% chosen as a steep slope? For safety reasons, fifteen percent is the maximum slope allowed for roads and driveways in the City. Any greater slope has a history of slides and will require reconfiguration of the hill's natural form. HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL 6:1 4:1 2.5:1 1:1 ERCENT SLOPE 5% How can I use my land if some of it is designated a sensitive area? You are allowed the underlying use of your land, such as a single family home or office, except on the portions of your property in the protected areas and their buffers. There are also a limited number of permitted and conditional uses such as horticulture, agriculture and recreational camps. eeeeje* Tatioettesteat How may I comment on the proposal? 1. Come by City Hall, review the proposal and map, and speak with Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner, in the Department of Community Development. 2. Mail written comments to: Dept. of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Planner. Attend a public workshop at City Hall to review materials and ask questions of City staff. Wednesday, October 25, 1989 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Public Hearing Before Planning Commission Date: Thursday, November 9, 1989 Time: 8:00 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington After receipt of all testimony, the Planning Commission deliberates and makes a recommendation to the City Council. Further review and hearings will occur before the Tukwila City Council prior to ordinance adoption. v1%L4 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To: Ma or Gary Van Dusen From: oira Carr Bradshaw Date: 9 October 1989 Subjec : Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) Attach-d is a first draft of a proposed SAO. Staff has notified all Ci y of Tukwila property owners and interested environmental groups of a public workshop scheduled for Wednesday, 25 October and th- Planning Commission Public Hearing on 9 November. There :re five basis elements of the proposed legislation: First, defining what the City considers a sensitive area and restri ting development of those areas. Second requiring special study prior to development of these areas. Staff has incorporated the study requirements and criteria for mitigation in the Environmental Ordinance (TMC 21.) Exempt'ons from SERA, single family homes for example, do not apply 'n sensitive areas. Third, establishing buffer areas adjacent to the sensitive areas to pro ect them from the adjacent development. Fourt , creating special construction and development standards for th, se areas. Fifth, providing opportunities for variance from the standards. To facilitate review of the attached ordinance, letterds in the margi refer to explanatory paragraphs below. A . secti regul regul ends the Subdivision Ordinance to bring the existing n on unsuitable land up to date on sensitive area tion and essentially stipulates conformance with the tions to be established by the SAO. B. ends the Zoning Code's definition section to explain what are s :nsitive areas and other terms used within the ordinance. C. creates a Sensitive Area Zone which overlays on top of existing zoning districts. Similar to the Shoreline Zone it creat :s special standards and regulations unique to the sensitive areas D. equires buffers adjacent to sensitive areas to protect their functions similar to the required river environment adjacent to the Green /Duwamish. E. 'estricts use within watercourses and wetlands and estab ishes criteria for development within these areas for those uses permitted. F. estricts use on sensitive slopes and establishes standards for u•es allowed. G. stablishes conditions for development in the vicinity of aband «ned mine areas. H. stablishes an exception process for : *existing development I *existing lots of record *use restrictions on sensitive slopes I. ends the City's Environmental ordinance to define sensi ive areas per the new ordinance and to establish speci ications for special study in these areas. • JOANNE JOHNSON AF IOAVIT OF [J Shoreline Management Permit Name of Project SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE File Number 89 -2 -CA (SEE ATTACHED) 0 I S T hereby declare that: B U T I O N 0 Notice of Public Hearing (] Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Notice of Public Meeting 0 Mitigated Determination of Non- significance [i Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice C1 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet El Official Notice 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [] Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit xxxiQ Other SENSITIVE AREA PUBLIC HEARING AND INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY. OCTOBER 19. 198% 19 AFFIDAVIT OF GIST .IBUTION EMMETT MARSHAL hereby declare that: (� Notice of Public Hearing [l Notice of Public Meeting (� Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet C7 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for [] Other Shoreline Management Permit [] Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1989 , 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) --)L- F � f Name of Project SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZON File Number 89 -2 -CA [j Determination of Nonsignificance [J Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [I Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [[ Notice of Action O Official Notice 4x Other SENSITIVE AREA PUBLIC HEARING ANNOUNCEMENT & BROCHURE gnatur City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 .1ST CLASS U.S. ,Postage ' PAID Permit #315 Seattle, WA Tirazoaluctio.t This brochure is sent to you to make you aware of an upcoming ordinance being considered fp ' ioption by the City of Tukwila. It is called ti. Sensitive Areas Ordinance ". This information is to help you become informed about the ordinance and express your views about it. New regulations are being designed to protect natural features that are sensitive to development and to give property owners standards and consistency in the development process. The intent of the regulations are to protect people and property from the adverse consequences of development on areas prone to landslides, erosion, and abandoned coal mines and to protect streams and wetlands. What is a sensitive area? Any site which contains an abandoned coal mine, wetlands, watercourses and hillsides with slopes that are fifteen percent or greater and land which buffers these areas. Do we have any wetlands besides Tukwila Pond? Tukwila Pond is the largest wetland in the City, but there are numerous others. The majority are within railroad and highway rights -of -way but there are others within the neighborhoods and parks of the City such as Fort Dent and Minkler Ponds, undeveloped Crystal Springs Park, and several residential areas on Tukwila Hill. What is a watercourse? A watercourse is a channel with a bed and bank through which water flows continuously or occasionally. It does not include artificial channels but includes streams and creeks. There are at least three stream systems and tributaries in the City — Gilliam, Southgate and Mill. These watercourses act as drainage channels for Tukwila. All our water flows to the Green/Duwamish River. What will be the effect of the new regulations, if I want to use my land? The regulations create a Sensitive Area Overlay District. It is similar to other zoning districts, such as R -1 single family and C -2 commercial zones, used by communities to protect uses and create standards for development. Similar to current practice, knowledge of the zoning and procedures for use and development of land must be checked at City Hall. The City has mapped the sensitive areas identified through aerial photographs and field inventory and marked the zoning map to show the approximate location of these sensitive areas. The three major elements of the new sensitive overlay district are to: 1. Require a study of the property to determine the boundaries and characteristics of the sensitive feature; 2. Establish protected areas and setbacks from the feature; and 3. Provide exceptions for existing and new uses to allow everyone reasonable use of their property. Why is 15% chosen as a steep slope? For safety reasons, fifteen percent is the maximum slope allowed for roads and driveways in the City. Any greater slope has a history of slides and will require reconfiguration of the hill's natural form. HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL 6:1 4:1 2.5:1 1: ERCENT SLOPE 15% How can I use my land if some of it is designated a sensitive area? You are allowed the underlying use of your land, such as a single family home or office, except on the portions of your property in the protected areas and their buffers. There are also a limited number of permitted and conditional uses such as horticulture, agriculture and recreational camps. & ye* Tateedoemeat How may I comment on the proposal? 1. Come by City Hall, review the proposal and map, and speak with Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner, in the Department of Community Development. 2. Mail written comments to: Dept. of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Planner. Attend a public workshop at City Hall to review materials and ask questions of City staff. Wednesday, October 25, 1989 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Public Hearing Before Planning Commission Date: Thursday, November 9, 1989 Time: 8:00 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington After receipt of all testimony, the Planning Commission deliberates and makes a recommendation to the City Council. Further review and hearings will occur before the Tukwila City Council prior to ordinance adoption. CITY OF TUKWILA 62n0 SO('THCE'.VTER 11U17,E T('KII1L.%, II';1SH /SG TON 98188 TO: Mayor Van Dusen FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw- DATE: 13 October 1989 SUBJECT: Steep Slope Regulation PHONE #1206)433.1800 Curt L. 1 anDnsrn. Mayor At the October 9th meeting of the Committee of the Whole, a lengthy discussion on slope regulation resulted in staff direction to prepare a draft SAO with a development cutoff at 25% slope. Based on subsequent conversations with Lucy Lauterbach and concern about possible confusion regarding SAO regulations and procedures, a memo outlining the slope development process was considered prudent for resolution of outstanding concerns regarding the proposed legislation. The SAO. is an overlay district that is similar to the Shoreline zone. Underlying zoning continues to apply. The Sensitive Area overlay zone would designate the following as sensitive areas: A. Wetlands B. Watercourses C. Landslide hazard areas. D. Slopes of 15% or more E. Abandoned Coal Mines Development proposed adjacent to or on a sensitive site will be required to submit special studies. With specific regard to slopes, staff originally proposed that: Development over 40% be prohibited except to preserve a reasonable use of existing lots; i.e. single family. Slopes between 15 and 39% have development standards that are more suited to the preservation of the natural landform and hazard controls for hillside development. The City Council's choice of 25 % as the limit for development, would more greatly impact property than the above 40 %. An exception process would become more frequent, and would apply Page . 2 equally to slopes from 25% to 100 % The 40% standard was adopted by other jurisdictions because of the geotechnical expertise of those organizations. Recommendation: City, Council reconsider the sensitive area slope definition and use 40% as the cut off for protection status. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: City Council FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw SUBJECT: Sensitive Area Ordinance DATE: 5 October 1989 At the last Committee of the Whole meeting, five policy questions regarding the SAO were discussed by the Council and the Planning Commission. The question of slope regulation was raised by Councilman Moriwaki as an additional policy question which should be addressed by the Council. The staff has prepared an additional slope overlay. for Council review which highlights all elopes greater than 25 %. Both overlays, 40% and 25%, are available and will be presented to the Council at the October 9 Council Meeting. • ISSUE: What:percentage or type of slope should be protected? BACKGROUND: Engineering and money can overcome design and construction problems on sloped land that an average person may not have thought possible. The hazards of hillside development depend on the type and combination of soils and hydrology as much as slope. This makes it difficult to chose which slope to protect from development under normal regulations. A selection of 15 percent slope as the normal beginning condition originated from landslide experience in the Seattle area. Of 47 studied landslides, that occurred in Seattle during the winter of 1971 -1972, 44 occurred on slopes exceeding 15 percent. The remaining 3 occurred on slopes greater than 10 percent. The more difficult issue is what slope over 15% should receive the maximum protection and limitation of development. Jurisdictions with the expertise and experience have chosen 40% as that slope. This seems a reasonable threshold beyond which development can only proceed through a variance. The option of a 25• criteria for prohibiting development has a much broader property impact than the 40 %. Many R -3 zoning districts would be restricted to single family use. Less geotechnical support would seem to exist for the 25% option because the agencies which have used geotechnical assistance in developing their reguaations, have chosen the higher percent slope. RECOMMENDATION* Use the 40% as the "protected area. To: City Council From: Lucy Lauterbach Date: October 6, 1989 RE: Review of Sensitive Area Ordinance Policy Issues Following is the list of issues Planning staff reviewed with the Council at the September 25th C.O.W. Each issue is listed as a question and followed by the recommendation made, including modifications suggested by the Council at that time. The S.A.O. is being carried out with the recommendations as listed. This is intended merely to be a check with the Council to insure your policies are as listed. Issues #1 Should wetlands less than an acre be filled? Recommendation : 1. Distinguish between major and minor categories 2. No net loss 3. On site, in kind or in subdrainage basin Issue #2 Will pre- existing wetlands and watercourses be used for stormwater management? Recommendation: No direct discharge without detention and filtration. Issue #3 Will watercourse relocation be permitted? Recommendation: Yes, subject to: 1. Plan - O r Y 2. Reasonable use 3. Hydraulic and habitat capability 4. Criteria for reasonableness Issue #4 Will culverting of watercourses be allowed? Recommendation: Yes, for driveways if there's no other means of access. However, bridging should be considered first. Issue #5 Should sensitive land development potential be transferred to portions of the site which are not sensitive? Recommendation: Yes, if it is a P.U.D. and if there's a setback deviation. %ch P. - 5. I)Jav,e Phil f ��v1 L. fh TO: Draft Reviewers FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 27 September 1989 SUBJECT: Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance Please review and comment on the attached ordinance. The Council is still reviewing the issue of what percent slope is to be a protected area; hence the blank. The format of the . document will also be finalized after initial review and comment. This product is scheduled for Planning Commission Public Hearing on 9 November. The final porduct must be completed by October 25, 1989. YOUR COMMENTS MUST BE RETURNED BY'5 OCTOBER 1989. THANK YOU. PURPOSE SCOPE SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY PROTECTED AREA DESIGNATION & RESTRICTIONS 1. Designation 2. Exceptions 3. Protected Area Restrictions USES IN LAND USE DISTRICTS 1. General 2. Protected Areas 3. Permitted uses 4. Conditional uses 5. Provisions for Existing. Uses 6. Provision for Existing Lots of Record 7. Hold Harmless PROCEDURES 1. SA Review Process 2. SA Studies General 3. SA Studies - Wetlands 4. SA Studies - Watercourses 5. Mitigation — Wetland and watercourse alteration 5. SA Studies - Sensitive Earth Conditions 6. SA Studies - Coal Mine Areas BUFFER REQUIREMENTS 1. General 2. Minimum 3. Wetlands 3. Watercourses 5. Additional Buffers 4. Sensitive Earth Conditions STANDARDS 1. Wetlands 2. Watercourses 3. Sensitive Earth Conditions RECORDING REQUIRED ASSURANCE DEVICE U — De SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT INV • PURPOSE _ SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT Abandoned coal mines; landslide areas, slopes of 15% and steeper; wetlands; watercourses; and their vegetative buffers; as defined in TMC 18.06, together constitute sensitive areas that are of special concern in the City of Tukwila. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the location and density of development based on known hazards, and to preserve and enhance the quantity and quality of water in TukwilaEs watercourses and wetlands. This Ordinance implements the policies and objectives of the Natural Environment, Open Space, and Utilities Elements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. More specifically, the purposes of this ordinance are: 1. To protect sensitive areas by regulating their development and preserving these areas in essentially their natural state. 2. To protect the public from damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion. 3. To protect the quantity and quality of water resources. 4. To minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and to maintain wildlife habitat. 5. To provide for the protection of trees and woodlands located in sensitive areas and in their buffers and for the revegetation of these areas when developed. 6. To protect the public against avoidable losses from: a. Maintenance and replacement of public facilities. b. Property damage. c. Subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts. d. Cost for public emergency rescue and relief operations. 7. To alert appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers and lessees of the natural limitations of the physical environment. 8. To provide responsible officials with information to condition or deny public or private project to protect sensitive areas; and to avoid the necessity of preparing environmental impact statements in cases where there will not be significant adverse environmental effects, thus expediting governmental approval processes. 9. To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as revised in 1984. i SCOPE This chapter establishes special standards and procedures that apply to use of or development on any site which is in whole or in part on a sensitive site or its buffer as mapped by the City of Tukwila or which meets the definition of sensitive area and its buffer as defined by this chapter. All other relevant standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code must also be met. SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies when a use or development of land is proposed on any property, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps or B. Is a sensitive area as defined in TMC 18.06. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 2. The procedures apply to the development of any site any portion of which is sensitive or is a sensitive area buffer; standards and criteria apply only to that portion of the subject site which is determined to be a sensitive area and its buffer. When the development proposal is for either a 1) building permit by an owner or contract purchaser to construct a single family dwelling for his or her own use, or 2) a short subdivision into two residential building lots, DCD shall do a preliminary field investigation to determine the need for special studies or mitigating conditions. 3. Sensitive Area Maps: A. Purpose: The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available tools for indicating the potential presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence or absence of sensitive areas on or adjacent to a subject property which will determine whether the code will apply to the development proposal. B. The Department of Community Development (DCD) will be responsible for maintaining the maps in a complete and up -to -date condition. PROTECTED AREA DESIGNATION AND RESTRICTIONS 1. Designation: the following areas are designated as Protected Areas for the purpose of the Tukwila Municipal Code A. Wetlands B. Watercourses C. Areas where permeable sand, gravel and silt layers occur with impermeable clay or areas of landslide deposit on slopes of 15 % or more, and D. Slopes of % and more E. Abandoned Coal Mines 2. Exception: A. Areas of jointly occurring permeable and impermeable soil layers on slopes between 15% and % may be buildable. To apply for an exception, the applicant. must - i. Demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards and criteria of this Chapter, and ii provide a geotechnical and stability analysis as required by the City which indicates engineering design acceptable to the City, and iii. provide other information necessary for the analysis as required by the Director of Public Works. iv. provide an engineering solution that does not rely on life of project maintenance not normally performed in the builidng maintenance. v. The City may require the applicant to fund a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the analysis and design. vi. If the Director of Public Works determines that the applicant has demonstrated such compliance, Protected Area status and regulations no longer apply to the subject sensitive area of study. B. Wetland and Watercourse Alterations and Relocations Minor wetlands and intermittent watercourse may be alterated and relocated if special study and mitigation reveals that public health, safety, and welfare are protected. The alteration/ relocation shall be subject to the standards of 18.45. . 3. Protected Area Restriction: No development or use may occur in a Protected Area or a Protected area setback except as specifically allowed by the following section 18.45. USES IN SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT 1. General: Subject to the restrictions for Protected Areas and their buffer zones, the uses as provided for in an established underlying zoning district may be undertaken in the Sensitive Area Overlay District. 2. Protected Area Uses: Only the following uses may be located within a Protected Area designated by Section 18.45._ or Protected Area buffer required by Section 18.45._ Each permitted or conditional use is subject to the applicable performance standards of Section 18.45. and the specified permit requirements of this Chapter: 3. Permitted Uses: A. Agriculture B. Horticulture C. Essential Local Utility Systems D. Essential Public or Private Right -of -Way 4. Conditional Uses: A. Communication Broadcast and Relay Tower /Microwave B. Botanical Gardens C. Camping sites /day camp D. Parks and recreational /educational trails, public and private E. aquaculture , fish hatchery F. Tree farm G. Essential Regional Utility Systems. 5. Provisions for existing development: A. General: All residential and commercial development located in wetlands, watercourses and /or their corridors or on steep slopes and in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use requirements Chapter 18 and the setback requirements in Section 18.50 and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. i. Residential Development: A residential development described in Paragraph A may be expanded into a Protected Area or a Protected Area Setback through the variance procedure outlined in 18.72. Only one expansion through the variance procedure will be allowed and that expansion will be limited to a 20 percent increase of total square footage. ii. Commercial Development: No commercial development may expand into a Protected Area or Protected Area Setback required by Section 18. Any commercial reconstruction or vertical expansion in Protected Areas or Protected Area Setbacks must establish and meet restoration provisions established through a special study. 7. Hold Harmless: Property owners who submit development applications to the City for expansion or reconstruction in a Protected Area or Protected Area Setback shall execute a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney which releases the City from liability for any damage arising from the location of improvements within the Protected Area or Protected Area Setback. 6. Provisions for existing legal lots of record. Development of a single family dwelling shall be allowed, if application of this chapter denies all reasonable use of property provided: A. That no reaonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible; and B. That there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property. C. Construction shall occur subject to the standards of 18.45. . PROCEDURES 1. Sensitive Area Review Process A. When a use or development is proposed on land which is a sensitive area or in its required buffer, a special study shall be required. B. The DCD Director may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a use or application. C. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. 2. Sensitive Areas Studies - General: A. When an applicant submits an application for any development, subdivision, short plat or land use review which approves future construction or use it shall indicate whether any sensitive areas or their buffers are located on or adjacent to the site. If a sensitive area is identified and sufficient information to evaluate the proposal is not provided with the application, the DCD may require the applicant to provide special studies. It is intended that sensitive area studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be completed prior to a proposalFs design. B. Special studies shall have three site analysis, an impact analysis, mitigation measures. More or less required for each component depending the project, severity of potential availability of information. components: a and proposed detail may be on the size of impacts, and All studies shall contain the following information unless it is already available in the permit application: (i) Map of the project at a 1 :50 or larger scale, including: a. reference streets and property lines. b. existing and proposed easements, rights -of -way, and structures. c. contours at the smallest readily available intervals not to exceed 5 feet. d. hydrology: ++ show surface water features both on and (ii) Written report detailing C. Sensitive Area Study - Wetlands: In addition, for wetlands studies, include the following: adjacent to the site; show any water movement into, through, and off of the project area; show stream and wetlands; show seeps, springs, saturated zones. (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) e. field location of tops and toes of 40% slopes and embankments (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) f. location of buffer and building location. g. location of tress and description of vegetation on site. a. how, when, and by whom the study was performed (including methodology and techniques). b. description of the project site and its existing condition and artificial features such as utilities, paving, cuts and fills. c. the total acreage of the site in sensitive areas and their associated buffers. d. the proposed action and potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to the sensitive area features (see definitions). e. the mitigation measures proposed to avoid or lessen the projectsF impacts during construction and permanently. When alterations to the sensitive area or its buffer are proposed, include a mitigation plan. f. weather conditions during and prior to study if relevant to conclusions and recommendations. (i) On the map a. the edge of the wetland as flagged and surveyed in the field using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. January 10, 1989 b. the edge of the 100 -year flood plain. c. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. d. when alteration of wetland is proposed, the vegetation of the wetland according to the Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Fish and Wildlife Serviede, U >S> Department of Interior (ii) In the report a. description of the wetland and the general condition of the wetland using the Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System. b. determination of actual use of the wetland by any endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species of plants or wildlife as listed by the federal government or the i. For wetlands, the information should define State of Washington using both scientific and common names and their relative abundance. c. a list of _potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observations. c. description of the soil types within the wetland using the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil classification system and description of the proposed buffers. D. Sensitive Area Study - Watercourses. In addition, for watercourse studies, include the following information: (i) On the map a. the location of the ordinary high water mark. b. the toe of any slope 30% or greater within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark. c. the location of any proposed stream crossing, utility easements, or trails. d. the edge of the existing 100 -year flood plain. (ii) In the report a. characterization of watercourse (riparian) vegetation b. description of the soil types adjacent to and underlying the stream, using the Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. c. determination of the presence or absence of salmonids. Reference sources including the State Department of Fisheries Catalog of Streams and Salmon Utilizations, Metro Stream Resource Inventories, or State Wildlife Department Game Fish Distribution in Selected Streams. Electrofishing on site or the equivalent may be necessary if no existing documentation is available. (d) When a stream alteration is proposed, include existing stream width and flow, stability of the channel, type of substratum, estimate of infiltration capacity and biofiltration function, presence of hydrologically linked wetlands, and analysis of fish and wildlife habitat, and proposed flood plain limits. E. Mitigation Plans for alternations to Wetlands and Streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis: as the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: Baseline information This is quantitive data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. 8 habitat values (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures), functional _ values (e.g., wetland value assessment procedures of Adams and Stockwell, 1983), or document pertinent resource characteristics such as habitat area or species counts or density (e.g., mean number of eelgrass shoots per square meter). ii. For streams, habitat value, functional value and habitat evaluation are also necessary. At a minimum the following levels of analysis should be included: Reconnaissance and evaluation - information required for the special studies (section V.D.), additional visual survey of the stream system and /or other pertinent information. - Habitat Trend Analysis - in some cases a more detailed analysis may be required. For this type of analysis current reference is Platts, W.S. et. al. 1987, Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management, General Technical Report INT -221, U.S.F.S., Intermountain Research Stations. - Extended monitoring - in an abnormal rainfall year pre - development monitoring may be necessary to provide adequate baseline data. Environmental Goals and Objectives These are written goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. Performance Standards These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: 1. maintain stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient; 2. restore native vegetation unless expressly waived by BALD; la 3. create an equivalent channel bed; 4. create equivalent biofiltration; 5. replace habitat value unless expressly waived by BALD; 6. replace horizontal alignment (meander length). Detailed Construction Plan These are the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. Monitoring and /or Evaluation Program This component outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. It also describes the experimental and control site survey or sampling methods. A protocol shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. Contingency Plan This section identifies potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. Performance and Maintenance Bonds Monetary agreements per Section 18.45. to ensure fulfillment of the mitigation project, the monitoring program, and 1 determine during the review and contigency measures. F. Sensitive Area Study - Steep / Unstable Slopes On the map the top and toe of slope; ( Theses should be located and flagged in the field and subject to DCD staff review.) the drainage plans for discharge of storm water runoff form developed areas the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors In the report discussion of any evidence of existing instability, significant erosion or seepage on the slope and on any information that could affect the future stability of the site; recommendations for management of storm water for any development above the top of slope a discussion_ of the nature and extent of any colluvium (heterogeneous mass of rock detritus or soil material emplaced primarily by gravitational process on or at the foot of slopes) or slope debris near the toe of slope in the vicinity of any proposed development; and recommendations for appropriate building setbacks, grading restrictions, vegetation management and erosion control for any proposed development in the vicinity of the steep slopes. review of available literature regarding site and surrounding area. a geologic description of site (exploration logs identified on the site plan) indicating the soils and stratigraphy of the site ground surface profiles showing original and proposed grades. Profiles should extend beyond property lines where necessary to evaluate conditions impacting the risk of instability on the site or adjacent sites. G. Sensitive Area Study - Abandoned Coal Mine ( The study shall be prepared by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer who has demonstrated experience in evaluating hazards associated with abandoned coal mine workings.) on the map obtain the best available mine maps, reference the date and source and show; the extent and depth of all subsurface mine workings the location of all mapped entrances, air shafts or other surface openings based on an evaluation of the site in its present condition, show the location of any observed surface openings the location of any observed pits, swales, depressions which could indicate subsidence or collapse the location and nature of any mine related debris on the surface the location and character of any spoils or tailings. the character and stratigraphic orientation of any bedrock exposures in the report - discuss the geologic setting of the site including the depth of Pleistocene overburden, the nature and orientation of the bedrock units and the location and thickness of all coal seams. Include at least one cross - section showing the geologic setting, extent of workings and proposed development. - discuss the potential for discharge of noxious gases in the vicinity of the subject site. - discuss the potential for discharge of noxious gases in the vicinity of the subject site. - discuss the potential for sudden collapse, void openings, or other threats to health or safety associated with development. BUFFER REQUIREMENTS 1. General: The requirements of this Section apply along with any other dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. The most restrictive dimension controls. 2. Minimum Buffers: A. General: Any structure and any land alteration must be setback out of the buffer areas as required by this section; Buffers are required in order to: i. Minimize long -term impacts of development adjacent to Sensitive Areas, and ii. Protect Sensitive Areas during construction, and iii. Preserve the edge adjacent for its habitat value, or from adverse impacts to the Sensitive Area iv. Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. B. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access. supplemental planting and approved land uses (18.45. ) is permitted. 3. Wetlands as defined in Section 18.06. A. Major: 50 feet from the wetland edge. B. Minor: 25 feet from the wetland edge. 4. Watercourse as defined in Section 18.06. A. Streams unconstrained by adjacent sensitive areas or are intermittent shall have a 25 foot buffer of natural vegetation on each side of the channel. B. Streams within 25 feet of the toe of slopes grater than or equal to 30 % but less than 40 % the following buffer shall apply: i. where the overall slope exceeds 100 feet in horizontal length including small benches and terraces, the buffer shall extend 125 feet in horizontal length from the ordinary high water mark. ii. where the overall slope is less than 100 feet in horizontal length including small benches and terraces, the buffer shall be 25 feet from the top of slope. 6� 5. The buffers for wetlands and watercourses may be required to be increased_ when the area is particularly sensitive to disturbance or the development poses unusual impacts. Examples include: A. unclassified uses B. the area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitor species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington; 6. Slopes A. Top of Slope: 50 feet from top and sides of a slope designated as a Protected Area by Section 18.45. and having a grade difference from top to bottom of at least 10'. B. Toe of Slope: 75 feet from toe if a slope where historic or potential mass slope movement occurs as determined by the Director if the Storm and Surface Water Utility. C. Slope Buffer Modification: The Director of DCD and the Director of Public Works may waive or modify the slope setback of Paragraph 18.45. if the applicant demonstrates that: i. The proposed construction method will, as demonstrated in the required geotechnical analysis, improve or not adversely impact the stability of the slope and reduce erosion potential, and ii. The proposal uses construction techniques which minimize disruption of the existing topography and vegetation, and iii. The proposal adequately addresses, without long term monitoring, the existing geological constraints of the site including soils and hydrology. /3 STANDARDS 1. Wetlands: Essential Public Utilities: Restricted Use and Development: No use, development or activity may occur in a wetland except as specifically allowed by this chapter. All use, development or activity which is allowed is subject to the Performance Standards of this section. a. Essential public utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland disturbance; and b. All construction must be designed to protect the wetland against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, aesthetic loss, habitat disturbance, excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and c. Upon completion of installation of essential public utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required by the Clearing and Grading Code and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established: and d. All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. Roads: a. Essential public roads or private access drives must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and b. Essential public roads or private access drives must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential public access; and c. Essential public roads and private access drives must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the aesthetic and hydrologic quality of the wetland and any interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must be by bridging the wetland and must allow for combination with other essential public utilities; and d. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted as required by the Clearing and Grading Code and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. Public Use and Access: a. Public access must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and b. Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted non - motorized trail linkage program: and d. No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or its setback required by Section 18 except as required for necessary maintenance or security; and e. Any public access or interpretive facility developed in a wetland must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and f. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and g. Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and h. Consolidated area for nesting, breeding, and rearing must be preserved in the wetland area and its setback required by Section 18 to protect sensitive plant and wildlife species; and i. Dredging or filling within a wetland may occur only for the following purposes: i. Maintenance of an existing water body, or ii. Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in sensitive area study or iii. Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City, or iv. Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila. C. Watercourses: 1. Restricted Use and Development: No use, development or activity may occur in a watercourse or its buffer except as specifically allowed by this Chapter. All use, development or activity which is allowed is subject to the Performance Standards of this Section. 2. Essential Public Utilities: a. Essential public utilities must be constructed to minimize and where possible avoid watercourse disturbance; and b. All construction must be designed to protect the watercourse against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, slides, pollution, aesthetic loss, habitat disturbance, excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and c. Upon completion of installation of essential public utilities, the watercourse and its buffer must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted with native species and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and d. All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. 3. Roads: a. Essential public roads or private access drives must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and b. Essential public roads or private access drives must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential public access; and c. Essential public roads and private access drives must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the aesthetic and hydrologic quality of the watercourse stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must be by bridging the wetland and must allow for combination with other essential public utilities; and d. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted as required by the Clearing and Grading Code and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. Public Use and Access: a. Public access must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and b. Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by. or in cooperation with. the City or as part of the adopted Parks and Open Space linkage program: and l(4 c. No motorized vehicle is allowed within a watercours or its buffer required by Chapter 18.45. except as required for necessary maintenance or security or as part of an approved recreational activity; and d. Any public access or interpretive facility developed in a watercourse must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and e. Vegetative edges, structural barriers. signs or other measures must be provided where necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas: and f. Access trails must incorporate design features which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movements and g. Consolidated area for nesting, breeding and rearing must be reserved in the watercourse area and its setback required by Section 18.45. to protect sensitive plant and wildlife species; and h. Dredging or filling within a watercourse may occur only for the following purposes: i. Maintenance of an existing corridor, or ii. Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved plan submitted by applicant, or iii. Natural system interpretation. education or research when undertaken by or in cooperation with the City, or iv. Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Bellevue. D. Sensitive Earth Conditions: The provisions of this section apply to each use or development on property including a slope equal to or greater than 15 %. 1. Disturbance Limitations. a. Basic Requirement: Development on slope equal to or greater than 15 % must: i. Consolidate all areas of disturbance slope, and ii. Minimize changes in grade, cleared area and volume of cut or fill on the site, and i7 property including a on the areas of least iii. Comply with a limitation on disturbance of the subject property calculated as set forth in the following chart. Scope Categories Percent Disturbance Allowed 40% and greater 30% 25 - 40 % 45% 15 - 45% 60% Slope Disturbance Allowed Disturbance Chart (sq. ft. of site 0 -15 % slope) x 100% + (sq. ft. of site 15 -25% slope) x 60% + (sq. ft. of site 25 -40% slope) x 45% + (sq. ft. of site 40% plus slope) x 30% = Total amount of disturbance on site allowed 2. Location 10 b. Alternative Review: The applicant may propose a development plan which does not comply with the basic requirement of Paragraph 1.a. The DCD Director and the Director of Public Works may approve such a plan if -- 1. The increase in disturbance on a specific slope is necessary to preserve a significant environmental feature of the site, such as but not limited to an area of vegetation valuable for habitat or aesthetic reasons, a ridgeline which constitutes an areawide visual amenity or a view from a public park, and ii. The development is consolidated resulting in the least amount of coverage by buildings and other impervious surface feasible, and iii. The increased disturbance or cut and fill will not result in greater erosion than that which would otherwise occur and proposed erosion control measures are practically and readily maintainable. a. Development must be located to minimize disturbance and removal if vegetation; and b. Structures must be clustered to retain as much open space as possible and the natural topographic character of the slope: and c. Structures must conform to the natural contour of the slope. The foundation must be tiered to conform to the existing topography of the site; and d. Development must be located so as to preserve the most sensitive portion of the site and its natural landforms or to protect vistas from public spaces. 3. Design a. Development must minimize the footprint of other disturbed areas. The least number of desirable in order to consolidate the development; buildings and buildings is and b. Development must retain consolidated areas of natural vegetation; and c. Development must be designed with a foundation type that is compatible with existing slope conditions and that minimizes topographic modification. Where feasible, earth retention measures should be incorporated into the structure; and d. Standard prepared building pads; i.e., slab on grade, resulting in grading more than 10' outside the building footprint area are prohibited: and e. Development must be designed to minimize the amount of impervious surface; and f. Use of common access drives and utility corridors is required where feasible; and g. Development must be designed to minimize lot coverage and must, with the exception of detached single family structures, incorporate understructure parking and multi -level structures where permitted; and h. Roads, walkways and parking areas must be designed parallel to contours with consideration to maintaining consolidated areas of natural topography and vegetation. Access must be located in the least sensitive area feasible; and i. Use of retaining walls which allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas is preferred over graded artificial slopes. 4. Construction Types a. Use of foundation walls as retaining walls is preferable to rock or concrete walls built separately and away from the building. Freestanding retaining devices are only permitted when they cannot be designed as structural elements of the building foundation; and b. Use if pole -type construction which conforms to the existing iq f topography is required where feasible. The structure must be tiered to conform to the existing topography and to minimize topographic modification; and c. Change in grade, cleared area and volume of cut or fill on the site must be minimized; and d. Piled deck support structures are preferred for parking or garages over fill -based construction types. RECORDING REQUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this Chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the Protected Area and its buffer designated by Section 18.45. and 18.45. with the King County Division of Records and Elections and with the Tukwila City Clerk. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provisions of this Chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. The boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and the adjacent developable land must be permanently identified with a wood or metal signs with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: " Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or distrubance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call Tukwila for mor information." ASSURANCE DEVISE 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City may require a performance or maintenance assurance device in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter and adequate protection of a Sensitive Area and its buffer for up to two years after they have been constructed and approved. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the director of DCD may require an assurance devise, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiences that do not appear until after the monitoring program has ended. 20 . The DEFINITION Section (18.06) will be amended to include following definitions. Essential Public Utility means a utility facility, utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. Watercourses: means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed or banks, or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm water runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. Wetlands: Means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. They are further categorized as follows: - Major wetlands shall be those that rated a 1 or 2 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory - Minor wetlands shall be those that rated a 3 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory or are less than an acre and have 2 or fewer wetland subclasses. Lot Coverage, maximum, means the maximum percentage of the surface of the subject property that may be covered with impervious surface other than outdoor pools, which will not allow for the percolation of water into the underlying soils. Sensitive Areas include wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas and abandoned coal mine areas. Sensitive Area Buffer means the zone contiguous with a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. The critical functions of a water course include shading, input of organic debris and coarse sediments, uptake of nutrients, stabilization of banks, interception of fine sediments, over flow during high water events, protection from disturbance by humans and domestic animals, wildlife habitat, and room for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects. The critical functions of terrestrial buffers include protection of slope stability, attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation, erosion control, and screening of hillside development. 21 c� Landslide hazard areas means those areas subject to a severe risk of landslide due to a combination of the following factors: a. slopes grater than fifteen percent; and b. impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominately sand and gravel); and c. springs or ground water seepage during the wet season (November to February). Trees means any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many baranches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi - stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TUKWILA. WASHINGTON !Matti TO: Planning Commission FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 21 September 1989 Subject: Sensitive Area Ordinance PHONE N (206) 4x3.1800 Gary L. Vannusen, Mayor A reminder that the joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday 25 September in the Council Chambers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. A presentation by staff on the City's inventory of sensitive areas with a follow -up discussion on policy issues regarding regulation of these areas will be the topic of the meeting.' .A consensus on the regulatory direction will be asked of the City Council and Planning Commission on several key issues. Enclosed is an outline of the presentation. If you have any questions or cannot attend, please call me at 433- 1848. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200SOUTHCENTERBOULEVARD. TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 98188 Presentation outline Background Purpose Inventory Description A. Slopes B. Wetlands C. Watercourses City Attorney Briefing A. Case Review/ Takings Discussion B. Legislative authority Regulatory options Sensitive Area Presentation/ Workshop A. Wetlands * appropriate level of regulation * use for direct discharge of runoff B. Watercourses * culverts * relocation !'!HONE # (2061 433.180(1 Gary 1.. VanDusen, Mayor C. Development credit for undevelopable sensitive areas ISSUE: 1 Should wetlands of less than an acre be allowed to be filled? COMMENT: Wetlands improve water quality, reduce and prevent flood and storm damage, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. Water quality is improved by wetlands removing and retaining nutrients; processing chemical and organic wastes; and reducing sediment loads to the Green River. The National Wetlands Policy Forum, chaired by Governor Booth Gardner and sponsored by the Conservation Foundation has set a goal that has been echoed by the President of the United States that there be no net loss of wetlands. King County has also established this goal for itself. The Clean Water Act empowers the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate activities in wetlands to maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. A permit is not required for filling of less than one acre in isolated wetlands. Filling of wetlands adjacent to rivers or streams with flows of greater than 5 cfs and fills of 1 acre or more require a permit and strict criteria for approval. Local jurisdictions have taken the lead on protecting and creating standards for development in and adjacent to wetlands. King County regulates all isolated wetlands and Bellevue regulates wetlands over 7200 square feet. 2 ISSUE: Will storm water retention be allowed in pre - exiting wetlands and watercourses or wetlands and watercourses created as mitigation? COMMENT: Storm water usually contains oils, fertilizers and other contaminants and sediment that adversely affect water quality and habitats. • Freshwater wetlands and watercourses have been used to route and store urban stormwater for discharge quantity control. There is strong interest in combining this purpose with capturing pollutants in nonpoint source runoff. • Divergent views are held by surface water managers and developers who promote planned use of wetlands and resource managers and environmentalists who are concerned about potential effects of such actions on the remaining wetland • Because impacts are not known, a program by King County has been established to study the long term impacts versus benefits on wetland systems. ISSUE: Will piping /culverting of watercourses be allowed? COMMENT: Piping eliminates the natural biofiltration and habitat functions of the water and any visual amenity associated with the feature. Historically, property owners have been allowed to completely fill , and build over ravines by piping the water at the bottom. (The Valley View Apartments on 154th Street between 42nd Avenue and 51st is an example of this type of development.) In other situations, when watercourses interfered with portions of property, culverts for driveways were used; thereby disturbing portions of the stream. ISSUE: Will watercourse relocation be allowed? COMMENT: The majority of land in the City has been subdivided, creating lots which may have a watercourse through the center. The watercourse combined with required buffers could leave unbuildable areas for a property owner. Watercourse relocation and potential enhancement can be successfully accomplished based on a design by a qualified professional. 5 ISSUE: COMMENT: Should land with sensitive area characteristics be allowed to transfer the allowed development onto other portions of the property that are not sensitive? The City currently recognizes through PRD's and PMUD's the value of encouraging imaginative site design by allowing flexibility in zoning standards and providing bonuses. Their purpose is to promote retention of significant features of the environment such as topography, vegetation and waterways. In a PRD, unlike the multi- family zones, R -1 zoned properties are not allowed to waiver from required side yard setbacks, which limits the type of structure and lot pattern to conventional designs. As a bonus however, property in the R- 1 -20., R- 1 -10., and the R -1 -9.6 districts are allowed 7200 lot sizes and densities as an incentive to be creative and use the PRD process. R -1 -7.2 zoned properties therefore, have no bonus provision. King County and Bellevue, two local jurisdictions who have spent the most time and resources on addressing sensitive site issues, use a table that allows a percent increase in number of units and amount of floor area based on the percentage of undevelopable, sensitive area. It is not a 1:1 transfer but a percentage depending upon the amount of sensitive land on site. The percentage transfer is 30 - 3 percent depending an the percentage of the site which is sensitive; the higher the percent the lower the allowed transfer. CITY OF TUKWILA ti2OO SOUTHCEN'TE R BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98185 24 August 1989 Michael Silver, Ph.D. Superintendent South Central School District 4640 S. 144th Street Tukwila, Washington 98168 Dear Mike: Yours very truly, Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner Enclosures PHONE # (206) 433.1800 If any faculty member or school organization has an interest or feels this fits into their curriculum, I would be happy to meet with them and provide what assistance I can. Thank you for returning my call and good luck with your new school. Gary L. VanDusen, dlayor Enclosed is the request for proposals that we discussed over the phone that offers funding support. I am also enclosing several manuals that might spark some educational ideas. Since the City has just established its Surface Water Program and is working on a Sensitive Area Ordinance, which features watercourses as a protected feature, collaborative efforts could be discussed. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 August 15, 1989 Barbara Gladding The Boeing Company Post Office Box 3707 Mail Stop 14 -49 Seattle, Washington 98124 Dear Barbara: I ran across this enclosed packet of information and thought Boeing might have an existing program from which others might benefit. It suggests employee programs that deal with water quality as one of several categories. You or someone else in your organization may have ideas that you would like to develop or ones that you would like to share. I also thought Friends of the Duwamish or perhaps others in your personal acquaintance might have an interest in involvement in this issue. Interest in this area by the City of Tukwila is heightened due to our current work program to develop a surface water utility and a sensitive area overlay that will manage its remaining water resources and protect water quality. I hope you are doing well, please take this enclosure as informational only. I like people to known about all available opportunities. ' Very truly yours, at/c*dit‘4 Moira Carr Bradshaw Enclosure cc: Woody Wilkinson PHONE N (200 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor ** * * ** August 14, 1989 7:00 P.M. TiTKWILACITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers SPECIAL MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. NEW BUSINESS a. A resolution of the City of Tukwila rejecting all bids for the remodel and addition of Fire Station No. 51, located at 444 Andover Park East. b. Authorize the Mayor to sign a Traffic Improvement Agreement with Bedford Properties, Corporation. 5. ADJOURN TO GO INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS 2. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Briefing on Sensitive Area Ordinance and Clarification on Open Space Project. 3. REPORTS a. Mayor b. Council President c. Community Affairs and Parks d. Finance and Safety e. Transportation f. Utilities EXECUTIVE SESSION a. Discuss possibility of lawsuit on land use item. 4. ADJOURNMENT City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor To: Tukwila City Council From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 8 August 1989 SUBJECT: To brief and confirm direction of DCD on a sensitive area ordinance and to request clarification and direction from City Council regarding Open Space. BACKGROUND: Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) *A detailed inventory of the City's following areas is being conducted: - watercourses, - wetlands, and - slopes greater than fifteen and forty percent. *A review and slide show of these resources will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at a joint meeting to be scheduled for the last week in September 1989. *An amendment to the Zoning Code to create a special district for sensitive areas is being drafted. Staff has used the goals and objectives of the Natural Environment, Open Space and Utilities Elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan as guidance. Policy deficiencies and /or direction regarding the wetlands, watercourses and steep slopes will be discussed at the September meeting. *An important complementary element in the implementation of the Comp Plan goals for safeguards and protection of the environment is the clearing and grading ordinance being developed by the Public Works Department as part of their Storm and Surface Water Utility Program. Timing of Council review and adoption is not known. *The Planning Commission will hold their public hearing on November 9, 1989 and their recommendation will be transmitted to you for a hearing and adoption in December. Open Space *There are two City policy documents on Open Space. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, adopted in 1978, defines City Council August 8, 1989 Page 2 open space in its broadest terms as both public and private land. The Parks and Open Space Plan, adopted in 1984, restricts itself to publicly owned property. More than a decade has passed and the city has grown and become more complex since the goals of the City were articulated into a Plan. *The Park and Open Space Plan is primarily a facilities plan which identifies standards and project priorities for the City's budgeting process. *The number one goal of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan's Open Space Element is to: Create an integrated network of open space based . on existing and proposed recreational areas, lands least suitable for other development and the natural amenities of the Tukwila Area Key phrases in the open space element are linkage and system. The existing Comp Plan map does not show the linkages or a system of open space for the City. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION 1. Complete the Sensitive Area Ordinance by December 1989, 2. Review Open Space Element of Comprehensive Plan to A. Affirm or update goals, objectives, and policies for public review in spring 1990; and B. Amend open space designation and areas on Comprehensive Land Use Map to include all areas desirable for an open space system; and 3. Prioritize implementation policies. -4 nl i•we9 �T 551v''ve' S 7e25 " e'/ 1 - •- -/74•r4Et+of YCZ' PROCESS City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS LEGISLATION SUMMARY' BACKGROUND LEGISLATION PROPOSAL Part of the 1989 work program for the Department of Community Development (DCD) was to provide implementation for the Open Space and Natural Environment policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff drafted the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in October 1989 and the Planning Commission held two public hearings in November 1989. Due to the community's interest in a greater degree of public involvement in the legisla- tion process, the City Council formed a Citizens Advisory Committee who worked from January through March and produced a recommended Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. The Citizens Committee recommended and the City Council requested additional profes- sional and technical information which was produced through several consultant con- tracts. The City Council also requested a study regarding hillside development. The recent public notice mailed to property owners discusses the four studies that were produced. The City Council compiled all of the information produced into a draft legislative proposal which will be the subject for the Planning Commission Public Hearing on Wednesday, 25 July 1990. The overall legislative goal is to: 1. Recognize that Tukwila lies in the center of an urban region that has already experienced tremendous natural system changes. Tukwila must accommodate and plan for increasing use and development and more clearly prioritize the preservation of its natural resources. 2. Create regulations that balance the existing private rights of property owners with the public safety, public needs, and public responsibilities. The sensitive areas are identified in an overlay zone. All property within the city is already within a zoning district (such as R-1-7.2). The sensitive areas zone and its requirements will lay on top of existing zoning forming another layer of regulations. The proposed overlay zone will be a new chapter in the Zoning Code, that references other existing chapters within the code. Therefore, to understand developing on a sensitive area site requires becoming familiar with the Zoning Code. In addition, the existing Environmental and Subdivision Codes and the Planned Residential Development Chapter of the Zoning Code are modified to reflect and incorporate the sensitive areas policies and regulations. The Planning Commission will take written comments up until the close of the public hearing and will take oral testimony at the public hearing on Wednesday, July 25, 1990. If there is not enough time Wednesday evening to receive the testimony of all those attending, Thursday, July 26 will be available for those who were signed -up, but unable to testify Wednesday. After deliberations, they will make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposal. All of their meetings are open to the public; however, at the close of the public hearing, no additional testimony will be allowed. The City Council will hoid an additional hearing, then deliberate and adopt an ordinance. 4, SUBDIVISION TEXT The subdivision code is an existing ordinance which regulates the division of land into lots for sale. The subdivision text amendment shows the new wording in bold and strikes deleted language. The changes are to eliminate any conflict between the new sensitive areas proposal and existing code language and to strengthen subdivision design standards. A summary of the changes are as follows: • Replace "unsuitable land" section with sensitive areas language per the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. • Add a section that requires administrative review of PRDs for short plats with a public notice requirement. • Retain and replant vegetation as part of the initial design. • Reference the proposed Land Altering (Clear /Grade /Fill) ordinance. • Reference the proposed tree preservation ordinance • Street and utility construction and layout should reference Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. • Allow reduction of local access street right -of -way width to minimize impact to sensitive areas. • Allow increase in grade to 18% for no more than 200 feet subject to criteria, review and approval. • Create clear goal of integrated street system and circulation solutions as criteria for plat design. Establish cut and fill results as secondary concern. • Delete reference to "Community Assets" which suggests that "due regard" be shown towards sensitive areas and trees. • Lot arrangement should emphasize integration with existing neighborhood, avoid through lots or require down slope buffers. Eliminate flag lot design in favor of common access drives. • Require planting of trees in new plats 1 `.. ANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELO M ENT The Planned Residential Development (PRD) is a design and development tool that provides flexibility for the developer, public design review for the City and an opportunity to have the site's characteristics govern the design rather than zoning code standards. The PRD process requires a public hearing, Planning Commission recommendation, then City Council approval. Procedure requirements of the proposed Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone would require PRD approval for new residential subdivisions and multiple - family residential developments within sensitive areas. The Tukwila Zoning Code has an existing PRD process. The PRD text amendment shows the new wording in bold and strikes deleted language. The following summary of changes would only apply to developments undergoing PRD review. • Delete the minimum site acreage and location requirements. • Allow flexibility in the yard requirements and in structure type in PRDs in R -1 zones to allow zero lot line developments and greater clustering ability. • Allow flexibility in height, parking (in multiple - family zones) and recreation space requirements on sensitive sites. • Require retention of vegetation on significant hillsides, and downslope and side yard buffers. • Specify chroma and value of building color. • Revise PRD review criteria of suitability of site for proposed development. • Establish 33 and 50 percent impervious surface requirements on sensitive sites for single- family and multiple- family, respectively. • Require boulevards with five foot medians on roads cut perpendicular to the topography and buffers on roads with significant cut and fill and retention wall requirements. • Modify criteria for density bonuses and open space location. • Revise approval authority from Council to DCD Director for PRD 6 month construction extension. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLIC ACT TUKWILA IMPLEMENTATION OR NANCE The Environmental code is an existing ordinance which regulates the City's implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposed language is shown in bold in deleted language is stricken. A summary of the changes follows: • Change the designation of "environmentally sensitive areas" from those areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as "special development consideration" areas to the areas defined and mapped in the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. TYPE OF AREA OBJECTIVES IDENTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION LANDSLIDE- PRONE AREAS Ensure safe geologically stable development on- site. Prevent damage off -site from development within these areas. Minimize disruption and maintain vegetated character. City -wide mapping of 3 landslide categories where hazard is moderate, high and very high. Mapping elements induded slope, geology and hydrology. Soil investigation and review. Establish permit review and construction procedures. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS Ensure seismically safe development City -wide mapping of areas where ground shaking and liquification potential is significant. Areas are generally underlain by soft or loose soils and have a shallow groundwater table. Soil investigation and review. Establish permit review and construction procedures. ARCHAEO- LOGICAL AREA Prevent disturbance of archaeological areas. Allow study, research, and salvage. Preserve significant useful sites. One known site within City. Compliance with State laws and guidelines. Control development of historic sites in association with research community. ABANDONED COAL MINE AREAS Prevent unsafe development due to subsidence. Comprehensive survey of City; located one area that is mapped. Require site investigation at time of redevelopment or new development. WETLANDS Provide flood attenuation and storage. Improve Tukwila and region's water quality. Maintain or enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat. Federal Definition of Wetlands; 22 identified and mapped within City. Prevent development on portion of site that is a wetland and its buffer. Transfer development rights to other portion of site. Allow exceptions in certain circumstances. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. WATERCOURSES Provide flood attenuation and storage. Improve Tukwila and region's water quality. Maintain or enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat. . A route formed by nature or modified by man generally consisting of a bed and banks throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally. Generally referred to as creeks or streams. Mapping in progress. Prevent development or piping of portion of site that is a watercourse and its buffer. Transfer development rights to other portion of site. Allow exceptions in certain circumstances. Require new residential plats and multiple family developments to design and develop per the Planned Residential Development (PRD) process. ( SUMMARY PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE Chapters: Amend Add Amend SEcNSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE DRAFT 6/27/90 T i #1e 18 ZONING 18.02 Title 18.04 General Provisions 18.06 Definitions 18.08 Districts Established -Map 18.10 R -A District - Agricultural 18.12 R -1 District - Single - family Residence 18.14 R -2 District - Two-family Residential 18.16 R-3 District -Three and Four Family Dwellings 18.18 R-4 District --Low Apartments 18.20 RMH District - Multiple- residence High Density 18.26 P-O District - Professional and Office District 18.28 C -1 District -- Community Retail Business 18.30 C -2 District -- Regional Retail Business 18.34 C -P District - Planned Business Center 18.38 C -M District - Industrial Park 18.40 M -1 District -Light Industry 18.42 M -2 District -Heavy Industry 18.43 M -2L District -Heavy Industry /Special Landscaping 18.44 Shoreline Zone 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.46 PRD-- Planned Residential Development 18.48 PMUD - Planned Mixed -use Development 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Regulations 18.52 Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements 18.56 Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations 18.60 Board of Architectural Review 18.64 General Conditional Uses 18.66 Unclassified Use Permits 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses 18.72 Variances 18.80 Amendments 18.84 Requests for Changes in Zoning 18.88 Application Fees 18.90 Appeals 18.92 Public Notice of Hearing 18.96 Administration and Enforcement 18.06 Definitions 18.45.010 Purpose 18.45.020 Sensitive Area Designation and Applicability 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers 1. Purpose 2. Wetland and Watercourse A. Wetlands B. Watercourses C. Reduction D. Increase E. Maintenance 3. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability CHAPTER 18.45 ZONING CODE Chapter 18.06 Amended. — 2 — 18.45.060 Procedures 18.45.080 Uses and Standards 1. General 2. Administrative Review Required 3. Wetlands and Watercourses 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 5. Abandoned Mine Areas 6. Areas of Important Geological or Archaeological Evidence 18.45.090 Common Tracts /Density Credits 1. General 2. Density Credits 3. Sensitive areas common tract restrictions 18.45.115 Exceptions 18.45.120 Variances 18.45.125 Appeals 18.45.130 Recording 1. Procedure 2. Signage 18.45.135 Assurance Device 1. Definition 2. When required 18.06.253 Essential right- of- way or utility c, %`n ovcoad "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility, utility system sa right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. ! � �. ' �,b.,���'�r ; � ; =.r. 4 ct ) 14 ' IN t'• 1 l4 -.c.. f P " G -u1-Yf C�1' , ..%/7.e_ 18.06.415 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and /or potential seismic instabilities defined in the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report by Geoengineers dated May 1990 on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD), and includes the following: 1. Class,I areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 2. Class J.Irireas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 3. Class IV areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. 4. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow ground water table. 18.06.185 Constructed Wetlands. Wetlands do not include those wetlands inte tionally_ fro'non- wetland ,. sites, including, but not limited to, ation. ainaze ditches_gass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatmerit "facilities, farm ponds, and amenities. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland 'areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands, if permitted by the City. June 27, 1990 v5' qu�kr, CHAPTER 18.45 1. nsitive Areas Overlay Zone 18.06.385 "Impervious surface" Those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions pre - existent to development, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. The surface of the subject property covered with impervious surface, other than outdoor pools. 18.06.650 Performance Standards. These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action, mitigation, or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, or other hydrological, geological, or ecological criteria. 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas" means wetlands, watercourses, areas of potential geologic instability, abandoned coal mine areas, and important geological or archaeological `/' sites. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer" means any portion of a sensitive area or land contiguous to a sensitive area that is required to be enhanced and /or left undisturbed in order to maintain the function and structural stability of the sensitive area. 18.06.935 Watercourses. 'Watercourses" means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. 18.06.938 Wetlands. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include bogs, swamps, marshes, ponds and similar areas. Constructed wetlands are not considered regulated wetlands. June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone ZONING CODE Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Sensitive Area Overlay District is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. The standards are being set to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values these areas perform for the community and region. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and watercourses and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion, and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides which benefit all citizens. 7. Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeological sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: A. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps. The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. The actual sensitive area subject to the regulation of this Chapter may be increased or decreased from the area designated on the zoning maps based on a sensitive area study; or B. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following: • Abandoned coal mines • Areas of Potential Geologic Instability - Class II, III, IV and seismic instability areas. • Wetlands • Watercourses C. Is a site which contains'a 'cal. remnants of value to the gl archaeological research community of colleges, universities, or a society of professional archaeologists. 2. For sensitive areas which may come into the City through annexation, or to address changes in the ecology of the existing systems, the inventory shall be updated or amended pursuant to the methodology and standards used in the original studies list. — 4 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 nsitive Areas Overlay Zone 3. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 4. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18:45 :040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFERS1 1. Purpose: A. 1 ' A 1 ; u s t b e . . l o c a t e d uffer:ar : s r - e _' • by this section. Sensitive area buffers in general are intended to: (i) Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas, (ii) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development r* (iii) Preserve the edge of the sensitive area for its critical habitat value,;, - (iv) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Provided**Ay k , that la dnalteration for necessary, access, supplement planting and a .roved land uses o r : :r e . tted4 Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. B. Wetland and Natural Watercourse Buffers are intended to: (i) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and to provide for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (ii) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and (iii) Stabilize banks, and (iv) Prevent erosion and increased surface water runoff that increase silt and contaminants. (v) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (vi) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. C. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: (i) Protect slope stability; and (ii) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control; and (iii) Prevent avoidable loss of or damage to property. (iv) Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist; and (v) Protect Tukwila's amenity and identifying physical characteristic of wooded hillsides. CHAPTER 18.45 2. WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES BUFFERS 3. BUFFERS FOR AREAS OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC INSTABILITY 1` Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone General. The type of wetland or watercourse shall be determined by using the May 1990 report by Jones & Stokes Associates entitled "Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendation" on file with the Tukwila Department of Community Development. ;;All :development: shall be setback 15 feet from the buffer. However single - family residences shall be set back 10 feet. Setbacks to buildings shall be measured to the foundation line. A. For wetlands: 1. Type I —100 foot wide buffer. 2. Type II — 50 foot wide buffer. 3. Type III — 25 foot wide buffer. B. For watercpurses, the buffer shall be the greater of the following: 1. Type 1 'Watercourse— 70 feet 2. Typ 2 Watercourse - -35 feet 3. Type 3,Watercourse -15 feet 4. 25 feet from the top of slope, when the watercourse is within 25 feet of the toe of a 15% slope. C Buffer width reductions are negotiable only when topographical or e . conditions leave no . alternative or when essential roads and utilities as described in 18.45.080 are required D. Buffers for all types of wetlands and watercourses may be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland or watercourse study by a qualified wetlands biologist or experts which documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (i) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland or watercourse which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width. (ii) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. E. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation shall not be removed from the buffer Imless the specimen is dangerous because of health of the plant or because the plant would contribute to the instability of a slope. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the Director of the Department of Community Development (DCD Director). If vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the 1,41scape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then(the applicant for_permitpust replace existing vegetation along wetlands and watercourses with , comparable specimens approved by the City which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. A. Each development proposal for a site which is within or partially within an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of section 18.45.080(4). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this — 6 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone ordinance. Development proposals shallinclude buffer distances as defined with the geotechnical report. B. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the reports of the site by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short plat or any other land use review which approves development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply: 1. Pre - application conference with the appropriate City departments. At this conference the applicant and City representatives will discuss the requirements for development in a sensitive area, the appropriate techniques and studies necessary, and the applicable standards for the proposed development. 2. Sensitive Areas Study: Submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this Chapter, and any relevant City ordinances. ' r It is intended that sensitive areas — usjesstudies andinformation be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 3. Any new subdivision and multiple family residential proposal which includes sensitive areas on site shall apply for Planned Residential Development and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. 4. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre - development conferences prior to any work on the site. 5. Conditioning: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. 6. Denial of Permit: A permit will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. Proposed developments in wetlands, watercourses, class 4 and seismic geological hazard areas and their buffers are assumed to carry a great potential for damaging the environment. The applicant in those areas must bear the burden of proof in assuring the safety and environmental sensitivity of his or her development. 7. Construction Monitoring: The geotechnical consultant or other specialist of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 18.45.0801 :.jJSES AND STANDARDS 4' ie Vik i 1. General: The foliowing uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffers g Q er. uses be ... ,w 'tted .coi siste ►t p ursiiant-t ; � = o �tiiis`�c�'ihp�ei" r� 'unc�e+rlying subject to the standards of this Section. A. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities, where no additional` ` alterations or fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. d Each permitted use is 5_ fi 5, -3i �' Co'' u *` p b CHAPTER 18.45 B. Non- destructive education and research. C. Passive recreation and open space: D. 'Enhancement or mitigation including landscaping as approved by the Director of - D.C11. E. Essential right -of -way; A l tt ioi,tp r v►Ye s loan c. a proved " .Administrative• Review Required: The following uses may be permitted only after review and approval. . Wetlands and Watercourses r . General: No use or •. elo their buffer- . Y • or development a 1 owed is subject to t A. Essential Utilities ensitive Areas Overlay Zone A. , DCD ;Director approval of stormwater detention areas where there is no reasonable alternative and the stormwater has been pre - treated to remove oil and sediments. Stormwater that normally does not flow into a wetland must not be diverted to do so. , dcvkn k,�fiv-�t •� essefthA 1 Essential utilities and roads •' ` _ - : • an d maintenance of existing facilities other than 1(a), as approved by the DCD Director and City Council. 5 0 ,boulhis( �g5 IB• ' l r� 11 e stan • ar • s o t s section. (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. d /or Any use For those wetlands and watercourses . which are designated as having the lowest value as defined m the Water Resources Rating and Buffer study, alteration and relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan conclusively demonstrates that the change would be an improvement of. the wetland or watercourse quantitative and qualitative functions and their buffers. .S ii,6)i1 Ve ava-Si/dt ; The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a technic •-study a specialist in fisheries, wetland biology or hydrology and approved by the DCD Director. The plan must show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland or waterco se quality would be improved by the alteration or relocation. .: ` /.va c.�� , p ((/ 673 (1t- Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, relocations, rerouting and diversions of wetland or watercourses. All such plans must be approved by the DCD .Director and the City Coundl: (1) Essential utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland or watercourse disturbance; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland, watercourse and their buffers against erosion, uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential utilities, wetlands and watercourse must be restored to pre- project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and CHAPTER 18.45 ,ok ury153 . 0 t, ` B. Essential Roads C. Public Use and Access: ( Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (1) Essential roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Essential roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions in both the long and the short terms is accomplished. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Essential roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland, watercourse or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings must allow for combination with other essential utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to an approved plan by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. (1) Public access shall be limited to trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, covered seating, and displays and must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan; and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland, watercourse or their buffers except as required for necessary maintenance, agricultural management or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive displays developed in a wetland, watercourse or their buffers must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Must be located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas and buffer areas must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical wildlife species are protected. D. Dredging or filling 1. Dredging or filling within a wetland, watercourse and their buffers may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and City Council and only for the following purposes: Yard u'7i1 5 ? (a) Uses permitted by 18.45.080(1); or ■/ ? ` 1 (b) Maintenance of an existing wetland ( orwa f ter course; or (c) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or — 9 — June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (d) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (e) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila. 2. Any dredging or digging shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to do such maintenance at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. E. Diversion or Rerouting of Watercourses: (1) The existing course for any natural watercourse is highly preferable to rerouting. Diversion or rerouting may be allowed if the applicant can show that the rerouting enhances the value of the watercourse in water quality treatment, erosion control, pollution reduction or the ;, diversity of wildlife and plant communities. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the DCD Director and the City Council. (2) Any watercourse which has any critical wildlife uses or is necessary to the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted unless the mitigation plan specifically treats the special needs of these species. (3) Any mitigation must have the construction completed before the existing watercourse can be diverted. (4) Any mitigation plan must have a written plan for monitoring and maintenance of the new construction and all funding necessary for the maintenance of the new construction which shall be guaranteed pursuant to Section 18.45.135. (5) If the natural watercourse contains habitat or spawning grounds for an endangered or threatened species, it shall not be rerouted. (6) Any natural watercourse which does not contain critical wildlife, but which feeds within 1000 feet downstream a salmonid bearing water, shall not be rerouted unless the waters flowing from the new configuration can be shown to do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely affect the habitat. F. Piping (1) Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if the applicant can show that mechanisms will be put into place as part of the construction process that will address: a. excess capacity to meet needs of the system during a 100 year flood event, b. flow restrictors, and water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures. r - y (2) No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities' maintenance process or unless the applicant can show funding for this maintenance is ensured. (3) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, flow must be comparable. (4) Piping in a wetland or watercourse sensitive area shall be approved by the DCD Director and the City Council. -10 - June 27, 1990 • CHAPTER 18.45 4. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability A. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which; contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to_thwiliiiidardslak4his section and he requirement of a geotechnical study. B. Alterations: Prior to preparation of a proposal involving alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant shall contact the City of Tukwila to discuss th verall feasibility, scope of special studies, and regulatory restriction velopment proposals must demonstrate one o the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development. (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project is reduced to a level acceptable to the DCD Director. The developme t proposal Nshould cause no increase in surface water dischargerf and should not decrease slope stability. The life span of the proposed development and of the proposed mitigation measures shall be discussed. Any anticipated requirements for maintenance, repair, or replacement of the mitigating measures over the anticipated life span of the project shall be discussed; or A• Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is dearecfr for development, Ott' landscaping plan for the site shall be in Y:441/64 including bo tree retention and replanting. In addition, live groundcover / .at ` a- maximum ;of3 c •be=planted: M = ;')L3, tl I.; a 1] ,�. 1 ? j . ' : : %'! �� r 4. �. ; , ,� ._ ; , r r ' '`' '.f it. • %':., r - "'( " ( r, tTl y`!.7 (' r• �.I : _. �•.... . C. Pre- application Conference: Pursuant to section 18.45.060(1) the applicant shall meet with the appropriate representatives of the City of Tukwila. At the pre - application conference, the applicant and City representatives will discuss: the requirements of other applicable ordinances; the requirements of this chapter; the soils report to be provided by the applicant; the qualifications of the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, Lead Design Professional, Architect, Engineer, Contractor, and other members of the applicant's development team; the design of the proposed structure; a proposed construction schedule; and any other relevant matters. Notes of this meeting shall be prepared by the applicant, revised if needed, and approved by the City, and shall be documents of record relative to the application, distributed to the attenders and others identified at the meeting. D. Geotechnical Report: 1. The owner shall be responsible to submit a Geotechnical Report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in areas identified ' s Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the DCD Director for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the near t ,dj acent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any�dosidh or sedimentation problems. Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone CHAPTER 18.45 Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone 2. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. 3. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 and Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. 4. Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. 5. Developers shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. 6. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. 7. Reports prepared for development applications shall address comments received from the public and governmental agencies concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The City will require such supplements or amendments to the report as are needed to develop a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the soil conditions on the site. 8. Based on a review of the information contained in the geotechnical report and the site condition, eiaher the Public Works Director or the DCD Director may require an independent review of any such report -- on a site in a ClassrX,, seismic or coal mine hazard area, and shall require such a review 6f reports regarding proposed development in all Class 4 landslide hazard areas. The independent review shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical consultant selected by the City and paid for by the applicant. The requirement for the independent review should be dearly and explicitly: stated in the permit requirements, and may be required for any sensitive area development. -12 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 E. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. 1. ¶ensi tive r Areas Overlay Zone When r • uir of -plans ands ecifications for the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in their judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. -1 1- . . .11 - 1- 111 . •• •1 • 2. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. 3. The Architect or Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations; has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. 4. The applicant and the owner of the site, if the owner is not the applicant, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that . , he or she will advise, in writing, and prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. 5. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: (1) The legal description of the Property; (2) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; CHAPTER 18.45 L ensitive Areas Overlay Zone (3) A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (4) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. F. Assurance Devices. Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in a area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the Department of community Development Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. G. Construction Monitoring: The owner shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The owner shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. H. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor during construction compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the Department of Public Works at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical- related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Department of Community Development. Conditioning and Denial of Permits: The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. -14 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 5. Abandoned Mine Areas Se nsitive Areas Overlay Zone A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. A. Development of a site containin an a • andoned coal mine area may be permitted when aittieotechnica : �. show yhat significant risks associated with the abandoned m ne working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval shall be granted from the DCD Director before any building or land altering permit processes begin. B. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical .study:- C. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems. Such measures could include limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as installing drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the City that the development will increase the potential of soil movement or result in an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties. 6. Areas of important geological or archaeological evidence. A. Any specific site or area which is designated as important to save as a record of our area's past by a qualified archaeologist, professional archaeologist or geologist, shall be deemed a sensitive area subject to controls on development. B. Development on a site determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or arch eological evidence, shall be prohibited until that evidence has been studor researched for any valuable information about our history. Removal or salvage of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW 27.53. C. Once the geologic or archaeological evidence or artides have been studie or researched, or the importance of the site is declared to be marginal or not of use to the scientific community, development shall be allowed on the site. The DCD Director shall 've the approval for development to begin on such a site. 18.45.090 COMMON TRACTS /DENSITY CREDITS FOR WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS 1. A. Each owner of a building lot within the development proposal shall own an undivided interest in the common tract and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot. B. In development proposals for planned residential or mixed use developments, short subdivisions, subdivisions, or binding site plans . property owners may elect to establish a sensitive areas common tract. If such a common tract is established, the City of Tukwila may require the lot owners to ente�,r�, into an agreement with the City to care for and protect the common tractAAlternatively, ownership may be transferred to a responsible entity acceptable to the City.;' C. Common tract restrictions for wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers shall appear on the face of all PRDs and PMUDs, subdivisions, short plats and binding site plans, and shall be recorded on all documents of title and record for all affected lots. -15 - June 27, 1990 c y CHAPTER 18.45 ensitive Areas Overlay Zone 2. Density Credits are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning. The calculation of density credit is determined by the ratio of non - sensitive areas to sensitive areas including buffers on any particular site. The development factor ratio is intended to provide a basis by which the development credit for the wetland, watercourse and associated buffers portion of the site is transferred to the buildable (non - sensitive area) portion of the site. a. Development Factor: 18.45.115 EXCEPTIONS WETLAND, WATERCOURSES, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS AS PERCENTAGE OF SITE PERCENT DENSITY ALLOWED ON BUILDABLE PORTION OF SITE 25% or less 100% 26% to 50% 75% 51% to 75% 50% 76% or more 25% b. Setbacks, height and other site development regulations except parking requirements may be modified to accommodate the allowable density credit. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the BAR, PRD or PMUD review process. The calculation of potential dwelling units in residential development proposals and building size in commercial and industrial development proposals shall be based on a 100% development factor for the wetlands, watercourses and their associated buffers on the development proposal site. 1. Conforming uses: All : residential commercial, and industrial • development located in wetlands,' natural watercourses and /or their 'buffers'or areas of potential geologic instability and any buffer in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is, not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. 2. Modification of Existing Structures in Wetlands, Watercourses and their Buffers: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled, reconstructed or replaced provided that the new construction does not further intrude into a sensitive area or the required buffer. 3. Modification of Existing Structures in Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard Areas: Existing structures or improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter may be remodelled provided that the new construction does not increase the potential of soil movement or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development. 4. Reasonable Use Exceptions: Development of a single family dwelling shall be allowed if application of this Section would deny all other reasonable uses of the property based on the zoning. 18.45.120 VARIANCES. The Board of Adjustment shall review requests pursuant to TMC 18.72 for variance from the standards of this chapter unless exempted in 18.45.115. 1. If a variance is granted, it shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district, proposed by the application and the scale of the use may be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement. - 16 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.45 18.45.125 APPEALS A 1. Any proponent of a project who objects to or disagrees with an interpretation by R io the Department of Community Development of the sensitive areas maps as defined by Section 18.45.020, g or decisions or conditions for development in a sensitive area, shall use the appeal process in the Section 18.90 of the Tukwila "ck. Municipal Code. t?A " r 18.45.130 RECORDING REQUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provision of this chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. On public property, the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any developable land will be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.135 ASSURANCE DEVICE g nsitive Areas Overlay Zone 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City of Tukwila may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to City of Tukwila, to guarantee performance and maintenance requirements of this Chapter. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the DCD Director may require an assurance device, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five (5) years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies. CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development Chapter 18.46 PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sections: DRAFT AMENDMENT Amend 18.46.010 Purpose. 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Amend 18.46.030 Permitted uses. Delete Delete Amend 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. Amend 18.46.070 Density standards. Amend 18.46.080 Open space. Delete 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. Amend 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. Add 18.46.112 Review Criteria 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City attorney. Amend 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. 18.46.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: (1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation, waterways, watercourses, wetlands, and views; (2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types; (3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements; (4) Create and /or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general public. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the following districts: (1) R -1 Single - family residential; (2) R-2 Two - family residential; (3) R-3 Three and four family residential; (4) R-4 Low apartments; (5) RMH Multiple- residence high density. (Ord. 1289 1, 1983: Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). 18.46.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are allowed in planned residential development: (1) In R -1 districts, single - family dwellings and duplexes; CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (2) In R -2, R -3, R-4, and RMH districts, residential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in which such residence is located, such as single- family residences, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; provided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels, and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded; (3) Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature; (4) In planned residential developments of ten acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self - service laundries. (Ord. 1289 2, 1983: Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. (1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this code are waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density. Building Het. Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining natural resources, significant vegetation, and enhances views within the site without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in building height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface. Setbacks, Yard requirement provisions of TMC.18.50 shall be waived within the PRD however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. (2) Off - Street Parking. Off -street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of buildings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple family zoned sites with sensitive areas, 2 parking stalls per unit will be the maximum number of parking stalls allowed, with a 50% compact stalls allowance. In addition, parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be allowed, if the design does not affect circulation (3) Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. (Ord: 1289 4, 1983; Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). (4) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed on sensitive areas sites will be 33% for each single family dwelling and 50% for each multi - family development. CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (5) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums for multi - family developments. (6) Landscape and Site Treatment. Down slope and side yard buffers - Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape coverage of 25% of the structures at time of project completion with anticipated 40% coverage within 15 years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement. Any road or access drive which cuts perpendicular to a slope to the ridgeline of a hill shall have minimum five foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species that provides a branch pattern sufficient to provide at maturity, 50 % coverage of the pavement area. Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of northwest native plant species. (7) Board of Architectural Review review guidelines. The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. For areas of potential geologic instability, the following shall be in addition to the existing B.A.R. guideline regarding (4) Building Design (D) Colors shall be harmonious with a landscaped environment and use hues • which have chromas which do not exceed 6 and values of between 4 and 5 according to the Mansell Color system. Other colors harmonious with the primary color may be used for accent. 18.46.070 Density standards. (1) The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. (2) • • .. - . - . , the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a minimum lot size -net less than the yard requirements of the R-1-7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); and (B) Advantage and enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, streams, watercourses, or other natural characteristics; and (C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; and (D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan; and (3) With reference to multiple - family residential districts, the planning commission may recommend, and the city council may authorize, a dwelling unit density not more than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) A variety of housing types are offered; (B) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist); CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (C) Advantage and enhancement is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, cams watercourses or other natural characteristics; (D) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation; (E) Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the comprehensive plan; 18.46.080 Open space. Each planned residential development shall provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site area for common open space which shall: (1) Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas; or (2) Incorporates and protects the environmentally sensitive areas on the site; (3) Networks with the trail system of the city and provides a connection and extension, if feasible; (4) If under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership; or (5) Held in common ownership by all of the owners of the development by means of a home owners or similar association. Such association shall be responsible for maintenance of the common open space; (6) Dedicated for public use, if acceptable to the city or other appropriate public agency. (Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. A preapplication conference between representatives of the city and the potential applicant for a PRD is required prior to the acceptance of an application for PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the planning department at the written request of the potential applicant. All affected city departments shall be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint the applicant with the provisions of this section as well as other ordinances and regulations which would affect the property under consideration. (Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). 18.46.110 Application procedure for PRD approval. The following procedure is required for approval of the planned residential development: - 5 - June 27, 1990 CHAPTER 18.46 (1) Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the planning Department of Community Development and which shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and by the following: (i) Justification for the density bonus, if requested by the applicant, (ii) Program for development including staging or timing of development, (iii) Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of the project, (iv) Basic content of any restrictive covenants, (v) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a home owners association, or similar association, condominium development or other means acceptable to the city; (vi) An application for rezone may be submitted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be in addition to those of the PRD application; (vii) An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application. (2) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by city departments. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time. (3) Planning Commission Recommendation. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter and forward the report to the city council. epert Planned Residential Development - 6 - June 27, 1990 ' CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (4) City Council Public Hearing. After receipt of the planning commission report, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed PRD as recommended by the planning commission. The city council shall give approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval to the proposed PRD. (Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). The PRD shall be an exception to the regulations to the extent that approved conditions of the PRD may modify and supersede the regulations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance. 18.46.112 Review criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the proposed development plans and use the following criteria in their decision making. (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met; if appropriate; and (2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; and (3) Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; (4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter; (5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; (6) Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans; (7) For multiple family developments, compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050). 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by city council and city attorney. The restrictive covenants intended to be used by the applicant in a planned residential development (PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other structures thereon, must be approved by the city council and the city attorney before the issuance of any building permit. (Ord. 1289 6, 1983). 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development: (1) Time Limitation. A complete application for the initial building permit shall be filed by the applicant within twelve months of the date on which the city council approved the PRD. An extension of time for submitting an application may be requested in writing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding six months may be granted by-the-city-council by the Director of DCD. If application for the initial building permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan shall be considered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code. (2) Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the the-plaftaist.department DCD and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the building code. — 7 — June 27, 1990 • CHAPTER 18.46 Planned Residential Development (3) Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be included in the building permit application presented in finalized, detailed form. suitable-fer-reeerdiag-and-engineering These plans shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public dedication documents must be approved by the city council before the issuance of any building permits. (4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties, or other security device as shall be approved by the City Attorney, shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in the final plan. (5) Planning Department Action. The planning department shall determine whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in compliance with and carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Following approval of the planning department, the city clerk shall file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the city and the originals shall be recorded with the King County department of records and elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone. (Ord. 1247.1(part), 1982). 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. If minor adjustments or changes are proposed following the approval of the PRD, by the city council as provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall be approved by the planning department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of . structures, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or open space provided. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning department, substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to make one or more major changes, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120. (Ord. 1247 1(part), 1982). 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. Construction of improvements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date of the filing of the final PRD plan by the city Berk as provided in Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning construction may be requested in writing by the applicant, and such extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the planning commission upon showing of good cause. If construction does not occur within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD plans by the city clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from the official zoning map and the zoning shall revert to the underlying designation. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982). une CHAPTER 17.08 Chapters: Amend Amend Amend (4) (5) (6) Short Subdivisions Title 17 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS DRAFT AMENDMENT 17.04 General Provisions 17.08 Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions 17.12 Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions 17.16 Detailed Procedures for Binding Site Improvement Plan 17.20 Design Standards for the Subdivision of Land 17.24 Minimum Standards for Residential Subdivision Design 17.28 Minimum Standards for Commercial /Industrial Subdivision Design 17.32 Exceptions, Penalties, Severability, Liability Chapter 17.08 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR SHORT SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 17.08.010 Purpose. 17.08.020 Scope. Amend 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. Amend 17.08.040 Application requirements. 17.08.050 Fees. Amend 17.08.060 Review procedures. 17.08.070 Required improvements. 17.08.080 Filing of short plat. 17.08.090 Expiration period. 17.08.100 Limitations on further subdivision. 17.08.010 Purpose. The procedures regulating short subdivisions are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots while promoting the public health and general welfare and complying with provisions of RCW 58.17. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.020 Scope. Any land being divided into four or fewer parcels, lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than twenty acres in size, and which has not been divided in a short subdivision within a period of five years, shall meet the requirements of this section. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.030 Principles of acceptability. The following principles shall determine the acceptability of short subdivisions: (1) Create legal building sites with respect to zoning and health regulations; (2) Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel; If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take into consideration the subdivision standards of that jurisdiction, as well as the requirements of this code; Make adequate provision for: drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes, as deemed necessary. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). Comply with Chapter 17.20, Design standards for the subdivision of land, and Chapters 17.24 and Chapter 17.28 Minimum standards for Residential and Commercial Subdivision Design, respectively. - 2 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions 17.08.040 Application requirements. (a) Application for a short subdivision shall be made with the planning division of the Department office of community development on forms prescribed by that office. Said application shall be accompanied by ten copies of the short subdivision plat. (b) If the subject site is within the sensitive area overlay zone, administrative review and approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall be required for the proposed short plat. The standards and criteria for PRD design and review are those listed in TMC 18.46. The procedure shall be those listed in 17.08.060. (c) The short subdivision plat shall conform to the following requirements: (1) Shall be a neat and accurate drawing by a land surveyor on reproducible material at a decimal scale. The plat map shall measure between eight and one -half inches by eleven inches and eight and one -half inches by fourteen inches. (2) Shall show how the proposed subdivision will be served by streets and utilities. (3) Each application shall be accompanied by a preliminary title report dated within thirty calendar days of the submission date. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.050 Fees. A nonrefundable application fee of fifty dollars shall accompany each and every application for short subdivision to cover costs of administration and inspection. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.060 Review procedures. (a) Referral to Other Departments. Upon receipt of an application for a short subdivision, the planning division of the Department office of community development shall transmit one copy of the application to each member of the short subdivision committee, and one copy to any department or agency deemed necessary. The application shall be transmitted at least five working days prior to the short subdivision committee meeting. (b) Notice to adjacent property owners. If a PRD is being processed as part of the short plat application per 17.08.040 (b), notice shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, fifteen days prior to the Short Subdivision Committee meeting, notifying them of the pending proposal and requesting comments. (c) Short Subdivision Committee. The short subdivision committee shall consist of the director of the office of community development, who shall be chairman; the public works director; and the fire chief; or their designated representatives. (d) Short Subdivision Committee Meeting. A meeting of the short subdivision committee, attended by the applicant at his option, shall be held no later than twenty calendar days from receipt of a complete application. Said meeting shall be open to the public. (1) Quorum. All members of the short subdivision committee or their representative must be present in order for action to be taken. (2) Action. The short subdivision committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for a short subdivision. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall be made at the meeting and the applicant notified in writing of such decision within three working days. An additional meeting may be called if a decision is not reached at the first meeting. The second meetilig should ire nu later than seven days after the first meeting. An applicant may request to have an application on which the short subdivision committee has taken action reopened by the committee if it is found by the director of the office of community development and the applicant that new information has come to light that might affect the action taken by the short subdivision committee. (3) Appeal. The decision of the short subdivision committee shall.be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the planning commission within ten calendar days of the date of decision of the short subdivision committee. Said appeal shall be in writing to the planning commission and filed with the office of community development. The - 3 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 c Short Subdivisions planning commission shall act on said appeal within forty calendar days unless an extension thereto is agreed to, in writing, by the applicant. The decision of the planning commission shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten calendar days, any aggrieved party files with the city clerk a written appeal addressed to the city council. The city council shall act on said appeal within twenty days of the date of appeal. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.070 Required improvements. (a) Prior to recommending approval for any short subdivision, the short subdivision committee shall determine that the following improvements are available for each parcel created by the division of land: (1) Adequate water supply; (2) Adequate method of sewage disposal; (3) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; (4) Fire hydrants; (5) Adequate access to all parcels. Streets, alleys, and sidewalk improvements may be required by the short subdivision committee; (6) Provision for appropriate deed, dedication, and/ or easements. (b) Any and all improvements required pursuant to subsection (a). shall be as per the respective requirements of Chapters 17.20, 17.24 or 17.28 as appropriate for either the residential or commercial industry design standards. (c) Other improvements not specifically mentioned herein but found necessary due to conditions found on the site may be required. (d) Finished plans of all public improvements as installed shall be required before the city will accept the improvements. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.080 Filing of short plat. (a) All required improvements must be constructed by the applicant and accepted by the city, or a bond posted by the applicant for construction of same, prior to the short plat being filed. Said bond shall be in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of complete construction of such improvements as determined by the director of public works. (b) A short plat must be certified for filing by the chairman of the short subdivision committee before it is filed. (c) Short plats shall be filed by the applicant with the department of records and elections and a copy of the recorded instrument shall be returned to the office of community development prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with this filing. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.090 Expiration period. If the short plat is not filed within six months of the date of approval, the short plat shall be null and void. Upon written request by the subdivider, the short subdivision committee may grant one extension of not more than six months. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.08.100 Limitations on further subdivision. Any land subdivided under the requirements of this chapter shall not be further divided for a period of five years without following the procedures for subdivision. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions Chapter 17.20 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sections: 17.20.010 Purpose. Amend 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. Amend 17.20.040 Grading. Amend 17.20.050 Streets. 17.20.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and provide vegetation. These are beneficial to the city in lessening the costs of development to the city as a whole, to the subdivider in creating an attractive and quality environment, and in attainment of the goals and objectives of the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.020 Environmental considerations. (a) Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to the Flood Zone Control Ordinance as defined in TMC 16.52, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Area Overlay zone, TMC 18.45, and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. (b) Trees. Every reaseaable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on site as part of the preliminary plat application. O 1;t da�r4414- proce�dures_of' /Tre&P,rP es r it `ion- Orslin 'ska ice l -bio lloWet f te*at'Ed. totlpla poces ... . CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions 17.20.030 Compatibility with existing land use and plans. (a) Buffer Between Uses. Where residential subdivisions are to be adjacent to multiple- family, commercial or industrial land use districts, and where natural separation does not exist, buffer strips shall be provided. (b) Conformity with Existing Plans. The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the city. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right -of- way or for easements to the city for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to and complement city ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.20.040 Grading. Prior to any grading within a proposed or approved subdivision a grading permit shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of (Ord 0 (part), p D a,1977). i e : _ .. _ , 17.20.050 Streets. (a) Extension. Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the plat. Where appropriate, streets shall be extended to the boundaries of the plat to insure access to neighboring properties. The City's goal is to have an integrated system of local streets rather than a system of cul- de- sacs. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective. However, in sensitive areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the standards and procedures of the sensitive areas overlay zone. (b) Names. All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval by the Department of office community development. (c) Intersections. . Any intersection of public streets, whatever the classification, shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset in so far as practical. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). une 2.6, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 ( _ Short Subdivisions Chapter 17.24 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN Sections: 17.24.010 Conformance required. Amend 17.24.020 Street layout. 17.24.030 Private access roads. Amend 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. 17.24.010 Conformance required. Any plat, subdivision or dedication for residential use shall be designed in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.020 Street layout. Street layout shall provide for the most advantageous development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where sensitive areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights -of -way in the sensitive areas overlay zone shall be followed. (Ord. 1014 (part), 1977). 17.24.030 Private access roads. Private access roads may be authorized if: (a) allowing private access roads in the area being subdivided will not adversely affect future circulation in neighboring parcels of property; and (b) adequate and reasonable provisions are made for the future maintenance and repair of the proposed private access roads; and (c) the proposed private access roads can accommodate potential full (future) development on the lots created; and (d) the proposed private access roads do not serve more than four lots nor are more than two hundred feet in length. When private access roads are authorized, the easement width shall be a minimum of thirty feet and shall conform to the applicable standards for design alignment set forth in Chapter 17.24.040, subsection (b). (Ord. 1014 (part) , 1977). 17.24.040 Public rights -of -way. (a) Right -of -way Width. Street widths may vary according to function, traffic generated and topography. The following minimum street widths for streets, as defined in the Tukwila comprehensive land use policy plan, shall apply unless otherwise approved by the department of public works and authorized by the city council in approval of the preliminary plat or by the short subdivision committee in the case of short plats. TYPE OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY PAVEMENT Major Arterial 80 feet 60 feet Secondary Arterial 75 feet 48 feet Collector 60 feet 36 feet Local Street 50 feet * 30 feet Cul- De-Sac Roadway 40 feet 26 feet Turnaround 80 feet diameter 60 feet diameter Alley 20 feet 15 feet * Right -of -way may be reduced to 40 feet with five foot easements on each side if the subject roadway will be traversing or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. - 7 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 Short Subdivisions (b) Design. The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to the following standards unless otherwise approved by the department of public works: (1) Street Intersection Offsets. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure less than two hundred fifty feet from centerline to centerline. (2) Cul -de -sacs. Cul -de -sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred feet unless authorized in accordance with Section 17.32.010. (3) Street Grades. Street grades shall stances -not exceed 15 percent. However, provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18 percent, for not more than 200 feet when: (i) exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and connection with the larger neighborhood; and (ii) the greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive slopes; and (iii) the Fire Marshall grants approval (4) Tangents. Minimum tangents shall conform to department of public works standards. (5) Horizontal Curves. Minimum curve radii shall conform to department of public works standards. (6) Vertical Curves. Changes in grade shall conform to department of public works standards. (c) Right -of -way Improvement. All right -of -way improvements shall conform to department of public works standards. (d) Utilities. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground and, if located within a sensitive area, shall be designed to meet the standards of the sensitive areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the department of public works; such installation shall be completed and approved prior to application of any surface materials. (1) Sanitary Sewers. Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the appropriate health agencies, sanitary sewers shall be provided at no cost to the city and designed in accordance with city standards. (2) Storm Drainage. An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water; the amount of runoff shall be determined by the rational method. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes. The diameter to be provided shall be determined by Manning's Equation, but in no case shall the inner diameter be less than twelve inches. (3) Water System. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with city standards. (e) Public Use and Service Areas. Due consideration shall be given by the subdivider to the allocation of adequately sized areas for public service or usage. (1) Easements. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the public works department. (f) Blocks. (1) Length. Blocks should not be less than three hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in length. Where circumstances warrant, the planning commission may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet nor more than fifteen feet in width dedicated in the city to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. (2) Width. Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property, in which case the planning commission may approve a single tier. I - 8 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 17.08 '` Short Subdivisions (g) Lots. (1) Arrangement. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each lot must have access to a public street that is approved at the time of plat review; however rather than designing flag lots, access shall be accomplished with common drive easements. Location of yards shall reflect the prevailing pattern within the neighborhood. For example, if adjacent developed lots front on the street the subdivision's lots fronting the street should also establish front yards for : CHAPTER 21.04 Title 21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Chapter 21.04 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DRAFT AMENDMENT ate Environmental Policy Act Sections: 21.04.010 Adopted—Authority. 21.04.020 General provisions—Adoption by reference. 21.04.030 Definitions -- Adoption by reference. Amend 21.04.040 Definitions -- Additional. 21.04.050 Designation of responsible official. 21.04.060 Lead agency - Determination -- Responsibilities. 21.04.070 Lead agency Transfer of status to state agency. 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations—Adoption by reference. 21.04.090 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations—Time estimates. 21.04.100 Categorical exemptions—Adoption by reference. 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions—Flexible thresholds. 21.04.120 Categorical exemptions -- Determination. Amend 21.04.130 Threshold determination—Review at conceptual stage. Amend 21.04.140 Threshold determinations—Environmental checklist. 21.04.150 Threshold determinations—Mitigated DNS. 21.04.160 Documents required—SEPA decisions. 21.04.170 EIS—Adoption by reference. 21.04.180 EIS Preparation. 21.04.190 EIS-- Additional elements. 21.04.200 EIS - Commenting -- Adoption by reference. 21.04.210 Public notice— Procedure. 21.04.220 Consulted agency responsibilities Official designated. 21.04.230 Using existing environmental documents -- Adoption by reference. 21.04.240 SEPA — Decisions -- Adoption by reference. 21.04.250 SEPA -- Decisions -- Substantive authority. 21.04.260 SEPA-- Compliance -- Adoption by reference. Amend 21.04.270 SEPA — Policies. 21.04.280 Appeals. 21.04.290 Notice—Statute of limitations. Amend 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. 21.04.310 Fees. 21.04.320 Forms—Adoption by reference. 21.04.330 Copies on file. 21.04.340 Severability. une 26, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 t . State Environmental Policy Act 21.04.010 Adopted -- Authority. (a) The city adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197 -11 -904. This chapter contains the city's SEPA procedures and policies. (b) The SEPA rules contained in WAC Chapter 197 -11 must be used in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 1331 §1, 1984). 21.04.020 General provisions -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference: 197 - 11-040 Definitions. 197 - 11-050 Lead agency. 197- 11-055 Timing of the SEPA process. 197- 11-060 Content of environmental review. 197 -11 -070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process. 197 -11 -080 Incomplete or unavailable information. 197 - 11-090 Supporting documents. 197 -11 -100 Information required of applicants. (Ord. 1331 §2, 1984) 21.04.030 Definitions-Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -700 Definitions. 197-11 -702 Act. 197 -11 -704 Action. 197 -11 -706 Addendum. 197 -11 -708 Adoption. 197 -11 -710 Affected tribe. 197 -11 -712 Affecting. 197 -11 -714 Agency. 197 -11 -716 Applicant. 197 -11 -718 Built environment. 197 -11 -720 Categorical exemption. 197 -11 -722 Consolidated appeal. 197 -11 -724 Consulted agency. 197 -11 -726 Cost-benefit analysis. 197 -11 -728 County/city. 197 -11 -730 Decision maker. 197 -11 -732 Department. 197 -11 -734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 197 -11 -736 Determination of significance (DS). 197 -11 -738 EIS 197 -11 -740 Environment. 197 -11 -742 Environmental checklist. 197 -11 -744 Environmental document. 197 -11 -746 Environmental review. 197 -11 -748 Environmentally sensitive area. 197 -11 -750 Expanded scoping. 197 -11 -752 Impacts. 197 -11 -754 Incorporation by reference. 197 -11 -756 Lands covered by water. 197 -11 -758 Lead agency. 197 -11 -760 License. 197 -11 -762 Local agency. 197 -11 -764 Major action. 197 -11 -766 Mitigated DNS. 197 -11 -768 Mitigation. 197 -11 -770 Natural environment. 197 -11 -772 NEPA. 197 -11 -774 Nonproject. 197 -11 -776 Phased review. 197 -11 -778 Preparation. - 3 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 197 -11 -780 Private project. 197 -11 -782 Probable. 197 -11 -784 Proposal. 197 -11 -786 Reasonable alternative. 197 -11 -788 Responsible official. 197 -11 -790 SEPA. 197 -11 -792 Scope. 197 -11 -793 Scoping. 197 -11 -794 Significant. 197 -11 -796 State agency. 197 -11 -797 Threshold determination. 197 -11 -799 Underlying governmental action. (Ord. 1331 §27, 1984). State Environmental Policy Act 21.04.040 Definitions-Additional. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197 -11 -700 through 799, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise: (1) "Department" means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order. (2) "Early notice" means the city's response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of the determination of significance likely for the applicant's proposal. (3) "Environmentally sensitive area" - see 21.04.300. (4) "Notice of action" means the notice of the time for commencing an appeal of a SEPA determination that the city or the applicant may give following final city action upon an application for a permit or approval when said permit or approval does not have a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing an appeal. (Ord. 1344 §1, 1985; Ord. 1331 §3, 1984). (5) "Official notice" means the notice that the city shall give of the date and place for commencing an appeal of final city action upon an application for a permit or approval where said permit or approval has a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing appeal. (6) "SEPA Rules" means WAC Chapter 197 -11 adopted by the Department of Ecology. 4-6!0:2-747,01( C_. ') '/ l ji �7 21.04.050 Determination of responsible official. (a) For those proposals for which the city is a lead agency the responsible official shall be the planning director or such other person as the mayor may designate in writing. (b) For all proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and perform any other functions assigned to the lead agency or responsible official by those sections of the SEPA Rules that have been adopted by reference. (Ord. 1344 §2, 1985; Ord. 1331 §4, 1984). 21.04.060 Lead agency -- Determination -- Responsibilities. (a) The responsible official shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197 -11 -050 and WAC 197 -11 -922 through 197 -11 -940, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the responsible official is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead agency. (b) When the city is fiot the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the city shall use and consider as appropriate either the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency unless the city determines a supplemental environmental review is necessary under WAC 197 -11 -600. (c) If the city, or any of its departments, receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197 -11 -922 through 197 -11 -940, it may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination and resolved within fifteen days of receipt of the determination or the city must petition the - 4 - June 26, 1990 CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act department of ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197 -11 -946 within the fifteen -day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the city may be initiated by the responsible official or mayor. (d) The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency's duties for a proposal under WAC 197 -11 -942 and 197 -11- 944. 21.04.130 Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. (a) If the city's only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. (b) In addition to the environmental documents an applicant may be required to submit the following information: (1) Conceptual site plans and building plans; (2) Other information as the responsible official may determine. (Ord. 1344 §5, 1985; Ord. 1331 §9, 1984). (3) Environmentally sensitive areas studies as described in 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. 21.04.140 Threshold determinations—Environmental checklist. (a) A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197 -11 -960 with the following additions: (1) If the site is an environmentally sensitive area, a sensitive area study that meets the requirements of the SEPA official may be required. The SEPA official may waive any study requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a particular use or application. Environmentally sensitive area studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the geotechnical reports on Class 2 and 3 Landslide, Seismic and Coal Mine Hazard areas may be required of the applicant; will be required in Class 4 Landslide Hazard areas. (2) Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts; (3) Description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preferred course of action. (b) A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. (c) The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination. (d) For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide information as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the pi .iposal shall complete the eiivifoxuileatal checklist for that proposal. (e) The dty may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: (1) The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or (2) The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. (Ord. 1344 §7, 1985; Ord. 1331 §13, 1984). CHAPTER 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act 21.04.150 Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. (a) The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant. (b) An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely. The request must: (1) Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and (2) Precede the city's actual threshold determination for the proposal. (c) The responsible official's written response to the request for early notice shall: (1) State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and (2) State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and /or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. (d) When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. (1) If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required. (2) If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. (3) The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. (4) Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. (e) Mitigation plans for alterations to wetlands and streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: (1) Baseline information of quantitive data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (2) Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (3) Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: (A) Maintain or better stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient. (B) Restore or plant native vegetation unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (C) Create an equivalent or better channel bed. (D) Create equivalent or better biofiltration. (E) Replace habitat value unless expressly waived by the SEPA official. (F) Replace or lengthen horizontal alignment (meander length). (4) Detailed contruction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. - 6 - June 26, 1990 • CHAPTER 21.04 t State Environmental Policy Act (5) Monitoring and/or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. - (6) Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. (e) The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fifteen days after the date of issuance. (f) Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of any license issued. (g) If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigation DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. (h) The city's written response under subsection (c) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 1344 §8, 1985; Ord. 1331 §14, 1984). 21.04.160 Documents required - -SEPA decisions. For nonexempt proposals, the DNS or draft EIS for the proposal shall accompany the city staffs recommendation to any appropriate advisory body such as the planning commission. (Ord. 1331 §8, 1984). 21.04.170 EIS-Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented by this chapter: 197 - 11-400 Purpose of EIS 197 - 11-402 General requirements. 197 - 11-405 EIS types. 197 - 11-406 EIS timing. 197 - 11-408 Scoping. 197 - 11-410 Expanded scoping. 197 - 11-420 EIS preparation. 197 - 11-425 Style and size. 197 - 11-430 Format. 197- 11-435 Cover letter or memo. 197 - 11-440 EIS contents. 197 - 11-442 Contents of EIS on non - project proposals. 197- 11-443 EIS contents when prior non - project EIS. 197 - 11-444 Elements of the environment. 197 - 11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations. 197 - 11-450 Cost - benefit analysis. 197 - 11-455 Issuance of DEIS. 197 - 11-460 Issuance of FEIS. (Ord. 1331 §15, 1984). 197 -11 -922 Lead agency rules. 197 -11 -924 Determining the lead agency. 197 - 11426 Lead agency for governmental proposals. 197 -11 -928 Lead agency for public and private proposals. 197 -11 -930 Lead agency for private projects with one agency with jurisdiction. 197 -11 -932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses for more than one agency, when one of the agencies is a county/city. 197 -11 -934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency, not a county/ city, and one or more state agencies. 197 -11 -936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one state agency. -7- June26,1990 CHAPTER 21.04 197 -11 -938 Lead agencies for specific proposals. 197 -11 -940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency. 197 -11 -942 Agreements on lead agency status. 197 -11 -944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties. 197 -11 -946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes. 197 -11 -948 Assumption of lead agency status. (Ord. 1331 §29,1984). t - State Environmental Policy Act 21.04.270 SEPA—Policies. (a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. (b) The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: (1) Zoning Code -TMC Chapter 18; (2) Shoreline Master Plan- Ordinance 898; (3) Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan- Ordinance 1246; (4) Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan- Ordinance 1315; (5) Subdivision Ordinance -TMC Chapter 17.04; (6) Comprehensive Sewer Plan- Resolution 904; (7) Comprehensive Water Plan- Resolution 873; (8) Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition- Ordinance 1287; (9) Transportation Improvement Plan- Resolution 917; (10) Annexation Policy Plan - Resolution 626; (11) Sidewalk Ordinance - Ordinance 1233; (12) Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction - Ordinance 1250. (Ord. 1344 §14, 1985; Ord. 1331 §24, 1984). 21.04.280 Appeals. (a) Any interested person may appeal a threshold determination, adequacy of a final EIS and the conditions or denials of a requested action made by a non - elected city official pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. No other SEPA appeal shall be allowed. (b) All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days of the date of the decision appealed from. (c) On receipt of a timely written notice of appeal, the city clerk shall advise the city council of the pendency of the appeal and request that a date for considering the appeal be established. The council shall expeditiously process the appeal and in any event shall render a decision within sixty calendar days of the date appeal is filed. (d) All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal and the decision shall be made de novo. The procedural determination by the city's responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (e) For any appeal under this section, the city shall provide for a record that shall consist of the following: (1) Findings and conclusions; (2) Testimony under oath; and (3) A taped or written transcript. (f) The city may require the appellant to bear the expense for a written transcript. (Ord. 1344 §ll, 1985; Ord. 1331 §25, 1984). 21.04.290 Notice—Statute of limitations. (a) The city shall give official notice whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial appeal. (b) The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action. (1) The form of the notice of action shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197 -11 -990. (2) The notice of action shall be published by the city clerk, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080. (Ord. 1344 §12, 1985; Ord. 1331 §26, 1984). — 8 — June 26, 1990 • CHAPTER 21.04 • • 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. (a) State Environmental Policy Act by-reference: Environmentally sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and/or as defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 or hereinafter amended, designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded areas and the Green/Duwamish River. For each environmentally sensitive area, the categorical exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for these areas are: WAC 197 -11- 800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6)(a), (14(c), (24)(a) through (g), and (25)(d), (f), (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. (b) The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (c) Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. (Ord. 1344 §13, 1985; Ord. 1331 §30, 1984). 21.04.310 Fees. The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter: (1) Threshold Determination. For every environmental checklist the city will review when it is lead agency, the city shall collect a fee of one hundred dollars from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination, provided, that no fee shall be charged to or collected from the proponents of any proposal for annexation to the city and the city shall review such checklists without charge. Where payment of a fee is required, the time periods provided by this chapter for making a threshold determination shall not begin to run until payment of the fee is received by the city. (2) Environmental Impact Statement. (A) When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred, including overhead, by the city in preparing the EIS. The responsible official shall advise the applicant of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation. (B) The responsible official may determine that the city will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated by some persons or entity other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by the city. (C) The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the city prior to commencing work. The city will refund the excess, if any, at the completion of the EIS. If the city's costs exceed the projected costs, the applicant shall immediately pay the excess. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under (A) or (B) of this subsection which remain after incurred costs, including overhead, are paid.